From 09353c1af8a8d0c89dcd624b7d1f92493e8a700e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: richwardle Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2025 07:35:36 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 01/16] WIP: autoupdate validators, first pass --- run.sh | 10 +- scripts/check_updates.sh | 161 ++++++------------------------- install.sh => scripts/install.sh | 0 3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 143 deletions(-) rename install.sh => scripts/install.sh (100%) diff --git a/run.sh b/run.sh index 0ae456555..5d83b1b5a 100755 --- a/run.sh +++ b/run.sh @@ -11,15 +11,7 @@ version="__version__" old_args=$@ -# Check if pm2 is installed -if ! command -v pm2 &> /dev/null -then - echo "pm2 could not be found. Please run the install.sh script first." - exit 1 -fi - -# Uninstall uvloop -poetry run pip uninstall -y uvloop +bash scripts/install.sh # Loop through all command line arguments while [[ $# -gt 0 ]]; do diff --git a/scripts/check_updates.sh b/scripts/check_updates.sh index 415e6f4b8..58afa3753 100644 --- a/scripts/check_updates.sh +++ b/scripts/check_updates.sh @@ -1,150 +1,43 @@ -#!/bin/bash +#!/usr/bin/env bash -# Initialize variables -version_location="./prompting/__init__.py" -version="__version__" -proc_name="s1_validator_main_process" -old_args=$@ -branch=$(git branch --show-current) # get current branch. +INTERVAL=300 -# Function definitions -version_less_than_or_equal() { - [ "$1" = "$(echo -e "$1\n$2" | sort -V | head -n1)" ] -} +REMOTE_BRANCH="main" -version_less_than() { - [ "$1" = "$2" ] && return 1 || version_less_than_or_equal $1 $2 +get_version_from_pyproject() { + local file_path="$1" + # Using grep + cut: + grep '^version\s*=' "$file_path" 2>/dev/null | \ + sed -E 's/^version\s*=\s*"([^"]+)".*$/\1/' } -get_version_difference() { - local tag1="$1" - local tag2="$2" - local version1=$(echo "$tag1" | sed 's/v//') - local version2=$(echo "$tag2" | sed 's/v//') - IFS='.' read -ra version1_arr <<< "$version1" - IFS='.' read -ra version2_arr <<< "$version2" - local diff=0 - for i in "${!version1_arr[@]}"; do - local num1=${version1_arr[$i]} - local num2=${version2_arr[$i]} - if (( num1 > num2 )); then - diff=$((diff + num1 - num2)) - elif (( num1 < num2 )); then - diff=$((diff + num2 - num1)) - fi - done - strip_quotes $diff -} +while true +do + echo "[autoupdater.sh] Checking for updates..." -read_version_value() { - while IFS= read -r line; do - if [[ "$line" == *"$version"* ]]; then - local value=$(echo "$line" | awk -F '=' '{print $2}' | tr -d ' ') - strip_quotes $value - return 0 - fi - done < "$version_location" - echo "" -} + LOCAL_VERSION="$(get_version_from_pyproject './pyproject.toml')" -check_package_installed() { - local package_name="$1" - local os_name=$(uname -s) - if [[ "$os_name" == "Linux" ]]; then - if dpkg-query -W -f='${Status}' "$package_name" 2>/dev/null | grep -q "installed"; then - return 1 - else - return 0 - fi - elif [[ "$os_name" == "Darwin" ]]; then - if brew list --formula | grep -q "^$package_name$"; then - return 1 - else - return 0 - fi - else - echo "Unknown operating system" - return 0 - fi -} + git fetch origin "$REMOTE_BRANCH" >/dev/null 2>&1 -check_variable_value_on_github() { - local repo="$1" - local file_path="$2" - local variable_name="$3" - local url="https://api.github.com/repos/$repo/contents/$file_path" - local response=$(curl -s "$url") - if [[ $response =~ "message" ]]; then - echo "Error: Failed to retrieve file contents from GitHub." - return 1 - fi - local content=$(echo "$response" | tr -d '\n' | jq -r '.content') - if [[ "$content" == "null" ]]; then - echo "File '$file_path' not found in the repository." - return 1 - fi - local decoded_content=$(echo "$content" | base64 --decode) - local variable_value=$(echo "$decoded_content" | grep "$variable_name" | awk -F '=' '{print $2}' | tr -d ' ') - if [[ -z "$variable_value" ]]; then - echo "Variable '$variable_name' not found in the file '$file_path'." - return 1 - fi - strip_quotes $variable_value -} + REMOTE_VERSION="$(git show "origin/$REMOTE_BRANCH:pyproject.toml" | \ + grep '^version\s*=' | sed -E 's/^version\s*=\s*"([^"]+)".*$/\1/')" -strip_quotes() { - local input="$1" - local stripped="${input#\"}" - stripped="${stripped%\"}" - echo "$stripped" -} + if [ -n "$LOCAL_VERSION" ] && [ -n "$REMOTE_VERSION" ]; then + if [ "$LOCAL_VERSION" != "$REMOTE_VERSION" ]; then + echo "[autoupdater.sh] New version detected! Local=$LOCAL_VERSION, Remote=$REMOTE_VERSION." + echo "[autoupdater.sh] Pulling new changes..." -update_script() { - if git pull origin $branch; then - echo "New version published. Updating the local copy." - poetry install - pm2 del auto_run_validator - echo "Restarting PM2 process" - pm2 restart $proc_name - current_version=$(read_version_value) - echo "Restarting script..." - ./$(basename $0) $old_args && exit - else - echo "**Will not update**" - echo "It appears you have made changes on your local copy. Please stash your changes using git stash." - fi -} + git pull origin "$REMOTE_BRANCH" + + echo "[autoupdater.sh] Re-launching run.sh..." + exec ./run.sh -check_for_update() { - if [ -d "./.git" ]; then - latest_version=$(check_variable_value_on_github "macrocosm-os/prompting" "prompting/__init__.py" "__version__ ") - current_version=$(read_version_value) - if version_less_than $current_version $latest_version; then - echo "latest version $latest_version" - echo "current version $current_version" - echo "current validator version: $current_version" - echo "latest validator version: $latest_version" - update_script else - echo "**Skipping update **" - echo "$current_version is the same as or more than $latest_version. You are likely running locally." + echo "[autoupdater.sh] Already up to date. Local=$LOCAL_VERSION, Remote=$REMOTE_VERSION." fi else - echo "The installation does not appear to be done through Git. Please install from source at https://github.com/macrocosm-os/prompting and rerun this script." - fi -} - -main() { - check_package_installed "jq" - if [ "$?" -eq 1 ]; then - while true; do - check_for_update - sleep 1800 - done - else - echo "Missing package 'jq'. Please install it for your system first." + echo "[autoupdater.sh] Could not determine versions. Local=$LOCAL_VERSION, Remote=$REMOTE_VERSION." fi -} -# Run the main function -main + sleep "$INTERVAL" +done \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/install.sh b/scripts/install.sh similarity index 100% rename from install.sh rename to scripts/install.sh From 3756d49ac7fedcc80fa621f9eb41fa7efc435a6a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: richwardle Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 11:46:40 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 02/16] test updated autoupdater --- run.sh | 12 ++- scripts/__init__.py | 0 scripts/autoupdater.sh | 137 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ scripts/test_autoupdater.sh | 96 +++++++++++++++++++++ scripts/test_live_update.sh | 102 ++++++++++++++++++++++ test_remote | 1 + tests/scripts/test_autoupdater.py | 62 ++++++++++++++ 7 files changed, 406 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) create mode 100644 scripts/__init__.py create mode 100644 scripts/autoupdater.sh create mode 100755 scripts/test_autoupdater.sh create mode 100755 scripts/test_live_update.sh create mode 160000 test_remote create mode 100644 tests/scripts/test_autoupdater.py diff --git a/run.sh b/run.sh index 5d83b1b5a..caada4ce6 100755 --- a/run.sh +++ b/run.sh @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ script="neurons/validator.py" autoRunLoc=$(readlink -f "$0") proc_name="s1_validator_main_process" -update_proc_name="check_updates" +update_proc_name="auto_updater" args=() version_location="./prompting/__init__.py" version="__version__" @@ -76,11 +76,15 @@ echo "module.exports = { args: ['run', 'python', '$script', $joined_args] }, { - name: 'check_updates', - script: './scripts/check_updates.sh', + name: 'auto_updater', + script: './scripts/autoupdater.sh', interpreter: '/bin/bash', min_uptime: '5m', - max_restarts: '5' + max_restarts: '5', + env: { + 'UPDATE_CHECK_INTERVAL': '300', + 'GIT_BRANCH': 'main' + } } ] };" > app.config.js diff --git a/scripts/__init__.py b/scripts/__init__.py new file mode 100644 index 000000000..e69de29bb diff --git a/scripts/autoupdater.sh b/scripts/autoupdater.sh new file mode 100644 index 000000000..5e77e69fc --- /dev/null +++ b/scripts/autoupdater.sh @@ -0,0 +1,137 @@ +#!/usr/bin/env bash +set -euo pipefail + +# Configuration with defaults +readonly INTERVAL=${UPDATE_CHECK_INTERVAL:-300} +readonly REMOTE_BRANCH=${GIT_BRANCH:-"main"} +readonly PYPROJECT_PATH="./pyproject.toml" +readonly LOG_FILE="autoupdate.log" +readonly MAX_RETRIES=3 +readonly RETRY_DELAY=30 + +# Logging with ISO 8601 timestamps +log() { + local level=$1 + shift + printf '[%s] [%-5s] %s\n' "$(date -u '+%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ')" "$level" "$*" | tee -a "$LOG_FILE" +} + +# Extract version from pyproject.toml +get_version() { + local file=$1 + local version + + if [[ ! -f "$file" ]]; then + log ERROR "File not found: $file" + return 1 + fi + + version=$(awk -F'"' '/^version *= *"/ {print $2}' "$file") + if [[ -z "$version" ]]; then + log ERROR "Version not found in $file" + return 1 + fi + + echo "$version" +} + +# Retry mechanism for git operations +retry() { + local cmd=$1 + local attempt=1 + + while [[ $attempt -le $MAX_RETRIES ]]; do + if eval "$cmd"; then + return 0 + fi + + log WARN "Command failed (attempt $attempt/$MAX_RETRIES): $cmd" + + if [[ $attempt -lt $MAX_RETRIES ]]; then + sleep "$RETRY_DELAY" + fi + + ((attempt++)) + done + + return 1 +} + +# Backup local changes if any exist +backup_changes() { + if ! git diff --quiet; then + local backup_branch="backup/$(date -u '+%Y%m%d_%H%M%S')" + log WARN "Creating backup branch: $backup_branch" + git stash && git stash branch "$backup_branch" + fi +} + +# Main update check function +check_for_updates() { + local local_version remote_version + + # Get local version + local_version=$(get_version "$PYPROJECT_PATH") || return 1 + + # Fetch and get remote version + if ! retry "git fetch origin $REMOTE_BRANCH"; then + log ERROR "Failed to fetch from remote" + return 1 + fi + + remote_version=$(git show "origin/$REMOTE_BRANCH:$PYPROJECT_PATH" | + awk -F'"' '/^version *= *"/ {print $2}') || { + log ERROR "Failed to get remote version" + return 1 + } + + # Compare versions + if [[ "$local_version" != "$remote_version" ]]; then + log INFO "Update available: $local_version → $remote_version" + return 0 + else + log INFO "Already up to date ($local_version)" + return 1 + fi +} + +# Update and restart application +update_and_restart() { + backup_changes + + if ! retry "git pull origin $REMOTE_BRANCH"; then + log ERROR "Failed to pull changes" + return 1 + fi + + if [[ -x "./run.sh" ]]; then + log INFO "Update successful, restarting application..." + exec ./run.sh + else + log ERROR "run.sh not found or not executable" + return 1 + fi +} + +# Validate git repository +validate_environment() { + if ! git rev-parse --git-dir > /dev/null 2>&1; then + log ERROR "Not in a git repository" + exit 1 + fi +} + +# Main loop +main() { + validate_environment + log INFO "Starting auto-updater (interval: ${INTERVAL}s, branch: $REMOTE_BRANCH)" + + while true; do + if check_for_updates; then + update_and_restart + fi + sleep "$INTERVAL" + done +} + +main diff --git a/scripts/test_autoupdater.sh b/scripts/test_autoupdater.sh new file mode 100755 index 000000000..05bb8ced7 --- /dev/null +++ b/scripts/test_autoupdater.sh @@ -0,0 +1,96 @@ +#!/usr/bin/env bash +set -euo pipefail + +# Test environment setup +TEST_DIR="updater_test" +INTERVAL=5 # Shorter interval for testing + +# Create test environment +setup_test_environment() { + echo "Setting up test environment..." + rm -rf "$TEST_DIR" + mkdir -p "$TEST_DIR" + + # Copy autoupdater.sh if it's not already in the test directory + if [[ ! -f "$TEST_DIR/autoupdater.sh" ]]; then + cp "scripts/autoupdater.sh" "$TEST_DIR/" || cp "autoupdater.sh" "$TEST_DIR/" + fi + chmod +x "$TEST_DIR/autoupdater.sh" + + cd "$TEST_DIR" + + # Initialize main repo + git init --initial-branch=main + git config user.email "test@example.com" + git config user.name "Test User" + + cat > pyproject.toml << EOF +[project] +name = "test-project" +version = "1.0.0" +EOF + + # Create dummy run.sh + cat > run.sh << EOF +#!/bin/bash +echo "Running version \$(grep '^version' pyproject.toml | cut -d'"' -f2)" +EOF + chmod +x run.sh + + # Create initial commit + git add . + git commit -m "Initial commit" + git branch -M main + + # Create a clone to simulate remote updates + cd .. + git clone "$TEST_DIR" "${TEST_DIR}_remote" + cd "${TEST_DIR}_remote" + + # Update remote version + sed -i.bak 's/version = "1.0.0"/version = "1.1.0"/' pyproject.toml + git commit -am "Bump version to 1.1.0" + cd "../$TEST_DIR" + git remote add origin "../${TEST_DIR}_remote" +} + +# Clean up test environment +cleanup() { + echo "Cleaning up..." + cd .. + rm -rf "$TEST_DIR" "${TEST_DIR}_remote" +} + +# Run the test +run_test() { + echo "Starting auto-updater test..." + + # Start the auto-updater in background + UPDATE_CHECK_INTERVAL=$INTERVAL ./autoupdater.sh & + UPDATER_PID=$! + + # Wait for a few intervals + echo "Waiting for auto-updater to detect changes..." + sleep $((INTERVAL * 2)) + + # Kill the auto-updater + kill $UPDATER_PID || true + wait $UPDATER_PID 2>/dev/null || true + + # Check results + LOCAL_VERSION=$(grep '^version' pyproject.toml | cut -d'"' -f2) + if [ "$LOCAL_VERSION" = "1.1.0" ]; then + echo "✅ Test passed! Version was updated successfully." + else + echo "❌ Test failed! Version was not updated (still $LOCAL_VERSION)" + fi +} + +# Main test execution +main() { + setup_test_environment + run_test + cleanup +} + +main diff --git a/scripts/test_live_update.sh b/scripts/test_live_update.sh new file mode 100755 index 000000000..2fa9ad532 --- /dev/null +++ b/scripts/test_live_update.sh @@ -0,0 +1,102 @@ +#!/usr/bin/env bash +set -euo pipefail + +# Create a temporary remote repository +setup_test_remote() { + echo "Setting up test remote repository..." + TEST_REMOTE="test_remote" + rm -rf "$TEST_REMOTE" + mkdir -p "$TEST_REMOTE" + + # Copy current project files (excluding test_remote and .git) + for item in *; do + if [[ "$item" != "$TEST_REMOTE" && "$item" != ".git" ]]; then + cp -r "$item" "$TEST_REMOTE/" + fi + done + + cd "$TEST_REMOTE" + git init --initial-branch=main + git config user.email "test@example.com" + git config user.name "Test User" + + # Initialize new git repo + git add . + git commit -m "Initial commit" + + # Update version in pyproject.toml + sed -i.bak 's/version = "[^"]*"/version = "9.9.9"/' pyproject.toml + git commit -am "Bump version to 9.9.9" + + cd .. + echo "Test remote ready at: $(pwd)/$TEST_REMOTE" +} + +# Update git remote to point to our test repository +update_git_remote() { + git remote remove origin 2>/dev/null || true + git remote add origin "$(pwd)/$TEST_REMOTE" +} + +# Wait for update to complete +wait_for_update() { + echo "Waiting for auto-updater to detect and apply changes..." + local timeout=60 + local start_time=$(date +%s) + + while true; do + if [[ $(grep -F '"9.9.9"' pyproject.toml 2>/dev/null) ]]; then + echo "✅ Update successful! Version updated to 9.9.9" + return 0 + fi + + local current_time=$(date +%s) + if (( current_time - start_time > timeout )); then + echo "❌ Update timed out after ${timeout} seconds" + return 1 + fi + + sleep 2 + echo -n "." + done +} + +# Main test execution +main() { + # Store original directory + ORIGINAL_DIR=$(pwd) + + # Setup test environment + setup_test_remote + update_git_remote + + echo "Test environment ready. Current version:" + grep "version" pyproject.toml + + echo -e "\nStarting run.sh - wait for auto-update to detect new version..." + + # Make the update interval shorter for testing + export UPDATE_CHECK_INTERVAL=10 + + # Start run.sh in background + ./run.sh & + + # Wait for update to complete + if wait_for_update; then + echo "Test completed successfully!" + else + echo "Test failed!" + pm2 delete all + exit 1 + fi + + # Show final status + echo -e "\nFinal PM2 status:" + pm2 status + + echo -e "\nTest completed. To clean up:" + echo "1. Run 'pm2 delete all' to stop all processes" + echo "2. Run 'rm -rf test_remote' to remove test repository" +} + +main diff --git a/test_remote b/test_remote new file mode 160000 index 000000000..615eef002 --- /dev/null +++ b/test_remote @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +Subproject commit 615eef002a7c8b3b080b43d24b47056cd3227c42 diff --git a/tests/scripts/test_autoupdater.py b/tests/scripts/test_autoupdater.py new file mode 100644 index 000000000..10db6d624 --- /dev/null +++ b/tests/scripts/test_autoupdater.py @@ -0,0 +1,62 @@ +import os +import shutil +import subprocess +import time + +import pytest + + +def test_autoupdater_script(): + # Define paths + current_dir = os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__)) + project_root = os.path.dirname(os.path.dirname(current_dir)) + autoupdater_path = os.path.join(project_root, "scripts", "autoupdater.sh") + test_script_path = os.path.join(project_root, "scripts", "test_autoupdater.sh") + + # Check if the scripts exist + assert os.path.exists(test_script_path), f"Test script not found at {test_script_path}" + assert os.path.exists(autoupdater_path), f"Autoupdater script not found at {autoupdater_path}" + + # Create test directory + test_dir = os.path.join(project_root, "updater_test") + os.makedirs(test_dir, exist_ok=True) + + try: + # Copy autoupdater.sh to test directory + shutil.copy2(autoupdater_path, os.path.join(test_dir, "autoupdater.sh")) + + # Run the test script + process = subprocess.Popen( + [test_script_path], + stdout=subprocess.PIPE, + stderr=subprocess.PIPE, + text=True, + cwd=project_root, # Run from project root + ) + + # Wait for the script to finish + timeout = 60 + start_time = time.time() + while process.poll() is None: + if time.time() - start_time > timeout: + process.kill() + pytest.fail("Script timed out after 60 seconds") + time.sleep(1) + + # Capture the output + stdout, stderr = process.communicate() + + # Print output for debugging + print("STDOUT:", stdout) + print("STDERR:", stderr) + + # Assert that the script ran successfully + assert process.returncode == 0, f"Script failed with error: {stderr}" + + # Check specific outputs in stdout + assert "✅ Test passed!" in stdout, "The test did not pass as expected." + + finally: + # Cleanup + if os.path.exists(test_dir): + shutil.rmtree(test_dir) From fbe80f2f004f7254cbd8efb9d82fc18d8acefd2c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: richwardle Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 12:02:24 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 03/16] remove test artifact --- test_remote | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) delete mode 160000 test_remote diff --git a/test_remote b/test_remote deleted file mode 160000 index 615eef002..000000000 --- a/test_remote +++ /dev/null @@ -1 +0,0 @@ -Subproject commit 615eef002a7c8b3b080b43d24b47056cd3227c42 From 6705cdaf83d956f65c4a4856350cc9f54cd8ba3d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: richwardle Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 12:03:33 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 04/16] remove meta test script --- scripts/test_live_update.sh | 102 ------------------------------------ 1 file changed, 102 deletions(-) delete mode 100755 scripts/test_live_update.sh diff --git a/scripts/test_live_update.sh b/scripts/test_live_update.sh deleted file mode 100755 index 2fa9ad532..000000000 --- a/scripts/test_live_update.sh +++ /dev/null @@ -1,102 +0,0 @@ -#!/usr/bin/env bash -set -euo pipefail - -# Create a temporary remote repository -setup_test_remote() { - echo "Setting up test remote repository..." - TEST_REMOTE="test_remote" - rm -rf "$TEST_REMOTE" - mkdir -p "$TEST_REMOTE" - - # Copy current project files (excluding test_remote and .git) - for item in *; do - if [[ "$item" != "$TEST_REMOTE" && "$item" != ".git" ]]; then - cp -r "$item" "$TEST_REMOTE/" - fi - done - - cd "$TEST_REMOTE" - git init --initial-branch=main - git config user.email "test@example.com" - git config user.name "Test User" - - # Initialize new git repo - git add . - git commit -m "Initial commit" - - # Update version in pyproject.toml - sed -i.bak 's/version = "[^"]*"/version = "9.9.9"/' pyproject.toml - git commit -am "Bump version to 9.9.9" - - cd .. - echo "Test remote ready at: $(pwd)/$TEST_REMOTE" -} - -# Update git remote to point to our test repository -update_git_remote() { - git remote remove origin 2>/dev/null || true - git remote add origin "$(pwd)/$TEST_REMOTE" -} - -# Wait for update to complete -wait_for_update() { - echo "Waiting for auto-updater to detect and apply changes..." - local timeout=60 - local start_time=$(date +%s) - - while true; do - if [[ $(grep -F '"9.9.9"' pyproject.toml 2>/dev/null) ]]; then - echo "✅ Update successful! Version updated to 9.9.9" - return 0 - fi - - local current_time=$(date +%s) - if (( current_time - start_time > timeout )); then - echo "❌ Update timed out after ${timeout} seconds" - return 1 - fi - - sleep 2 - echo -n "." - done -} - -# Main test execution -main() { - # Store original directory - ORIGINAL_DIR=$(pwd) - - # Setup test environment - setup_test_remote - update_git_remote - - echo "Test environment ready. Current version:" - grep "version" pyproject.toml - - echo -e "\nStarting run.sh - wait for auto-update to detect new version..." - - # Make the update interval shorter for testing - export UPDATE_CHECK_INTERVAL=10 - - # Start run.sh in background - ./run.sh & - - # Wait for update to complete - if wait_for_update; then - echo "Test completed successfully!" - else - echo "Test failed!" - pm2 delete all - exit 1 - fi - - # Show final status - echo -e "\nFinal PM2 status:" - pm2 status - - echo -e "\nTest completed. To clean up:" - echo "1. Run 'pm2 delete all' to stop all processes" - echo "2. Run 'rm -rf test_remote' to remove test repository" -} - -main From 733308a01b43517160ca95418101ee9f785f5583 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: richwardle Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2025 18:13:56 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 05/16] autoupdate test lint --- tests/scripts/test_autoupdater.py | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/tests/scripts/test_autoupdater.py b/tests/scripts/test_autoupdater.py index 10db6d624..b5e622452 100644 --- a/tests/scripts/test_autoupdater.py +++ b/tests/scripts/test_autoupdater.py @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ def test_autoupdater_script(): while process.poll() is None: if time.time() - start_time > timeout: process.kill() - pytest.fail("Script timed out after 60 seconds") + pytest.fail("Autoupdater testing script timed out after 60 seconds") time.sleep(1) # Capture the output From 8de7dc2955afff9264e0cfea80d34f339f85d58a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Rich <34130474+richwardle@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2025 18:25:17 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 06/16] Update scripts/autoupdater.sh Co-authored-by: bkb2135 <98138173+bkb2135@users.noreply.github.com> --- scripts/autoupdater.sh | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+) diff --git a/scripts/autoupdater.sh b/scripts/autoupdater.sh index 5e77e69fc..9947072c9 100644 --- a/scripts/autoupdater.sh +++ b/scripts/autoupdater.sh @@ -15,7 +15,29 @@ log() { shift printf '[%s] [%-5s] %s\n' "$(date -u '+%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ')" "$level" "$*" | tee -a "$LOG_FILE" } +compare_semver() { + local v1=() v2=() + IFS='.' read -r -a v1 <<< "$1" + IFS='.' read -r -a v2 <<< "$2" + + # Normalize length (e.g., handle "1.2" as "1.2.0") + for i in 0 1 2; do + v1[i]=${v1[i]:-0} + v2[i]=${v2[i]:-0} + done + # Compare each section of MAJOR, MINOR, PATCH + for i in 0 1 2; do + if (( v1[i] > v2[i] )); then + return 1 # v1 is greater + elif (( v1[i] < v2[i] )); then + return 2 # v2 is greater + fi + # if equal, continue to next + done + + return 0 # versions are the same +} # Extract version from pyproject.toml get_version() { local file=$1 From 923e36c1c7d9427e195de535ea221ea5e038b361 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Rich <34130474+richwardle@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2025 18:26:08 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 07/16] Suggested changes to scripts/autoupdater.sh Co-authored-by: bkb2135 <98138173+bkb2135@users.noreply.github.com> --- scripts/autoupdater.sh | 26 ++++++++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/scripts/autoupdater.sh b/scripts/autoupdater.sh index 9947072c9..d7d79eaf5 100644 --- a/scripts/autoupdater.sh +++ b/scripts/autoupdater.sh @@ -91,29 +91,39 @@ backup_changes() { # Main update check function check_for_updates() { local local_version remote_version - - # Get local version local_version=$(get_version "$PYPROJECT_PATH") || return 1 - # Fetch and get remote version + # Fetch remote updates if ! retry "git fetch origin $REMOTE_BRANCH"; then log ERROR "Failed to fetch from remote" return 1 fi - remote_version=$(git show "origin/$REMOTE_BRANCH:$PYPROJECT_PATH" | - awk -F'"' '/^version *= *"/ {print $2}') || { + # Get remote version from pyproject.toml in the remote branch + remote_version=$(git show "origin/$REMOTE_BRANCH:$PYPROJECT_PATH" \ + | awk -F'"' '/^version *= *"/ {print $2}') || { log ERROR "Failed to get remote version" return 1 } - # Compare versions - if [[ "$local_version" != "$remote_version" ]]; then + # Semantic version comparison + compare_semver "$local_version" "$remote_version" + local cmp=$? + + if [[ $cmp -eq 2 ]]; then + # Return code 2 => remote_version is greater (update available) log INFO "Update available: $local_version → $remote_version" return 0 - else + elif [[ $cmp -eq 0 ]]; then + # Versions are the same log INFO "Already up to date ($local_version)" return 1 + else + # Return code 1 => local is actually ahead or equal in some custom scenario + # If you only want to *update if remote is strictly greater*, treat this case as no update. + # Or you could log something else if local is ahead. + log INFO "Local version ($local_version) is the same or newer than remote ($remote_version)" + return 1 fi } From c092d72d23eee3626a015395ee528b022ebcc2d7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: richwardle Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 14:06:15 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 08/16] formatting --- scripts/autoupdater.sh | 2 -- scripts/check_updates.sh | 43 ------------------------------- scripts/test_autoupdater.sh | 3 +-- tests/scripts/test_autoupdater.py | 17 +----------- 4 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 scripts/check_updates.sh diff --git a/scripts/autoupdater.sh b/scripts/autoupdater.sh index d7d79eaf5..adb5e5c9d 100644 --- a/scripts/autoupdater.sh +++ b/scripts/autoupdater.sh @@ -38,7 +38,6 @@ compare_semver() { return 0 # versions are the same } -# Extract version from pyproject.toml get_version() { local file=$1 local version @@ -153,7 +152,6 @@ validate_environment() { fi } -# Main loop main() { validate_environment log INFO "Starting auto-updater (interval: ${INTERVAL}s, branch: $REMOTE_BRANCH)" diff --git a/scripts/check_updates.sh b/scripts/check_updates.sh deleted file mode 100644 index 58afa3753..000000000 --- a/scripts/check_updates.sh +++ /dev/null @@ -1,43 +0,0 @@ -#!/usr/bin/env bash - -INTERVAL=300 - -REMOTE_BRANCH="main" - -get_version_from_pyproject() { - local file_path="$1" - # Using grep + cut: - grep '^version\s*=' "$file_path" 2>/dev/null | \ - sed -E 's/^version\s*=\s*"([^"]+)".*$/\1/' -} - -while true -do - echo "[autoupdater.sh] Checking for updates..." - - LOCAL_VERSION="$(get_version_from_pyproject './pyproject.toml')" - - git fetch origin "$REMOTE_BRANCH" >/dev/null 2>&1 - - REMOTE_VERSION="$(git show "origin/$REMOTE_BRANCH:pyproject.toml" | \ - grep '^version\s*=' | sed -E 's/^version\s*=\s*"([^"]+)".*$/\1/')" - - if [ -n "$LOCAL_VERSION" ] && [ -n "$REMOTE_VERSION" ]; then - if [ "$LOCAL_VERSION" != "$REMOTE_VERSION" ]; then - echo "[autoupdater.sh] New version detected! Local=$LOCAL_VERSION, Remote=$REMOTE_VERSION." - echo "[autoupdater.sh] Pulling new changes..." - - git pull origin "$REMOTE_BRANCH" - - echo "[autoupdater.sh] Re-launching run.sh..." - exec ./run.sh - - else - echo "[autoupdater.sh] Already up to date. Local=$LOCAL_VERSION, Remote=$REMOTE_VERSION." - fi - else - echo "[autoupdater.sh] Could not determine versions. Local=$LOCAL_VERSION, Remote=$REMOTE_VERSION." - fi - - sleep "$INTERVAL" -done \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/scripts/test_autoupdater.sh b/scripts/test_autoupdater.sh index 05bb8ced7..9b3373ff2 100755 --- a/scripts/test_autoupdater.sh +++ b/scripts/test_autoupdater.sh @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ set -euo pipefail # Test environment setup TEST_DIR="updater_test" -INTERVAL=5 # Shorter interval for testing +INTERVAL=5 # Create test environment setup_test_environment() { @@ -11,7 +11,6 @@ setup_test_environment() { rm -rf "$TEST_DIR" mkdir -p "$TEST_DIR" - # Copy autoupdater.sh if it's not already in the test directory if [[ ! -f "$TEST_DIR/autoupdater.sh" ]]; then cp "scripts/autoupdater.sh" "$TEST_DIR/" || cp "autoupdater.sh" "$TEST_DIR/" fi diff --git a/tests/scripts/test_autoupdater.py b/tests/scripts/test_autoupdater.py index b5e622452..96c9a372b 100644 --- a/tests/scripts/test_autoupdater.py +++ b/tests/scripts/test_autoupdater.py @@ -7,34 +7,27 @@ def test_autoupdater_script(): - # Define paths current_dir = os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__)) project_root = os.path.dirname(os.path.dirname(current_dir)) autoupdater_path = os.path.join(project_root, "scripts", "autoupdater.sh") test_script_path = os.path.join(project_root, "scripts", "test_autoupdater.sh") - # Check if the scripts exist assert os.path.exists(test_script_path), f"Test script not found at {test_script_path}" assert os.path.exists(autoupdater_path), f"Autoupdater script not found at {autoupdater_path}" - # Create test directory test_dir = os.path.join(project_root, "updater_test") os.makedirs(test_dir, exist_ok=True) try: - # Copy autoupdater.sh to test directory shutil.copy2(autoupdater_path, os.path.join(test_dir, "autoupdater.sh")) - - # Run the test script process = subprocess.Popen( [test_script_path], stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.PIPE, text=True, - cwd=project_root, # Run from project root + cwd=project_root, ) - # Wait for the script to finish timeout = 60 start_time = time.time() while process.poll() is None: @@ -43,20 +36,12 @@ def test_autoupdater_script(): pytest.fail("Autoupdater testing script timed out after 60 seconds") time.sleep(1) - # Capture the output stdout, stderr = process.communicate() - # Print output for debugging - print("STDOUT:", stdout) - print("STDERR:", stderr) - # Assert that the script ran successfully assert process.returncode == 0, f"Script failed with error: {stderr}" - - # Check specific outputs in stdout assert "✅ Test passed!" in stdout, "The test did not pass as expected." finally: - # Cleanup if os.path.exists(test_dir): shutil.rmtree(test_dir) From a1111a674e391c28c640791e5a8ee39babfd624d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: richwardle Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2025 14:45:19 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 09/16] precommit fix --- scripts/client.py | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/scripts/client.py b/scripts/client.py index 3ef6d36c4..29e72a0d3 100644 --- a/scripts/client.py +++ b/scripts/client.py @@ -9,7 +9,6 @@ from loguru import logger from shared.epistula import query_miners -from shared.settings import shared_settings """ This has assumed you have: From 4938cf2473b36a5b908ea4f79797056be48bcf76 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: richwardle Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 09:45:12 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 10/16] change cicd install location --- .github/workflows/python-package.yml | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/.github/workflows/python-package.yml b/.github/workflows/python-package.yml index d601319e7..2a9cac7e5 100644 --- a/.github/workflows/python-package.yml +++ b/.github/workflows/python-package.yml @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ jobs: - name: Install dependencies run: | python -m pip install --upgrade pip - bash install.sh + bash /scripts/install.sh poetry install --all-extras - name: Set up Node.js From 0aa982f8b18a5911f94fd8f16413dc63657fad93 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: richwardle Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 09:45:12 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 11/16] change cicd install location --- .github/workflows/python-package.yml | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/.github/workflows/python-package.yml b/.github/workflows/python-package.yml index d601319e7..ecf80dfe4 100644 --- a/.github/workflows/python-package.yml +++ b/.github/workflows/python-package.yml @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ jobs: - name: Install dependencies run: | python -m pip install --upgrade pip - bash install.sh + bash /prompting/scripts/install.sh poetry install --all-extras - name: Set up Node.js From 135e69e86089a26a9aaf16dcd669b04f63d5c203 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: richwardle Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 10:15:20 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 12/16] test cicd --- .github/workflows/python-package.yml | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/.github/workflows/python-package.yml b/.github/workflows/python-package.yml index ecf80dfe4..298a0411c 100644 --- a/.github/workflows/python-package.yml +++ b/.github/workflows/python-package.yml @@ -25,7 +25,8 @@ jobs: - name: Install dependencies run: | python -m pip install --upgrade pip - bash /prompting/scripts/install.sh + pwd + bash scripts/install.sh poetry install --all-extras - name: Set up Node.js From b2a01e8b7321b9c5e1d868adff5fae06ae630da3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: richwardle Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 10:22:08 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 13/16] remove cicd output --- .github/workflows/python-package.yml | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/.github/workflows/python-package.yml b/.github/workflows/python-package.yml index 298a0411c..a40e25a04 100644 --- a/.github/workflows/python-package.yml +++ b/.github/workflows/python-package.yml @@ -25,7 +25,6 @@ jobs: - name: Install dependencies run: | python -m pip install --upgrade pip - pwd bash scripts/install.sh poetry install --all-extras From 0b8c4eb26cd9e3febd3781c7655638b6b125c21a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: richwardle Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 10:23:57 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 14/16] linter fixes --- neurons/miners/epistula_miner/miner.py | 50 ++++++++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) diff --git a/neurons/miners/epistula_miner/miner.py b/neurons/miners/epistula_miner/miner.py index c7d336360..ea3a0360c 100644 --- a/neurons/miners/epistula_miner/miner.py +++ b/neurons/miners/epistula_miner/miner.py @@ -33,24 +33,38 @@ LOCAL_MODEL_ID = "casperhansen/llama-3-8b-instruct-awq" SAMPLE_WEB_RETRIEVAL_RESPONSE = [ -[{'url': 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson', - 'content': 'Andrew Jackson\nAndrew Jackson | |\n|---|---|\n| 7th President of the United States | |\n| In office March 4, 1829 – March 4, 1837 | |\n| Vice President |\n|\n| Preceded by | John Quincy Adams |\n| Succeeded by | Martin Van Buren |\n| United States Senator from Tennessee | |\n| In office March 4, 1823 – October 14, 1825 | |\n| Preceded by | John Williams |\n| Succeeded by | Hugh Lawson White |\n| In office September 26, 1797 – April 1, 1798 | |\n| Preceded by | William Cocke |\n| Succeeded by | Daniel Smith |\n| Federal Military Commissioner of Florida | |\n| In office March 10, 1821 – December 31, 1821 | |\n| Appointed by | James Monroe |\n| Preceded by |\n|\n| Succeeded by | William Pope Duval (as Territorial Governor) |\n| Justice of the Tennessee Superior Court | |\n| In office June 1798 – June 1804 | |\n| Appointed by | John Sevier |\n| Preceded by | Howell Tatum |\n| Succeeded by | John Overton |\n| Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Tennessee\'s at-large district | |\n| In office December 4, 1796 – September 26, 1797 | |\n| Preceded by | James White (Delegate from the Southwest Territory) |\n| Succeeded by | William C. C. Claiborne |\n| Personal details | |\n| Born | Waxhaw Settlement between North Carolina and South Carolina, British America | March 15, 1767\n| Died | June 8, 1845 Nashville, Tennessee, U.S. | (aged 78)\n| Resting place | The Hermitage |\n| Political party | Democratic (1828–1845) |\n| Other political affiliations |\n|\n| Spouse | |\n| Children | Andrew Jackson Jr., Lyncoya Jackson |\n| Occupation |\n|\n| Awards | |\n| Signature | |\n| Military service | |\n| Allegiance | United States |\n| Branch/service | United States Army |\n| Rank |\n|\n| Unit | South Carolina Militia (1780–81) Tennessee Militia (1792–1821) United States Army (1814-1821) |\n| Battles/wars | |\nAndrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) was an American politician and lawyer who served as the 7th president of the United States, from 1829 to 1837. Before his presidency, he rose to fame as a general in the U.S. Army and served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. Sometimes praised as an advocate for working Americans and for preserving the union of states, his political philosophy became the basis for the Democratic Party. Jackson has been criticized for his racist policies, particularly regarding Native Americans.\nJackson was born in the colonial Carolinas before the American Revolutionary War. He became a frontier lawyer and married Rachel Donelson Robards. He briefly served in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, representing Tennessee. After resigning, he served as a justice on the Tennessee Superior Court from 1798 until 1804. Jackson purchased a property later known as the Hermitage, becoming a wealthy planter who owned hundreds of African American slaves during his lifetime. In 1801, he was appointed colonel of the Tennessee militia and was elected its commander. He led troops during the Creek War of 1813–1814, winning the Battle of Horseshoe Bend and negotiating the Treaty of Fort Jackson that required the indigenous Creek population to surrender vast tracts of present-day Alabama and Georgia. In the concurrent war against the British, Jackson\'s victory at the Battle of New Orleans in 1815 made him a national hero. He later commanded U.S. forces in the First Seminole War, which led to the annexation of Florida from Spain. Jackson briefly served as Florida\'s first territorial governor before returning to the Senate. He ran for president in 1824. He won a plurality of the popular and electoral vote, but no candidate won the electoral majority. With the help of Henry Clay, the House of Representatives elected John Quincy Adams as president. Jackson\'s supporters alleged that there was a "corrupt bargain" between Adams and Clay and began creating a new political coalition that became the Democratic Party in the 1830s.\nJackson ran again in 1828, defeating Adams in a landslide despite issues such as his slave trading and his "irregular" marriage. In 1830, he signed the Indian Removal Act. This act, which has been described as ethnic cleansing, displaced tens of thousands of Native Americans from their ancestral homelands east of the Mississippi and resulted in thousands of deaths. Jackson faced a challenge to the integrity of the federal union when South Carolina threatened to nullify a high protective tariff set by the federal government. He threatened the use of military force to enforce the tariff, but the crisis was defused when it was amended. In 1832, he vetoed a bill by Congress to reauthorize the Second Bank of the United States, arguing that it was a corrupt institution. After a lengthy struggle, the Bank was dismantled. In 1835, Jackson became the only president to pay off the national debt.\nAfter leaving office, Jackson supported the presidencies of Martin Van Buren and James K. Polk, as well as the annexation of Texas. Jackson\'s legacy remains controversial, and opinions on his legacy are frequently polarized. Supporters characterize him as a defender of democracy and the U.S. Constitution, while critics point to his reputation as a demagogue who ignored the law when it suited him. Scholarly rankings of U.S. presidents historically rated Jackson\'s presidency as above average. Since the late 20th century, his reputation declined, and in the 21st century his placement in rankings of presidents fell.\nEarly life and education\nAndrew Jackson was born on March 15, 1767, in the Waxhaws region of the Carolinas. His parents were Scots-Irish colonists Andrew Jackson and Elizabeth Hutchinson, Presbyterians who had emigrated from Ulster, Ireland, in 1765.[1] Jackson\'s father was born in Carrickfergus, County Antrim, around 1738,[2] and his ancestors had crossed into Northern Ireland from Scotland after the Battle of the Boyne in 1690.[3] Jackson had two older brothers who came with his parents from Ireland, Hugh (born 1763) and Robert (born 1764).[4][3] Elizabeth had a strong hatred of the British that she passed on to her sons.[5]\nJackson\'s exact birthplace is unclear. Jackson\'s father died at the age of 29 in February 1767, three weeks before his son Andrew was born.[4] Afterwards, Elizabeth and her three sons moved in with her sister and brother-in-law, Jane and James Crawford.[6] Jackson later stated that he was born on the Crawford plantation,[7] which is in Lancaster County, South Carolina, but second-hand evidence suggests that he might have been born at another uncle\'s home in North Carolina.[6]\nWhen Jackson was young, Elizabeth thought he might become a minister and paid to have him schooled by a local clergyman.[8] He learned to read, write, and work with numbers, and was exposed to Greek and Latin,[9] but he was too strong-willed and hot-tempered for the ministry.[6]\nRevolutionary War\nJackson and his older brothers, Hugh and Robert, served on the Patriot side against British forces during the American Revolutionary War. Hugh served under Colonel William Richardson Davie, dying from heat exhaustion after the Battle of Stono Ferry in June 1779.[10] After anti-British sentiment intensified in the Southern Colonies following the Battle of Waxhaws in May 1780, Elizabeth encouraged Andrew and Robert to participate in militia drills.[11] They served as couriers,[12] and were present at the Battle of Hanging Rock in August 1780.[13]\nAndrew and Robert were captured in April 1781 when the British occupied the home of a Crawford relative. A British officer demanded to have his boots polished. Andrew refused, and the officer slashed him with a sword, leaving him with scars on his left hand and head. Robert also refused and was struck a blow on the head.[14] The brothers were taken to a prisoner-of-war camp in Camden, South Carolina, where they became malnourished and contracted smallpox.[15] In late spring, the brothers were released to their mother in a prisoner exchange.[16] Robert died two days after arriving home, but Elizabeth was able to nurse Andrew back to health.[17] Once he recovered, Elizabeth volunteered to nurse American prisoners of war housed in British prison ships in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina.[18] She contracted cholera and died soon afterwards.[19] The war made Jackson an orphan at age 14[20] and increased his hatred for the values he associated with Britain, in particular aristocracy and political privilege.[21]\nEarly career\nLegal career and marriage\nAfter the American Revolutionary War, Jackson worked as a saddler,[22] briefly returned to school, and taught reading and writing to children.[23] In 1784, he left the Waxhaws region for Salisbury, North Carolina, where he studied law under attorney Spruce Macay.[24] He completed his training under John Stokes,[25] and was admitted to the North Carolina bar in September 1787.[26] Shortly thereafter, his friend John McNairy helped him get appointed as a prosecuting attorney in the Western District of North Carolina,[27] which would later become the state of Tennessee. While traveling to assume his new position, Jackson stopped in Jonesborough. While there, he bought his first slave, a woman who was around his age.[28] He also fought his first duel, accusing another lawyer, Waightstill Avery, of impugning his character. The duel ended with both men firing in the air.[29]\nJackson began his new career in the frontier town of Nashville in 1788 and quickly moved up in social status.[30] He became a protégé of William Blount, one of the most powerful men in the territory.[31] Jackson was appointed attorney general of the Mero District in 1791 and judge-advocate for the militia the following year.[32] He also got involved in land speculation,[33] eventually forming a partnership with fellow lawyer John Overton.[34] Their partnership mainly dealt with claims made under a "land grab" act of 1783 that opened Cherokee and Chickasaw territory to North Carolina\'s white residents.[35] Jackson also became a slave trader,[36] transporting enslaved people for the interregional slave market between Nashville and the Natchez District of Spanish West Florida via the Mississippi River and the Natchez Trace.[37]\nWhile boarding at the home of Rachel Stockly Donelson, the widow of John Donelson, Jackson became acquainted with their daughter, Rachel Donelson Robards. The younger Rachel was in an unhappy marriage with Captain Lewis Robards, and the two were separated by 1789.[38] After the separation, Jackson and Rachel became romantically involved,[39] living together as husband and wife.[40] Robards petitioned for divorce, which was granted in 1793 on the basis of Rachel\'s infidelity.[41] The couple legally married in January 1794.[42] In 1796, they acquired their first plantation, Hunter\'s Hill,[43] on 640 acres (260 ha) of land near Nashville.[44]\nEarly public career\nJackson became a member of the Democratic-Republican Party, the dominant party in Tennessee.[31] He was elected as a delegate to the Tennessee constitutional convention in 1796.[45] When Tennessee achieved statehood that year, he was elected to be its U.S. representative. In Congress, Jackson argued against the Jay Treaty, criticized George Washington for allegedly removing Democratic-Republicans from public office, and joined several other Democratic-Republican congressmen in voting against a resolution of thanks for Washington.[46] He advocated for the right of Tennesseans to militarily oppose Native American interests.[47] The state legislature elected him to be a U.S. senator in 1797, but he resigned after serving only six months.[48]\nIn early 1798, Governor John Sevier appointed Jackson to be a judge of the Tennessee Superior Court.[49] In 1802, he also became major general, or commander, of the Tennessee militia, a position that was determined by a vote of the militia\'s officers. The vote was tied between Jackson and Sevier, a popular Revolutionary War veteran and former governor, but the governor, Archibald Roane, broke the tie in Jackson\'s favor. Jackson later accused Sevier of fraud and bribery.[50] Sevier responded by impugning Rachel\'s honor, resulting in a shootout on a public street.[51] Soon afterwards, they met to duel, but parted without having fired at each other.[52]\nPlanting career and slavery\nJackson resigned his judgeship in 1804.[53] He had almost gone bankrupt when the land and mercantile speculations he had made on the basis of promissory notes fell apart in the wake of an earlier financial panic.[54] He had to sell Hunter\'s Hill, as well as 25,000 acres (10,000 ha) of land he bought for speculation and bought a smaller 420-acre (170 ha) plantation near Nashville that he would call the Hermitage.[55] He focused on recovering from his losses by becoming a successful planter and merchant.[55] The Hermitage grew to 1,000 acres (400 ha),[56] making it one of the largest cotton-growing plantations in the state.[53]\nLike most planters in the Southern United States, Jackson used slave labor. In 1804, Jackson had nine African American slaves; by 1820, he had over 100; and by his death in 1845, he had over 150.[57] Over his lifetime, he owned a total of 300 slaves.[58] Jackson subscribed to the paternalistic idea of slavery, which claimed that slave ownership was morally acceptable as long as slaves were treated with humanity and their basic needs were cared for.[59] In practice, slaves were treated as a form of wealth whose productivity needed to be protected.[60] Jackson directed harsh punishment for slaves who disobeyed or ran away.[61] For example, in an 1804 advertisement to recover a runaway slave, he offered "ten dollars extra, for every hundred lashes any person will give him" up to three hundred lashes—a number that would likely have been deadly.[61][62] Over time, his accumulation of wealth in both slaves and land placed him among the elite families of Tennessee.[63]\nDuel with Dickinson and adventure with Burr\nIn May 1806, Jackson fought a duel with Charles Dickinson. Their dispute started over payments for a forfeited horse race, escalating for six months until they agreed to the duel.[64] Dickinson fired first. The bullet hit Jackson in the chest, but shattered against his breastbone.[65] He returned fire and killed Dickinson. The killing tarnished Jackson\'s reputation.[66]\nLater that year, Jackson became involved in former vice president Aaron Burr\'s plan to conquer Spanish Florida and drive the Spanish from Texas. Burr, who was touring what was then the Western United States after mortally wounding Alexander Hamilton in a duel, stayed with the Jacksons at the Hermitage in 1805.[67] He eventually persuaded Jackson to join his adventure. In October 1806, Jackson wrote James Winchester that the United States "can conquer not only [Florida], but all Spanish North America".[68] He informed the Tennessee militia that it should be ready to march at a moment\'s notice "when the government and constituted authority of our country require it",[69] and agreed to provide boats and provisions for the expedition.[67] Jackson sent a letter to President Thomas Jefferson telling him that Tennessee was ready to defend the nation\'s honor.[70]\nJackson also expressed uncertainty about the enterprise. He warned the Governor of Louisiana William Claiborne and Tennessee Senator Daniel Smith that some of the people involved in the adventure might be intending to break away from the United States.[71] In December, Jefferson ordered Burr to be arrested for treason.[67] Jackson, safe from arrest because of his extensive paper trail, organized the militia to capture the conspirators.[72] He testified before a grand jury in 1807, implying that it was Burr\'s associate James Wilkinson who was guilty of treason, not Burr. Burr was acquitted of the charges.[73]\nMilitary career\nMilitary campaigns of Andrew Jackson | |\n|---|---|\nWar of 1812\nCreek War\nOn June 18, 1812, the United States declared war on the United Kingdom, launching the War of 1812.[74] Though the war was primarily caused by maritime issues,[75] it provided white American settlers on the southern frontier the opportunity to overcome Native American resistance to settlement, undermine British support of the Native American tribes,[76] and pry Florida from the Spanish Empire.[77]\nJackson immediately offered to raise volunteers for the war, but he was not called to duty until after the United States military was repeatedly defeated in the American Northwest. After these defeats, in January 1813, Jackson enlisted over 2,000 volunteers,[78] who were ordered to head to New Orleans to defend against a British attack.[79][80][81][82] When his forces arrived at Natchez, they were ordered to halt by General Wilkinson, the commander at New Orleans and the man Jackson accused of treason after the Burr adventure. A little later, Jackson received a letter from the Secretary of War, John Armstrong, stating that his volunteers were not needed,[83] and that they were to hand over any supplies to Wilkinson and disband.[84] Jackson refused to disband his troops; instead, he led them on the difficult march back to Nashville, earning the nickname "Hickory" (later "Old Hickory") for his toughness.[85]\nAfter returning to Nashville, Jackson and one of his colonels, John Coffee, got into a street brawl over honor with the brothers Jesse and Thomas Hart Benton. Nobody was killed, but Jackson received a gunshot in the shoulder that nearly killed him.[86]\nJackson had not fully recovered from his wounds when Governor Willie Blount called out the militia in September 1813 following the August Fort Mims Massacre.[87] The Red Sticks, a Creek Confederacy faction that had allied with Tecumseh, a Shawnee chief who was fighting with the British against the United States, killed about 250 militia men and civilians at Fort Mims in retaliation for an ambush by American militia at Burnt Corn Creek.[88]\nJackson\'s objective was to destroy the Red Sticks.[89] He headed south from Fayetteville, Tennessee, in October with 2,500 militia, establishing Fort Strother as his supply base.[90] He sent his cavalry under General Coffee ahead of the main force, destroying Red Stick villages and capturing supplies.[91][92] Coffee defeated a band of Red Sticks at the Battle of Tallushatchee on November 3, and Jackson defeated another band later that month at the Battle of Talladega.[93]\nBy January 1814, the expiration of enlistments and desertion had reduced Jackson\'s force by about 1,000 volunteers,[94] but he continued the offensive.[95] The Red Sticks counterattacked at the Battles of Emuckfaw and Enotachopo Creek. Jackson repelled them but was forced to withdraw to Fort Strother.[96] Jackson\'s army was reinforced by further recruitment and the addition of a regular army unit, the 39th U.S. Infantry Regiment. The combined force of 3,000 men—including Cherokee, Choctaw, and Creek allies—attacked a Red Stick fort at Horseshoe Bend on the Tallapoosa River, which was manned by about 1,000 men.[97] The Red Sticks were overwhelmed and massacred.[98] Almost all their warriors were killed, and nearly 300 women and children were taken prisoner and distributed to Jackson\'s Native American allies.[98] The victory broke the power of the Red Sticks.[99] Jackson continued his scorched-earth campaign of burning villages, destroying supplies,[99] and starving Red Stick women and children.[100] The campaign ended when William Weatherford, the Red Stick leader, surrendered,[101] although some Red Sticks fled to East Florida.[102]\nOn June 8, Jackson was appointed a brigadier general in the United States Army, and 10 days later was made a brevet major general with command of the Seventh Military District, which included Tennessee, Louisiana, the Mississippi Territory, and the Muscogee Creek Confederacy.[103] With President James Madison\'s approval, Jackson imposed the Treaty of Fort Jackson. The treaty required all Creek, including those who had remained allies, to surrender 23,000,000 acres (9,300,000 ha) of land to the United States.[104]\nJackson then turned his attention to the British and Spanish. He moved his forces to Mobile, Alabama, in August, accused the Spanish governor of West Florida, Mateo González Manrique, of arming the Red Sticks, and threatened to attack. The governor responded by inviting the British to land at Pensacola to defend it, which violated Spanish neutrality.[105] The British attempted to capture Mobile, but their invasion fleet was repulsed at Fort Bowyer.[106] Jackson then invaded Florida, defeating the Spanish and British forces at the Battle of Pensacola on November 7.[107] Afterwards, the Spanish surrendered, and the British withdrew. Weeks later, Jackson learned that the British were planning an attack on New Orleans, which was the gateway to the Lower Mississippi River and control of the American West.[108] He evacuated Pensacola, strengthened the garrison at Mobile,[109] and led his troops to New Orleans.[110]\nBattle of New Orleans\nJackson arrived in New Orleans on December 1, 1814.[111] There he instituted martial law because he worried about the loyalty of the city\'s Creole and Spanish inhabitants. He augmented his force by forming an alliance with Jean Lafitte\'s smugglers and raising units of free African Americans and Creek,[112] paying non-white volunteers the same salary as whites.[113] This gave Jackson a force of about 5,000 men when the British arrived.[114]\nThe British arrived in New Orleans in mid-December.[115] Admiral Alexander Cochrane was the overall commander of the operation;[116] General Edward Pakenham commanded the army of 10,000 soldiers, many of whom had served in the Napoleonic Wars.[117] As the British advanced up the east bank of the Mississippi River, Jackson constructed a fortified position to block them.[118] The climactic battle took place on January 8 when the British launched a frontal assault. Their troops made easy targets for the Americans protected by their parapets, and the attack ended in disaster.[119] The British suffered over 2,000 casualties (including Pakenham) to the Americans\' 60.[120]\nThe British decamped from New Orleans at the end of January, but they still remained a threat.[121] Jackson refused to lift martial law and kept the militia under arms. He approved the execution of six militiamen for desertion.[122] Some Creoles registered as French citizens with the French consul and demanded to be discharged from the militia due to their foreign nationality. Jackson then ordered all French citizens to leave the city within three days,[123] and had a member of the Louisiana legislature, Louis Louaillier, arrested when he wrote a newspaper article criticizing Jackson\'s continuation of martial law. U.S. District Court Judge Dominic A. Hall signed a writ of habeas corpus for Louaillier\'s release. Jackson had Hall arrested too. A military court ordered Louaillier\'s release, but Jackson kept him in prison and evicted Hall from the city.[124] Although Jackson lifted martial law when he received official word that the Treaty of Ghent, which ended the war with the British, had been signed,[125] his previous behavior tainted his reputation in New Orleans.[126]\nJackson\'s victory made him a national hero,[127] and on February 27, 1815, he was given the Thanks of Congress and awarded a Congressional Gold Medal.[128] Though the Treaty of Ghent had been signed in December 1814 before the Battle of New Orleans was fought,[129] Jackson\'s victory assured that the United States control of the region between Mobile and New Orleans would not be effectively contested by European powers. This control allowed the American government to ignore one of the articles in the treaty, which would have returned the Creek lands taken in the Treaty of Fort Jackson.[130]\nFirst Seminole War\nFollowing the war, Jackson remained in command of troops in the southern half of the United States and was permitted to make his headquarters at the Hermitage.[131] Appointed as Indian commissioner plenipotentiary, Jackson continued to displace the Native Americans in areas under his command.[132] Despite resistance from Secretary of the Treasury William Crawford, he negotiated and signed five treaties between 1816 and 1820 in which the Creek, Choctaw, Cherokee and Chickasaw ceded tens of millions of acres of land to the United States. These included the Treaty of Turkeytown, Treaty of Tuscaloosa, and the Treaty of Doak\'s Stand.[133][134]\nJackson soon became embroiled in conflict in Florida. The former British post at Prospect Bluff, which became known to Americans as "the Negro fort", remained occupied by more than a thousand former soldiers of the British Royal and Colonial Marines, escaped slaves, and various indigenous peoples.[135] It had become a magnet for escapees[135] and was seen as a threat to the property rights of American enslavers,[136] even a potential source of insurrection by enslaved people.[137] Jackson ordered Colonel Duncan Clinch to capture the fort in July 1816. He destroyed it and killed many of the garrison. Some survivors were enslaved while others fled into the wilderness of Florida.[138]\nWhite American settlers were in constant conflict with Native American people collectively known as the Seminoles, who straddled the border between the U.S. and Florida.[139] In December 1817, Secretary of War John C. Calhoun initiated the First Seminole War by ordering Jackson to lead a campaign "with full power to conduct the war as he may think best".[140] Jackson believed the best way to do this was to seize Florida from Spain once and for all. Before departing, Jackson wrote to President James Monroe, "Let it be signified to me through any channel ... that the possession of the Floridas would be desirable to the United States, and in sixty days it will be accomplished."[141]\nJackson invaded Florida, captured the Spanish fort of St. Marks, and occupied Pensacola. Seminole and Spanish resistance was effectively ended by May 1818. He also captured two British subjects, Robert Ambrister and Alexander Arbuthnot, who had been working with the Seminoles. After a brief trial, Jackson executed both of them, causing an international incident with the British. Jackson\'s actions polarized Monroe\'s cabinet. The occupied territories were returned to Spain.[142] Calhoun wanted him censured for violating the Constitution, since the United States had not declared war on Spain. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams defended him as he thought Jackson\'s occupation of Pensacola would lead Spain to sell Florida, which Spain did in the Adams–Onís Treaty of 1819.[143] In February 1819, a congressional investigation exonerated Jackson,[144] and his victory was instrumental in convincing the Seminoles to sign the Treaty of Moultrie Creek in 1823, which surrendered much of their land in Florida.[145]\nPresidential aspirations\nElection of 1824\nThe Panic of 1819, the United States\' first prolonged financial depression, caused Congress to reduce the military\'s size and abolish Jackson\'s generalship.[147] In compensation, Monroe made him the first territorial governor of Florida in 1821.[148] He served as the governor for two months, returning to the Hermitage in ill health.[149] During his convalescence, Jackson, who had been a Freemason since at least 1798, became the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Tennessee for 1822–1823.[150] Around this time, he also completed negotiations for Tennessee to purchase Chickasaw lands. This became known as the Jackson Purchase. Jackson, Overton, and another colleague had speculated in some of the land and used their portion to form the town of Memphis.[151]\nIn 1822, Jackson agreed to run in the 1824 presidential election, and he was nominated by the Tennessee legislature in July.[152] At the time, the Federalist Party had collapsed, and there were four major contenders for the Democratic-Republican Party nomination: William Crawford, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun. Jackson was intended to be a stalking horse candidate to prevent Tennessee\'s electoral votes from going to Crawford, who was seen as a Washington insider. Jackson unexpectedly garnered popular support outside of Tennessee and became a serious candidate.[147] He benefited from the expansion of suffrage among white males that followed the conclusion of the War of 1812.[153][154] He was a popular war hero whose reputation suggested he had the decisiveness and independence to bring reform to Washington.[155] He also was promoted as an outsider who stood for all the people, blaming banks for the country\'s depression.[156]\nDuring his presidential candidacy, Jackson reluctantly ran for one of Tennessee\'s U.S. Senate seats. Jackson\'s political managers William Berkeley Lewis and John Eaton convinced him that he needed to defeat incumbent John Williams, who opposed him. The legislature elected Jackson in October 1823.[157][158] He was attentive to his senatorial duties. He was appointed chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs but avoided debate or initiating legislation.[159] He used his time in the Senate to form alliances and make peace with old adversaries.[160] Eaton continued to campaign for Jackson\'s presidency, updating his biography and writing a series of widely circulated pseudonymous letters that portrayed Jackson as a champion of republican liberty.[161]\nDemocratic-Republican presidential nominees had historically been chosen by informal congressional nominating caucuses. In 1824, most of the Democratic-Republicans in Congress boycotted the caucus,[162] and the power to choose nominees was shifting to state nominating committees and legislatures.[163] Jackson was nominated by a Pennsylvania convention, making him not merely a regional candidate but the leading national contender.[164] When Jackson won the Pennsylvania nomination, Calhoun dropped out of the presidential race.[165] Afterwards, Jackson won the nomination in six other states and had a strong second-place finish in three others.[166]\nIn the presidential election, Jackson won a 42-percent plurality of the popular vote. More importantly, he won a plurality of electoral votes, receiving 99 votes from states in the South, West, and Mid-Atlantic. He was the only candidate to win states outside of his regional base: Adams dominated New England, Crawford won Virginia and Georgia, and Clay took three western states. Because no candidate had a majority of 131 electoral votes, the House of Representatives held a contingent election under the terms of the Twelfth Amendment. The amendment specifies that only the top three electoral vote-winners are eligible to be elected by the House, so Clay was eliminated from contention.[167] Clay, who was also Speaker of the House and presided over the election\'s resolution, saw a Jackson presidency as a disaster for the country.[168] Clay threw his support behind Adams, who won the contingent election on the first ballot. Adams appointed Clay as his Secretary of State, leading supporters of Jackson to accuse Clay and Adams of having struck a "corrupt bargain".[169] After the Congressional session concluded, Jackson resigned his Senate seat and returned to Tennessee.[170]\nElection of 1828 and death of Rachel Jackson\nAfter the election, Jackson\'s supporters formed a new party to undermine Adams and ensure he served only one term. Adams\'s presidency went poorly, and Adams\'s behavior undermined it. He was perceived as an intellectual elite who ignored the needs of the populace. He was unable to accomplish anything because Congress blocked his proposals.[171] In his First Annual Message to Congress, Adams stated that "we are palsied by the will of our constituents", which was interpreted as his being against representative democracy.[172] Jackson responded by championing the needs of ordinary citizens and declaring that "the voice of the people ... must be heard".[173]\nJackson was nominated for president by the Tennessee legislature in October 1825, more than three years before the 1828 election.[174] He gained powerful supporters in both the South and North, including Calhoun, who became Jackson\'s vice-presidential running mate, and New York Senator Martin Van Buren.[175] Meanwhile, Adams\'s support from the Southern states was eroded when he signed a tax on European imports, the Tariff of 1828, which was called the "Tariff of Abominations" by opponents, into law.[173] Jackson\'s victory in the presidential race was overwhelming. He won 56 percent of the popular vote and 68 percent of the electoral vote. The election ended the one-party system that had formed during the Era of Good Feelings as Jackson\'s supporters coalesced into the Democratic Party and the various groups who did not support him eventually formed the Whig Party.[176]\nThe political campaign was dominated by the personal abuse that partisans flung at both candidates.[177] Jackson was accused of being the son of an English prostitute and a mulatto,[178][179] and he was accurately labeled a slave trader who trafficked in human flesh.[180] A series of pamphlets known as the Coffin Handbills[181] accused him of having murdered 18 white men, including the soldiers he had executed for desertion and alleging that he stabbed a man in the back with his cane.[182][183] They stated that he had intentionally massacred Native American women and children at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, ate the bodies of Native Americans he killed in battle,[184][185] and threatened to cut off the ears of congressmen who questioned his behavior during the First Seminole War.[186]\nJackson and Rachel were accused of adultery for living together before her divorce was finalized,[187] and Rachel heard about the accusation.[188] She had been under stress throughout the election, and just as Jackson was preparing to head to Washington for his inauguration, she fell ill.[189] She did not live to see her husband become president, dying of a stroke or heart attack a few days later.[188] Jackson believed that the abuse from Adams\' supporters had hastened her death, stating at her funeral: "May God Almighty forgive her murderers, as I know she forgave them. I never can."[190]\nPresidency (1829–1837)\nInauguration\nJackson arrived in Washington, D.C., on February 11, and began forming his cabinet.[191] He chose Van Buren as Secretary of State, John Eaton as Secretary of War, Samuel D. Ingham as Secretary of Treasury, John Branch as Secretary of Navy, John M. Berrien as Attorney General, and William T. Barry as Postmaster General.[192] Jackson was inaugurated on March 4, 1829; Adams, who was embittered by his defeat, refused to attend.[193] Jackson was the first president-elect to take the oath of office on the East Portico of the U.S. Capitol.[194] In his inaugural address, he promised to protect the sovereignty of the states, respect the limits of the presidency, reform the government by removing disloyal or incompetent appointees, and observe a fair policy toward Native Americans.[195] Jackson invited the public to the White House, which was promptly overrun by well-wishers who caused minor damage to its furnishings. The spectacle earned him the nickname "King Mob".[196]\nReforms and rotation in office\nJackson believed that Adams\'s administration had been corrupt and he initiated investigations into all executive departments.[197] These investigations revealed that $280,000 (equivalent to $8,000,000 in 2023) was stolen from the Treasury. They also resulted in a reduction in costs to the Department of the Navy, saving $1 million (equivalent to $28,600,000 in 2023).[198] Jackson asked Congress to tighten laws on embezzlement and tax evasion, and he pushed for an improved government accounting system.[199]\nJackson implemented a principle he called "rotation in office". The previous custom had been for the president to leave the existing appointees in office, replacing them through attrition. Jackson enforced the Tenure of Office Act, an 1820 law that limited office tenure, authorized the president to remove current office holders, and appoint new ones.[200] During his first year in office, he removed about 10% of all federal employees[200] and replaced them with loyal Democrats.[201] Jackson argued that rotation in office reduced corruption[202] by making officeholders responsible to the popular will,[203] but it functioned as political patronage and became known as the spoils system.[204][202]\nPetticoat affair\nJackson spent much of his time during his first two and a half years in office dealing with what came to be known as the "Petticoat affair" or "Eaton affair".[205][206] The affair focused on Secretary of War Eaton\'s wife, Margaret. She had a reputation for being promiscuous, and like Rachel Jackson, she was accused of adultery. She and Eaton had been close before her first husband John Timberlake died, and they married nine months after his death.[207] With the exception of Barry\'s wife Catherine,[208] the cabinet members\' wives followed the lead of Vice-president Calhoun\'s wife Floride and refused to socialize with the Eatons.[209] Though Jackson defended Margaret, her presence split the cabinet, which had been so ineffective that he rarely called it into session,[192] and the ongoing disagreement led to its dissolution.[210]\nIn early 1831, Jackson demanded the resignations of all the cabinet members except Barry,[211] who would resign in 1835 when a Congressional investigation revealed his mismanagement of the Post Office.[212] Jackson tried to compensate Van Buren by appointing him the Minister to Great Britain, but Calhoun blocked the nomination with a tie-breaking vote against it.[211] Van Buren—along with newspaper editors Amos Kendall[213] and Francis Preston Blair[214]—would become regular participants in Jackson\'s Kitchen Cabinet, an unofficial, varying group of advisors that Jackson turned to for decision making even after he had formed a new official cabinet.[215]\nIndian Removal Act\nJackson\'s presidency marked the beginning of a national policy of Native American removal.[211] Before Jackson took office, the relationship between the southern states and the Native American tribes who lived within their boundaries was strained. The states felt that they had full jurisdiction over their territories; the native tribes saw themselves as autonomous nations that had a right to the land they lived on.[217] Significant portions of the five major tribes in the area then known as the Southwest—the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminoles— began to adopt white culture, including education, agricultural techniques, a road system, and rudimentary manufacturing.[218] In the case of the tensions between the state of Georgia and the Cherokee, Adams had tried to address the issue encouraging Cherokee emigration west of the Mississippi through financial incentives, but most refused.[219]\nIn the first days of Jackson\'s presidency, some southern states passed legislation extending state jurisdiction to Native American lands.[220] Jackson supported the states\' right to do so.[221][222] His position was later made clear in the 1832 Supreme Court test case of this legislation, Worcester v. Georgia. Georgia had arrested a group of missionaries for entering Cherokee territory without a permit; the Cherokee declared these arrests illegal. The court under Chief Justice John Marshall decided in favor of the Cherokee: imposition of Georgia law on the Cherokee was unconstitutional.[223] Horace Greeley alleges that when Jackson heard the ruling, he said, "Well, John Marshall has made his decision, but now let him enforce it."[224] Although the quote may be apocryphal, Jackson made it clear he would not use the federal government to enforce the ruling.[225][226][227]\nJackson used the power of the federal government to enforce the separation of Indigenous tribes and whites.[228] In May 1830, Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act, which Congress had narrowly passed.[229] It gave the president the right to negotiate treaties to buy tribal lands in the eastern part of the United States in exchange for lands set aside for Native Americans west of the Mississippi,[230] as well as broad discretion on how to use the federal funds allocated to the negotiations.[231] The law was supposed to be a voluntary relocation program, but it was not implemented as one. Jackson\'s administration often achieved agreement to relocate through bribes, fraud and intimidation,[232] and the leaders who signed the treaties often did not represent the entire tribe.[233] The relocations could be a source of misery too: the Choctaw relocation was rife with corruption, theft, and mismanagement that brought great suffering to that people.[234]\nIn 1830, Jackson personally negotiated with the Chickasaw, who quickly agreed to move.[235] In the same year, Choctaw leaders signed the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek; the majority did not want the treaty but complied with its terms.[236] In 1832, Seminole leaders signed the Treaty of Payne\'s Landing, which stipulated that the Seminoles would move west and become part of the Muscogee Creek Confederacy if they found the new land suitable.[237] Most Seminoles refused to move, leading to the Second Seminole War in 1835 that lasted six years.[233] Members of the Muscogee Creek Confederacy ceded their land to the state of Alabama in the Treaty of Cusseta of 1832. Their private ownership of the land was to be protected, but the federal government did not enforce this. The government did encourage voluntary removal until the Creek War of 1836, after which almost all Creek were removed to Oklahoma territory.[238] In 1836, Cherokee leaders ceded their land to the government by the Treaty of New Echota.[239] Their removal, known as the Trail of Tears, was enforced by Jackson\'s successor, Van Buren.[240]\nJackson also applied the removal policy in the Northwest. He was not successful in removing the Iroquois Confederacy in New York, but when some members of the Meskwaki (Fox) and the Sauk triggered the Black Hawk War by trying to cross back to the east side of the Mississippi, the peace treaties ratified after their defeat reduced their lands further.[241]\nDuring his administration, he made about 70 treaties with American Indian tribes. He had removed almost all the Native Americans east of the Mississippi and south of Lake Michigan, about 70,000 people, from the United States;[242] though it was done at the cost of thousands of Native American lives lost because of the unsanitary conditions and epidemics arising from their dislocation, as well as their resistance to expulsion.[243] Jackson\'s implementation of the Indian Removal Act contributed to his popularity with his constituency. He added over 170,000 square miles of land to the public domain, which primarily benefited the United States\' agricultural interests. The act also benefited small farmers, as Jackson allowed them to purchase moderate plots at low prices and offered squatters on land formerly belonging to Native Americans the option to purchase it before it was offered for sale to others.[244]\nNullification crisis\nJackson had to confront another challenge that had been building up since the beginning of his first term. The Tariff of 1828, which had been passed in the last year of Adams\' administration, set a protective tariff at a very high rate to prevent the manufacturing industries in the Northern states from having to compete with lower-priced imports from Britain.[245] The tariff reduced the income of southern cotton planters: it propped up consumer prices, but not the price of cotton, which had severely declined in the previous decade.[246] Immediately after the tariff\'s passage, the South Carolina Exposition and Protest was sent to the U.S. Senate.[247] This document, which had been anonymously written by John C. Calhoun, asserted that the constitution was a compact of individual states[248] and when the federal government went beyond its delegated duties, such as enacting a protective tariff, a state had a right to declare this action unconstitutional and make the act null and void within the borders of that state.[249]\nJackson suspected Calhoun of writing the Exposition and Protest and opposed his interpretation. Jackson argued that Congress had full authority to enact tariffs and that a dissenting state was denying the will of the majority.[250] He also needed the tariff, which generated 90% of the federal revenue,[251] to achieve another of his presidential goals, eliminating the national debt.[252] The issue developed into a personal rivalry between the two men. For example, during a celebration of Thomas Jefferson\'s birthday on April 13, 1830, the attendees gave after-dinner toasts. Jackson toasted: "Our federal Union: It must be preserved!" – a clear challenge to nullification. Calhoun, whose toast immediately followed, rebutted: "The Union: Next to our Liberty, the most dear!"[253]\nAs a compromise, Jackson supported the Tariff of 1832, which reduced the duties from the Tariff of 1828 by almost half. The bill was signed on July 9, but failed to satisfy extremists on either side.[254] On November 24, South Carolina had passed the Ordinance of Nullification,[255] declaring both tariffs null and void and threatening to secede from the United States if the federal government tried to use force to collect the duties.[256][257] In response, Jackson sent warships to Charleston harbor, and threatened to hang any man who worked to support nullification or secession.[258] On December 10, he issued a proclamation against the "nullifiers",[259] condemning nullification as contrary to the Constitution\'s letter and spirit, rejecting the right of secession, and declaring that South Carolina stood on "the brink of insurrection and treason".[260] On December 28, Calhoun, who had been elected to the U.S. Senate, resigned as vice president.[261]\nJackson asked Congress to pass a "Force Bill" authorizing the military to enforce the tariff. It was attacked by Calhoun as despotism.[262] Meanwhile, Calhoun and Clay began to work on a new compromise tariff. Jackson saw it as an effective way to end the confrontation but insisted on the passage of the Force Bill before he signed.[263] On March 2, he signed into law the Force Bill and the Tariff of 1833. The South Carolina Convention then met and rescinded its nullification ordinance but nullified the Force Bill in a final act of defiance.[264] Two months later, Jackson reflected on South Carolina\'s nullification: "the tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question".[265]\nBank War and Election of 1832\nBank veto\nA few weeks after his inauguration, Jackson started looking into how he could replace the Second Bank of the United States.[266] The Bank had been chartered by President Madison in 1816 to restore the United States economy after the War of 1812. Monroe had appointed Nicholas Biddle as the Bank\'s executive.[267] The Bank was a repository for the country\'s public monies which also serviced the national debt; it was formed as a for-profit entity that looked after the concerns of its shareholders.[268] In 1828, the country was prosperous[269] and the currency was stable,[270] but Jackson saw the Bank as a fourth branch of government run by an elite,[266] what he called the "money power" that sought to control the labor and earnings of the "real people", who depend on their own efforts to succeed: the planters, farmers, mechanics, and laborers.[271] Additionally, Jackson\'s own near bankruptcy in 1804 due to credit-fuelled land speculation had biased him against paper money and toward a policy favorable to hard money.[272]\nIn his First Annual Address in December 1829, Jackson openly challenged the Bank by questioning its constitutionality and the soundness of its money.[273] Jackson\'s supporters further alleged that it gave preferential loans to speculators and merchants over artisans and farmers, that it used its money to bribe congressmen and the press, and that it had ties with foreign creditors. Biddle responded to Jackson\'s challenge in early 1830 by using the Bank\'s vast financial holding to ensure the Bank\'s reputation, and his supporters argued that the Bank was the key to prosperity and stable commerce. By the time of the 1832 election, Biddle had spent over $250,000 (equivalent to $7,630,000 in 2023) in printing pamphlets, lobbying for pro-Bank legislation, hiring agents and giving loans to editors and congressmen.[274]\nOn the surface, Jackson\'s and Biddle\'s positions did not appear irreconcilable. Jackson seemed open to keeping the Bank if it could include some degree of Federal oversight, limit its real estate holdings, and have its property subject to taxation by the states.[275] Many of Jackson\'s cabinet members thought a compromise was possible. In 1831, Treasury Secretary Louis McLane told Biddle that Jackson was open to chartering a modified version of the Bank, but Biddle did not consult Jackson directly. Privately, Jackson expressed opposition to the Bank;[276] publicly, he announced that he would leave the decision concerning the Bank in the hands of the people.[277] Biddle was finally convinced to take open action by Henry Clay, who had decided to run for president against Jackson in the 1832 election. Biddle would agree to seek renewal of the charter two years earlier than scheduled. Clay argued that Jackson was in a bind. If he vetoed the charter, he would lose the votes of his pro-Bank constituents in Pennsylvania; but if he signed the charter, he would lose his anti-Bank constituents. After the recharter bill was passed, Jackson vetoed it on July 10, 1832, arguing that the country should not surrender the will of the majority to the desires of the wealthy.[278]\nElection of 1832\nThe 1832 presidential election demonstrated the rapid development of political parties during Jackson\'s presidency. The Democratic Party\'s first national convention, held in Baltimore, nominated Jackson\'s choice for vice president, Martin Van Buren. The National Republican Party, which had held its first convention in Baltimore earlier in December 1831, nominated Clay, now a senator from Kentucky, and John Sergeant of Pennsylvania.[279] An Anti-Masonic Party, with a platform built around opposition to Freemasonry,[280] supported neither Jackson nor Clay, who both were Masons. The party nominated William Wirt of Maryland and Amos Ellmaker of Pennsylvania.[281]\nIn addition to the votes Jackson would lose because of the bank veto, Clay hoped that Jackson\'s Indian Removal Act would alienate voters in the East; but Jackson\'s losses were offset by the Act\'s popularity in the West and Southwest. Clay had also expected that Jackson would lose votes because of his stand on internal improvements.[282] Jackson had vetoed the Maysville Road bill, which funded an upgrade of a section of the National Road in Clay\'s state of Kentucky; Jackson had argued it was unconstitutional to fund internal improvements using national funds for local projects.[283]\nClay\'s strategy failed. Jackson was able to mobilize the Democratic Party\'s strong political networks.[284] The Northeast supported Jackson because he was in favor of maintaining a stiff tariff; the West supported him because the Indian Removal Act reduced the number of Native Americans in the region and made available more public land.[285] Except for South Carolina, which passed the Ordinance of Nullification during the election month and refused to support any party by giving its votes to the future Governor of Virginia John B. Floyd,[286] the South supported Jackson for implementing the Indian Removal Act, as well as for his willingness to compromise by signing the Tariff of 1832.[287] Jackson won the election by a landslide, receiving 55 percent of the popular vote and 219 electoral votes.[284]\nRemoval of deposits and censure\nJackson saw his victory as a mandate to continue his war on the Bank\'s control over the national economy.[288] In 1833, Jackson signed an executive order ending the deposit of Treasury receipts in the bank.[289] When Secretary of the Treasury McLane refused to execute the order, Jackson replaced him with William J. Duane, who also refused. Jackson then appointed Roger B. Taney as acting secretary, who implemented Jackson\'s policy.[290] With the loss of federal deposits, the Bank had to contract its credit.[291] Biddle used this contraction to create an economic downturn in an attempt to get Jackson to compromise. Biddle wrote, "Nothing but the evidence of suffering abroad will produce any effect in Congress."[292] The attempt did not succeed: the economy recovered and Biddle was blamed for the recession.[293]\nJackson\'s actions led those who disagreed with him to form the Whig Party. They claimed to oppose Jackson\'s expansion of executive power, calling him "King Andrew the First", and naming their party after the English Whigs who opposed the British monarchy in the 17th century.[294] In March 1834, the Senate censured Jackson for inappropriately taking authority for the Treasury Department when it was the responsibility of Congress and refused to confirm Taney\'s appointment as secretary of the treasury.[295] In April, however, the House declared that the bank should not be rechartered. By July 1836, the Bank no longer held any federal deposits.[296]\nJackson had Federal funds deposited into state banks friendly to the administration\'s policies, which critics called pet banks.[297] The number of these state banks more than doubled during Jackson\'s administration,[290] and investment patterns changed. The Bank, which had been the federal government\'s fiscal agent, invested heavily in trade and financed interregional and international trade. State banks were more responsive to state governments and invested heavily in land development, land speculation, and state public works projects.[298] In spite of the efforts of Taney\'s successor, Levi Woodbury, to control them, the pet banks expanded their loans, helping to create a speculative boom in the final years of Jackson\'s administration.[299]\nIn January 1835, Jackson paid off the national debt, the only time in U.S. history that it had been accomplished.[300][301] It was paid down through tariff revenues,[284] carefully managing federal funding of internal improvements like roads and canals,[302] and the sale of public lands.[303] Between 1834 and 1836, the government had an unprecedented spike in land sales:[304] At its peak in 1836, the profits from land sales were eight to twelve times higher than a typical year.[305] During Jackson\'s presidency, 63 million acres of public land—about the size of the state of Oklahoma—was sold.[306] After Jackson\'s term expired in 1837, a Democrat-majority Senate expunged Jackson\'s censure.[307][308]\nPanic of 1837\nDespite the economic boom following Jackson\'s victory in the Bank War, land speculation in the west caused the Panic of 1837.[309] Jackson\'s transfer of federal monies to state banks in 1833 caused western banks to relax their lending standards;[310] the Indian Removal Act made large amounts of former Native American lands available for purchase and speculation.[311] Two of Jackson\'s acts in 1836 contributed to the Panic of 1837. One was the Specie Circular, which mandated western lands only be purchased by money backed by specie. The act was intended to stabilize the economy by reducing speculation on credit, but it caused a drain of gold and silver from the Eastern banks to the Western banks to address the needs of financing land transactions.[312] The other was the Deposit and Distribution Act, which transferred federal monies from eastern to western state banks. Together, they left Eastern banks unable to pay specie to the British when they recalled their loans to address their economic problems in international trade.[313] The panic drove the U.S. economy into a depression that lasted until 1841.[309]\nPhysical assault and assassination attempt\nJackson was the first president to be subjected to both a physical assault and an assassination attempt.[314] On May 6, 1833, Robert B. Randolph struck Jackson in the face with his hand because Jackson had ordered Randolph\'s dismissal from the navy for embezzlement. Jackson declined to press charges.[315] While Jackson was leaving the United States Capitol on January 30, 1835, Richard Lawrence, an unemployed house painter from England, aimed a pistol at him, which misfired. Lawrence pulled out a second pistol, which also misfired. Jackson attacked Lawrence with his cane until others intervened to restrain Lawrence, who was later found not guilty by reason of insanity and institutionalized.[316][317]\nSlavery\nDuring Jackson\'s presidency, slavery remained a minor political issue.[318] Though federal troops were used to crush Nat Turner\'s slave rebellion in 1831,[319] Jackson ordered them withdrawn immediately afterwards despite the petition of local citizens for them to remain for protection.[320] Jackson considered the issue too divisive to the nation and to the delicate alliances of the Democratic Party.[321]\nJackson\'s view was challenged when the American Anti-Slavery Society agitated for abolition[322] by sending anti-slavery tracts through the postal system into the South in 1835.[321] Jackson condemned these agitators as "monsters"[323] who should atone with their lives[324] because they were attempting to destroy the Union by encouraging sectionalism.[325] The act provoked riots in Charleston, and pro-slavery Southerners demanded that the postal service ban distribution of the materials. To address the issue, Jackson authorized that the tracts could be sent only to subscribers, whose names could be made publicly accountable.[326] That December, Jackson called on Congress to prohibit the circulation through the South of "incendiary publications intended to instigate the slaves to insurrection".[327]\nForeign affairs\nThe Jackson administration successfully negotiated a trade agreement with Siam, the first Asian country to form a trade agreement with the U.S. The administration also made trade agreements with Great Britain, Spain, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire.[329]\nIn his First Annual Message to Congress, Jackson addressed the issues of spoliation claims, demands of compensation for the capture of American ships and sailors by foreign nations during the Napoleonic Wars.[330] Using a combination of bluster and tact, he successfully settled these claims with Denmark, Portugal, and Spain,[329] but he had difficulty collecting spoliation claims from France, which was unwilling to pay an indemnity agreed to in an earlier treaty. Jackson asked Congress in 1834 to authorize reprisals against French property if the country failed to make payment, as well as to arm for defense.[330] In response, France put its Caribbean fleet on a wartime footing.[331] Both sides wanted to avoid a conflict, but the French wanted an apology for Jackson\'s belligerence. In his 1835 Annual Message to the Congress, Jackson asserted that he refused to apologize, but stated that he did not intend to "menace or insult the Government of France".[332] The French were assuaged and agreed to pay $5,000,000 (equivalent to $147,677,400 in 2023) to settle the claims.[333]\nSince the early 1820s, large numbers of Americans had been immigrating into Texas, a territory of the newly independent nation of Mexico.[334] As early as 1824, Jackson had supported acquiring the region for the United States.[335] In 1829, he attempted to purchase it, but Mexico did not want to sell. By 1830, there were twice as many settlers from the United States as from Mexico, leading to tensions with the Mexican government that started the Texas Revolution. During the conflict, Jackson covertly allowed the settlers to obtain weapons and money from the United States.[336] They defeated the Mexican military in April 1836 and declared the region an independent country, the Republic of Texas. The new Republic asked Jackson to recognize and annex it. Although Jackson wanted to do so, he was hesitant because he was unsure it could maintain independence from Mexico.[329] He also was concerned because Texas had legalized slavery, which was an issue that could divide the Democrats during the 1836 election. Jackson recognized the Republic of Texas on the last full day of his presidency, March 3, 1837.[337]\nJudiciary\nJackson appointed six justices to the Supreme Court.[338] Most were undistinguished. Jackson nominated Roger B. Taney in January 1835 to the Court in reward for his services, but the nomination failed to win Senate approval.[339]\nWhen Chief Justice Marshall died in 1835, Jackson again nominated Taney for Chief Justice; he was confirmed by the new Senate,[340] serving as Chief Justice until 1864.[341] He was regarded with respect during his career on the bench, but he is most remembered for his widely condemned decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford.[342] On the last day of his presidency, Jackson signed the Judiciary Act of 1837,[343] which created two new Supreme Court seats and reorganized the federal circuit courts.[344]\nStates admitted to the Union\nTwo new states were admitted into the Union during Jackson\'s presidency: Arkansas (June 15, 1836) and Michigan (January 26, 1837). Both states increased Democratic power in Congress and helped Van Buren win the presidency in 1836, as new states tended to support the party that had done the most to admit them.[345]\nLater life and death (1837–1845)\nJackson\'s presidency ended on March 4, 1837. Jackson left Washington, D.C., three days later, retiring to the Hermitage in Nashville, where he remained influential in national and state politics.[346] To reduce the inflation caused by the Panic of 1837, Jackson supported an Independent Treasury system that would restrict the government from printing paper money and require it to hold its money in silver and gold.[347]\nDuring the 1840 presidential election,[348] Jackson campaigned for Van Buren in Tennessee, but Van Buren had become unpopular during the continuing depression. The Whig Party nominee, William Henry Harrison, won the election using a campaign style similar to that of the Democrats: Van Buren was depicted as an uncaring aristocrat, while Harrison\'s war record was glorified, and he was portrayed as a man of the people.[349] Harrison won the 1840 election and the Whigs captured majorities in both houses of Congress,[350] but Harrison died a month into his term, and was replaced by his vice president, former Democrat John Tyler. Jackson was encouraged because Tyler was not bound to party loyalties and praised him when he vetoed two Whig-sponsored bills to establish a new national bank in 1841.[351]\nJackson lobbied for the annexation of Texas. He was concerned that the British could use it as a base to threaten the United States[352] and insisted that it was part of the Louisiana Purchase.[353] Tyler signed a treaty of annexation in April 1844, but it became associated with the expansion of slavery and was not ratified. Van Buren, who had been Jackson\'s preferred candidate for the Democratic Party in the 1844 presidential election, had opposed annexation. Disappointed by Van Buren, Jackson convinced fellow Tennessean James K. Polk, who was then set to be Van Buren\'s running mate, to run as the Democratic Party\'s presidential nominee instead. Polk defeated Van Buren for the nomination and won the general election against Jackson\'s old enemy, Henry Clay. Meanwhile, the Senate passed a bill to annex Texas, and it was signed on March 1, 1845.[354]\nJackson died of dropsy, tuberculosis, and heart failure[355] at 78 years of age on June 8, 1845. His deathbed was surrounded by family, friends, and slaves, and he was recorded to have said, "Do not cry; I hope to meet you all in Heaven—yes, all in Heaven, white and black."[356] He was buried in the same tomb as his wife Rachel.[357]\nPersonal life\nFamily\nJackson and Rachel had no children together but adopted Andrew Jackson Jr., the son of Rachel\'s brother Severn Donelson. The Jacksons acted as guardians for Samuel Donelson\'s children: John Samuel, Daniel Smith Donelson, and Andrew Jackson Donelson. They were also guardians for A. J. Hutchings, Rachel\'s orphaned grandnephew, and the orphaned children of a friend, Edward Butler—Caroline, Eliza, Edward, and Anthony—who lived with the Jacksons after their father died.[358] There were also three Indigenous members of Jackson\'s household: Lyncoya,[359] Theodore,[360] and Charley.[361]\nFor the only time in U.S. history, two women acted simultaneously as unofficial first lady for the widower Jackson. Rachel\'s niece Emily Donelson was married to Andrew Jackson Donelson (who acted as Jackson\'s private secretary) and served as hostess at the White House. The president and Emily became estranged for over a year during the Petticoat affair, but they eventually reconciled and she resumed her duties as White House hostess. Sarah Yorke Jackson, the wife of Andrew Jackson Jr., became co-hostess of the White House in 1834, and took over all hostess duties after Emily died from tuberculosis in 1836.[362]\nTemperament\nJackson had a reputation for being short-tempered and violent,[363] which terrified his opponents.[364] He was able to use his temper strategically to accomplish what he wanted.[365] He could keep it in check when necessary: his behavior was friendly and urbane when he went to Washington as senator during the campaign leading up to the 1824 election. According to Van Buren, he remained calm in times of difficulty and made his decisions deliberatively.[366]\nHe had the tendency to take things personally. If someone crossed him, he would often become obsessed with crushing them.[367] For example, on the last day of his presidency, Jackson declared he had only two regrets: that he had not shot Henry Clay or hanged John C. Calhoun.[368] He also had a strong sense of loyalty. He considered threats to his friends as threats to himself, but he demanded unquestioning loyalty in return.[369]\nJackson was self-confident,[370] without projecting a sense of self-importance.[371] This self-confidence gave him the ability to persevere in the face of adversity.[372] Once he decided on a plan of action, he would adhere to it.[373] His reputation for being both quick-tempered and confident worked to his advantage;[374] it misled opponents to see him as simple and direct, leading them to often understimate his political shrewdness.[375]\nReligious faith\nIn 1838, Jackson became an official member of the First Presbyterian Church in Nashville.[376] Both his mother and his wife had been devout Presbyterians all their lives, but Jackson stated that he had postponed officially entering the church until after his retirement to avoid accusations that he had done so for political reasons.[377]\nLegacy\nJackson\'s legacy is controversial and polarizing.[378][379][380] His contemporary, Alexis de Tocqueville, depicted him as the spokesperson of the majority and their passions.[381] He has been variously described as a frontiersman personifying the independence of the American West,[382] a slave-owning member of the Southern gentry,[383] and a populist who promoted faith in the wisdom of the ordinary citizen.[384] He has been represented as a statesman who substantially advanced the spirit of democracy,[385] and upheld the foundations of American constitutionalism,[386] as well as an autocratic demagogue who crushed political opposition and trampled the law.[387]\nIn the 1920s, Jackson\'s rise to power became associated with the idea of the "common man".[388] This idea defined the age as a populist rejection of social elites and a vindication of every person\'s value independent of class and status.[389] Jackson was seen as its personification,[390] an individual free of societal constraints who can achieve great things.[391] In 1945, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.\'s influential Age of Jackson redefined Jackson\'s legacy through the lens of Franklin D. Roosevelt\'s New Deal,[392] describing the common man as a member of the working class struggling against exploitation by business concerns.[393]\nIn the 21st century, Jackson\'s Indian Removal Act has been described as ethnic cleansing,[394] the use of force, terror and violence to make an area ethnically homogeneous.[395] To achieve the goal of separating Native Americans from the whites,[396] coercive force such as threats and bribes were used to effect removal[397] and unauthorized military force was used when there was resistance,[232] as in the case of the Second Seminole War.[398] The act has been discussed in the context of genocide,[399] and its role in the long-term destruction of Native American societies and their cultures continues to be debated.[400]\nJackson\'s legacy has been variously used by later presidents. Abraham Lincoln referenced Jackson\'s ideas when negotiating the challenges to the Union that he faced during 1861, including Jackson\'s understanding of the constitution during the nullification crisis and the president\'s right to interpret the constitution.[401] Franklin D. Roosevelt used Jackson to redefine the Democratic Party, describing him as a defender of the exploited and downtrodden and as a fighter for social justice and human rights.[402][403] The members of the Progressive Party of 1948 to 1955 saw themselves as the heirs to Jackson.[404] Donald Trump used Jackson\'s legacy to present himself as the president of the common man,[405] praising Jackson for saving the country from a rising aristocracy and protecting American workers with a tariff.[406] In 2016, President Barack Obama\'s administration announced it was removing Jackson\'s portrait from the $20 bill and replacing it with one of Harriet Tubman.[407] Though the plan was put on hold during Trump\'s presidency, President Joe Biden\'s administration resumed it in 2021.[408]\nJackson was historically rated highly as a president, but his reputation began to decline in the 1960s.[409][410] His contradictory legacy is shown in scholarly rankings. A 2014 survey of political scientists rated Jackson as the ninth-highest rated president but the third-most polarizing. He was also ranked the third-most overrated president.[411] In a C-SPAN poll of historians, Jackson was ranked the 13th in 2009, 18th in 2017, and 22nd in 2021.[412]\nWritings\n- Feller, Daniel; Coens, Thomas; Moss, Laura-Eve; Moser, Harold D.; Alexander, Erik B.; Smith, Sam B.; Owsley, Harriet C.; Hoth, David R; Hoemann, George H.; McPherson, Sharon; Clift, J. Clint; Wells, Wyatt C., eds. (1980–2019). The Papers of Andrew Jackson. University of Tennessee. (11 volumes to date; 17 volumes projected). Ongoing project to print all of Jackson\'s papers.\n- Bassett, John S., ed. (1926–1935). Correspondence of Andrew Jackson. Carnegie Institution. (7 volumes; 2 available online).\n- Richardson, James D., ed. (1897). "Andrew Jackson". Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents. Vol. III. Bureau of National Literature and Art. pp. 996–1359. Reprints Jackson\'s major messages and reports.\nSee also\n- List of presidents of the United States\n- List of presidents of the United States by previous experience\n- List of presidents of the United States who owned slaves\nNotes\n- ^ Vice President Calhoun resigned from office. As this was prior to the adoption of the Twenty-fifth Amendment in 1967, a vacancy in the office of vice president was not filled until the next ensuing election and inauguration.\nReferences\n- ^ Brands 2005, pp. 11–15.\n- ^ Gullan 2004, pp. xii, 308.\n- ^ a b Remini 1977, p. 2.\n- ^ a b Nowlan 2012, p. 257.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, p. 11.\n- ^ a b c Brands 2005, p. 16.\n- ^ Remini 1977, pp. 4–5.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 16.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 6.\n- ^ Booraem 2001, p. 47.\n- ^ Remini 1977, pp. 15.\n- ^ Brands 2005, p. 24.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 17.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, p. 12; Remini 1977, p. 21.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 15.\n- ^ Booraem 2001, p. 104.\n- ^ Remini 1977, pp. 23–24.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 17.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 24.\n- ^ Brands 2005, pp. 30–31.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 9.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 27.\n- ^ Booraem 2001, pp. 133, 136.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 29.\n- ^ Brands 2005, p. 37.\n- ^ Case, Steven (2009). "Andrew Jackson". State Library of North Carolina. Archived from the original on June 18, 2017. Retrieved July 20, 2017.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 34.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 37.\n- ^ Booraem 2001, pp. 190–191.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 18.\n- ^ a b Wilentz 2005, p. 19.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 53.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 87.\n- ^ Clifton 1952, p. 24.\n- ^ Durham 1990, pp. 218–219.\n- ^ Cheathem 2011, p. 327.\n- ^ Remini 1991, p. 35.\n- ^ Owsley 1977, pp. 481–482.\n- ^ Brands 2005, p. 63.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, pp. 22–23.\n- ^ Howe 2007, p. 277; Remini 1977, p. 62.\n- ^ Brands 2005, p. 65.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 68.\n- ^ Brands 2005, p. 73.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, pp. 18–19.\n- ^ Remini 1977, pp. 92–94.\n- ^ Brands 2005, pp. 79–81.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 112.\n- ^ Ely 1981, pp. 144–145.\n- ^ Brands 2005, pp. 104–105.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, p. 25.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 123.\n- ^ a b Wilentz 2005, p. 21.\n- ^ Howe 2007, p. 375; Sellers 1954, pp. 76–77.\n- ^ a b Remini 1977, pp. 131–132.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 379.\n- ^ "Andrew Jackson\'s Enslaved Laborers". The Hermitage. Archived from the original on September 12, 2014. Retrieved April 13, 2017.\n- ^ "Enslaved Families: Understanding the Enslaved Families at the Hermitage". thehermitage.com. Archived from the original on June 18, 2022. Retrieved August 23, 2022.\n- ^ Warshauer 2006, p. 224.\n- ^ Cheathem 2011, p. 328–329.\n- ^ a b Feller, Daniel; Mullin, Marsha (August 1, 2019). "The Enslaved Household of President Andrew Jackson". White House Historical Association.\n- ^ Brown, DeNeen L. (May 1, 2017). "Hunting down runaway slaves: The cruel ads of Andrew Jackson and \'the master class\'". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 11, 2017.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, p. 35.\n- ^ Moser & Macpherson 1984, pp. 78–79.\n- ^ Brands 2005, p. 138.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 143.\n- ^ a b c Meacham 2008, p. 27.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 149.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 148.\n- ^ Brands 2005, p. 120.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 151.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 153.\n- ^ Brands 2005, p. 127–128.\n- ^ Hickey 1989, p. 46.\n- ^ Hickey 1989, p. 72.\n- ^ Brands 2005, p. 175.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 166.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 173.\n- ^ Brands 2005, p. 179.\n- ^ "General orders .... Andrew Jackson. Major-General 2d Division, Tennessee. November 24, 1812". Jackson Papers, LOC. Retrieved June 27, 2017.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, pp. 23–25.\n- ^ Jackson, Andrew (January 10, 1813). "Journal of trip down the Mississippi River, January 1813 to March 1813". Jackson Papers, LOC. Retrieved July 3, 2017.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, pp. 22–23.\n- ^ Brands 2005, p. 184.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, p. 23.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 23.\n- ^ Owsley 1981, pp. 61–62.\n- ^ Davis 2002, pp. 631–632; Owsley 1981, pp. 38–39.\n- ^ Owsley 1981, p. 40.\n- ^ Remini 1977, pp. 192–193.\n- ^ Brands 2005, p. 197.\n- ^ Owsley 1981, pp. 63–64.\n- ^ Remini 1977, pp. 196–197.\n- ^ Owsley 1981, pp. 72–73.\n- ^ Kanon 1999, p. 4.\n- ^ Owsley 1981, pp. 75–76.\n- ^ Owsley 1981, p. 79.\n- ^ a b Kanon 1999, p. 4–10.\n- ^ a b Owsley 1981, p. 81.\n- ^ Brands 2005, p. 220.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, pp. 27.\n- ^ Owsley 1981, p. 87.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 222.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 26.\n- ^ Remini 1977, pp. 236–237.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 238.\n- ^ Owsley 1981, pp. 116–117.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 28.\n- ^ Owsley 1981, p. 118.\n- ^ Remini 1977, pp. 244–245.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 247.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 29.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 254.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 274.\n- ^ Owsley 1981, p. 138.\n- ^ Owsley 1981, pp. 134, 136.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, pp. 29–30.\n- ^ Remini 1977, pp. 268–269.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, pp. 31–32.\n- ^ "Battle of New Orleans Facts & Summary". American Battlefield Trust. Archived from the original on July 8, 2018.\n- ^ Owsley 1981, p. 169.\n- ^ Tregle 1981, p. 337.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 309.\n- ^ Tregle 1981, pp. 377–378.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 312.\n- ^ Tregle 1981, p. 378–379.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, pp. 29–33.\n- ^ "Andrew Jackson". Biographical Directory of the U.S. Congress. Archived from the original on December 18, 2013. Retrieved April 13, 2017.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, p. 32.\n- ^ Owsley 1981, pp. 178–179.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 321.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 322, 325–326.\n- ^ Clark & Guice 1996, pp. 233–243.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 36.\n- ^ a b Wright 1968, p. 569.\n- ^ Porter 1951, pp. 261–262.\n- ^ Missall & Missall 2004, p. 26.\n- ^ Missall & Missall 2004, pp. 28–30.\n- ^ Missall & Missall 2004, pp. 32–33.\n- ^ Mahon 1998, p. 64.\n- ^ Ogg 1919, p. 66.\n- ^ Mahon 1998, pp. 65–67.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, pp. 38–39.\n- ^ Heidler 1993, p. 518.\n- ^ Mahon 1962, pp. 350–354.\n- ^ "Andrew Jackson (1767–1845)" (PDF). U.S. Government Publication Office. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 13, 2019.\n- ^ a b Wilentz 2005, p. 40.\n- ^ Brands 2005, pp. 356–357.\n- ^ Remini 1981, p. 2.\n- ^ Burstein 2003, p. 39.\n- ^ Semmer, Blythe. "Jackson Purchase, Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture". Tennessee Historical Society. Archived from the original on August 7, 2016. Retrieved April 12, 2017.\n- ^ Remini 1981, pp. 48–49.\n- ^ Schlesinger 1945, pp. 36–38.\n- ^ Howe 2007, pp. 489–492.\n- ^ Phillips 1976, p. 501.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, pp. 41–42, 45–46.\n- ^ Remini 1981, pp. 51–52.\n- ^ Brands 2005, pp. 376–377.\n- ^ Remini 1981, p. 67.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, p. 38.\n- ^ Remini 1981, pp. 75–77.\n- ^ Morgan 1969, p. 195.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 45.\n- ^ Phillips 1976, p. 490.\n- ^ Niven 1988, p. 101.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 46.\n- ^ Remini 1981, pp. 81–83.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 47.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, pp. 45–48.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 49.\n- ^ Unger 2012, pp. 245–248.\n- ^ Remini 1981, p. 110.\n- ^ a b Unger 2012, p. 246.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, pp. 50–51.\n- ^ Niven 1988, p. 126.\n- ^ Koenig 1964, pp. 197–198.\n- ^ Koenig 1964, p. 197.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 134.\n- ^ Marszalek 1997, p. 16.\n- ^ Cheathem 2014, §3.\n- ^ Boller 2004, p. 45–46.\n- ^ Howell 2010, pp. 294–295.\n- ^ Binns 1828.\n- ^ Taliaferro 1828.\n- ^ "The Tsunami of Slime Circa 1828". New York News & Politics. June 15, 2012. Archived from the original on March 23, 2016. Retrieved June 1, 2017.\n- ^ Howell 2010, pp. 295–297.\n- ^ Howe 2007, pp. 277–278.\n- ^ a b Unger 2012, p. 256.\n- ^ Brands 2005, pp. 404–405.\n- ^ Boller 2004, p. 46.\n- ^ Remini 1981, p. 150.\n- ^ a b Latner 2002, p. 105.\n- ^ Unger 2012, p. 256–257.\n- ^ "Inaugurals of Presidents of the United States: Some Precedents and Notable Events". Library of Congress. Archived from the original on July 1, 2016. Retrieved April 18, 2017.\n- ^ Jackson 1829.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 55.\n- ^ Gilman 1995, p. 64–65.\n- ^ Remini 1981, pp. 186–187.\n- ^ Ellis 1974, p. 56.\n- ^ a b Howe 2007, pp. 332–333.\n- ^ Sabato & O\'Connor 2002, p. 278.\n- ^ a b Friedrich 1937, p. 14.\n- ^ Ellis 1974, p. 51.\n- ^ Ellis 1974, p. 61.\n- ^ Wood 1997, p. 238.\n- ^ Marszalek 1997, p. vii.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, pp. 66–67.\n- ^ Howe 2007, pp. 336.\n- ^ Marszalek 1997, pp. 53–55.\n- ^ Wood 1997, pp. 239–241.\n- ^ a b c Latner 2002, p. 108.\n- ^ Remini 1984, pp. 240–243.\n- ^ Cole 1997, p. 24.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, p. 165.\n- ^ Latner 1978, pp. 380–385.\n- ^ Clark & Guice 1996, pp. 233–243; Mahon 1962, pp. 350–354.\n- ^ Parsons 1973, pp. 353–358.\n- ^ Wallace 1993, pp. 58–62.\n- ^ McLoughlin 1986, pp. 611–612.\n- ^ Satz 1974, p. 12.\n- ^ Cave 2003, p. 1332.\n- ^ Rogin 1975, pp. 212–213.\n- ^ Remini 1981, p. 276.\n- ^ Greeley 1864, p. 106.\n- ^ Berutti 1992, pp. 305–306.\n- ^ Miles 1992, pp. 527–528.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 141.\n- ^ Parsons 1973, p. 360.\n- ^ Latner 2002, p. 109.\n- ^ Wallace 1993, p. 66.\n- ^ Davis 2010, pp. 54–55.\n- ^ a b Cave 2003, p. 1337.\n- ^ a b Latner 2002, p. 110.\n- ^ Remini 1981, p. 273.\n- ^ Remini 1981, p. 271.\n- ^ Howe 2007, p. 353.\n- ^ Missall & Missall 2004, pp. 83–85.\n- ^ Haveman 2009, pp. 1–5, 129.\n- ^ Howe 2007, p. 415.\n- ^ Brands 2005, p. 536.\n- ^ Howe 2007, p. 418–419.\n- ^ Rogin 1975, p. 206.\n- ^ Ostler 2019, pp. 256, 263, 273–274, 280.\n- ^ Whapples 2014, pp. 546–548.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, pp. 63–64.\n- ^ Freehling 1966, p. 6.\n- ^ Brogdon 2011, pp. 245–273.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 64.\n- ^ Ellis 1989, p. 7–8.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, pp. 64–65.\n- ^ Temin 1969, p. 29.\n- ^ Lane 2014, pp. 121–122.\n- ^ Brands 2005, pp. 445–446.\n- ^ Remini 1981, pp. 358–360.\n- ^ Bergeron 1976, p. 263.\n- ^ Freehling 1966, pp. 1–2.\n- ^ Ordinance of Nullification 1832.\n- ^ Howe 2007, pp. 404–406.\n- ^ Remini 1984, p. 22.\n- ^ Jackson 1832.\n- ^ Feerick 1965, pp. 85–86.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, pp. 239–240.\n- ^ Ericson 1995, p. 253, fn14.\n- ^ Remini 1984, p. 42.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, p. 247.\n- ^ a b Wilentz 2005, p. 74.\n- ^ Latner 2002, pp. 111.\n- ^ Campbell 2016, pp. 273, 277.\n- ^ Howe 2007, pp. 375–376.\n- ^ Hammond 1957, p. 374.\n- ^ Meyers 1960, p. 20–24.\n- ^ Sellers 1954, p. 61–84.\n- ^ Perkins 1987, pp. 532–533.\n- ^ Campbell 2016, pp. 274–278.\n- ^ Perkins 1987, pp. 534–535.\n- ^ Campbell 2016, pp. 285.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, pp. 285.\n- ^ Baptist 2016, p. 260.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, p. 218.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, p. 420.\n- ^ Latner 2002, pp. 112–113.\n- ^ Gammon 1922, pp. 55–56.\n- ^ Jackson 1966, pp. 261–268.\n- ^ a b c Latner 2002, p. 113.\n- ^ Van Deusen 1963, p. 54.\n- ^ Ericson 1995, p. 259.\n- ^ Ratcliffe 2000, p. 10–14.\n- ^ Ellis 1974, p. 63.\n- ^ Knodell 2006, p. 542.\n- ^ a b Schmidt 1955, p. 328.\n- ^ Gatell 1967, p. 26.\n- ^ Schlesinger 1945, p. 103.\n- ^ Howe 2007, pp. 391–392.\n- ^ Ellis 1974, p. 62.\n- ^ Ellis 1974, p. 54.\n- ^ Knodell 2006, p. 566.\n- ^ Gatell 1964, pp. 35–37.\n- ^ Knodell 2006, pp. 562–563.\n- ^ Howe 2007, p. 393.\n- ^ Smith, Robert (April 15, 2011). "When the U.S. paid off the entire national debt (and why it didn\'t last)". Planet Money. NPR. Retrieved January 15, 2014.\n- ^ "Our History". Bureau of the Public Debt. November 18, 2013. Archived from the original on March 6, 2016. Retrieved February 21, 2016.\n- ^ Howe 2007, pp. 358–360.\n- ^ Howe 2007, p. 395.\n- ^ Rousseau 2002, pp. 460–461.\n- ^ Timberlake 1965, p. 412.\n- ^ Schmidt 1955, p. 325.\n- ^ Remini 1984, p. 377.\n- ^ US Senate 1837.\n- ^ a b Olson 2002, p. 190.\n- ^ Rousseau 2002, pp. 459–460.\n- ^ Parins & Littlefield 2011, p. xiv.\n- ^ McGrane 1965, pp. 60–62.\n- ^ Rousseau 2002, p. 48.\n- ^ Nester 2013, p. 2.\n- ^ Remini 1984, p. 60–61.\n- ^ Jackson 1967.\n- ^ Grinspan, Jon. "Trying to Assassinate Andrew Jackson". American Heritage Project. Archived from the original on October 24, 2008. Retrieved November 11, 2008.\n- ^ McFaul 1975, p. 25.\n- ^ Aptheker 1943, p. 300.\n- ^ Breen 2015, p. 105–106.\n- ^ a b Latner 2002, p. 117.\n- ^ Henig 1969, p. 43.\n- ^ Henig 1969, p. 43–44.\n- ^ Remini 1984, p. 260.\n- ^ Brands 2005, p. 554.\n- ^ Remini 1984, pp. 258–260.\n- ^ Remini 1984, p. 261.\n- ^ "$20 Note: Issued 1914–1990" (PDF). U.S. Currency Education Program. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 4, 2020.\n- ^ a b c Latner 2002, p. 120.\n- ^ a b Thomas 1976, p. 51.\n- ^ Howe 2007, p. 263.\n- ^ Thomas 1976, p. 63.\n- ^ Remini 1984, p. 288.\n- ^ Howe 2007, pp. 658–659.\n- ^ Stenberg 1934, p. 229.\n- ^ Howe 2007, pp. 659–669.\n- ^ Howe 2007, pp. 670–671.\n- ^ Jacobson, John Gregory (2004). Jackson\'s judges: Six appointments who shaped a nation (PhD dissertation). University of Nebraska–Lincoln. ISBN 978-0-496-13089-4. ProQuest 305160669. Archived from the original on March 30, 2016. Retrieved July 18, 2017.\n- ^ Remini 1984, p. 266.\n- ^ Remini 1984, pp. 266–268.\n- ^ Schwartz 1993, pp. 73–74.\n- ^ Brown, DeNeen L. (August 18, 2017). "Removing a slavery defender\'s statue: Roger B. Taney wrote one of Supreme Court\'s worst rulings". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 10, 2018. Retrieved December 29, 2017.\n- ^ Nettels 1925, pp. 225–226.\n- ^ Hall 1992, p. 475.\n- ^ Remini 1984, pp. 375–376.\n- ^ Latner 2002, p. 121.\n- ^ Lansford & Woods 2008, p. 1046.\n- ^ Remini 1984, pp. 462–470.\n- ^ Brands 2005, p. 475.\n- ^ Remini 1984, p. 470.\n- ^ Remini 1984, pp. 475–476.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, pp. 161–163.\n- ^ Remini 1984, p. 492.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, pp. 162–163.\n- ^ Marx, Rudolph. "The Health Of The President: Andrew Jackson". healthguidance.org. Archived from the original on December 22, 2017. Retrieved December 18, 2017.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, p. 345.\n- ^ Remini 1984, p. 526.\n- ^ Remini 1977, pp. 160–161.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 194.\n- ^ Moser & Macpherson 1984, p. 444, fn 5.\n- ^ Moser et al. 1991, p. 60, fn 3.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, pp. 109, 315.\n- ^ Somit 1948, p. 295.\n- ^ Brands 2005, p. 297.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, p. 37; Remini 1977, p. 7; Wilentz 2005, p. 3.\n- ^ Somit 1948, p. 302.\n- ^ Somit 1948, p. 297–300.\n- ^ Borneman 2008, p. 36.\n- ^ Somit 1948, p. 306.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, p. 19.\n- ^ Somit 1948, pp. 299–300.\n- ^ Remini 1977, pp. 178–179.\n- ^ Somit 1948, p. 312.\n- ^ Brown 2022, p. 191.\n- ^ Somit 1948, p. 304.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 160.\n- ^ Remini 1984, p. 444.\n- ^ Adams 2013, pp. 1–2.\n- ^ Feller, Daniel (February 24, 2012). "Andrew Jackson\'s Shifting Legacy". The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. Archived from the original on November 3, 2014.\n- ^ Sellers 1958, p. 615.\n- ^ Tocqueville 1840, pp. 392–394.\n- ^ Turner 1920, p. 252–254.\n- ^ Cheathem 2014a, Introduction, §9.\n- ^ Watson 2017, p. 218.\n- ^ Remini 1990, p. 6.\n- ^ Brogdon 2011, p. 273.\n- ^ Nester 2013, p. 2–3.\n- ^ Adams 2013, p. 8; Ward 1962, p. 82.\n- ^ Ward 1962, pp. 82–83.\n- ^ Murphy 2013, p. 261.\n- ^ Fish 1927, p. 337-338.\n- ^ Adams 2013, pp. 3–4.\n- ^ Cheathem 2013, p. 5; Cole 1986, p. 151.\n- ^ Anderson 2016, p. 416; Carson 2008, pp. 9–10; Garrison 2002, pp. 2–3; Howe 2007, p. 423; Kakel 2011, p. 158; Lynn 2019, p. 78.\n- ^ "Ethnic Cleansing". United Nations: Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect. Archived from the original on February 28, 2019.\n- ^ Perdue 2012, p. 6; Remini 1990, pp. 56–59.\n- ^ Cave 2003, p. 1337; Howe 2007, p. 348.\n- ^ Missall & Missall 2004, p. xv–xvii.\n- ^ Cave 2017, p. 192; Gilo-Whitaker 2019, pp. 35–36; Kalaitzidis & Streich 2011, p. 33.\n- ^ Ostler 2019, pp. 365-366; Perdue 2012, p. 3.\n- ^ Willentz, Sean (February 24, 2012). "Abraham Lincoln and Jacksonian Democracy". The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. Archived from the original on May 11, 2015.\n- ^ Brands 2008, p. 449–450.\n- ^ "Franklin Roosevelt: Jackson Day Dinner Address, Washington D.C., January 8 1936". The American Presidency Project. Archived from the original on June 29, 2019.\n- ^ "Progressive Party Platform of 1948 | The American Presidency Project". www.presidency.ucsb.edu.\n- ^ Brown 2022, p. 367.\n- ^ "Remarks by the President on the 250th anniversary of the Birth of Andrew Jackson". whitehouse.gov. March 15, 2017. Archived from the original on December 19, 2017.\n- ^ Thompson & Barchiesi 2018, p. 1.\n- ^ Crutsinger, Martin (January 25, 2021). "Effort to put Tubman on $20 bill restarted under Biden". AP News. Archived from the original on January 25, 2021.\n- ^ Brands, H. W. (2017). "Andrew Jackson at 250: President\'s Legacy isn\'t Pretty, but Neither is History". The Tennessean. Retrieved December 7, 2023.\n- ^ Feller, Daniel (February 24, 2012). "Andrew Jackson\'s Shifting Legacy". The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. Retrieved August 6, 2022.\n- ^ Rottinghaus & Vaughn 2017.\n- ^ "Total Scores/Overall Rankings | C-SPAN Survey on Presidents 2021 | C-SPAN.org". www.c-span.org. Retrieved July 1, 2021.\nBibliography\nBiographies\n- Brands, H. W. (2005). Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times. New York, NY: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. ISBN 978-1-4000-3072-9. OCLC 1285478081.\n- Brown, David S. (2022). The First Populist: The Defiant Life of Andrew Jackson. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-1-9821-9109-2. OCLC 1303813425.\n- Latner, Richard B. (2002). "Andrew Jackson". In Graff, Henry (ed.). The Presidents: A Reference History (3 ed.). New York, NY: Charles Scribner\'s Sons. pp. 106–127. ISBN 978-0-684-31226-2. OCLC 49029341.\n- Meacham, Jon (2008). American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House. New York, NY: Random House Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-8129-7346-4. OCLC 1145796050.\n- Remini, Robert V. (1977). Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Empire, 1767–1821. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. ISBN 978-0-8018-5912-0. OCLC 1145801830.\n- Remini, Robert V. (1981). Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Freedom, 1822–1832. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. ISBN 978-0-8018-5913-7. OCLC 1145807972.\n- Remini, Robert V. (1984). Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Democracy, 1833–1845. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. ISBN 978-0-8018-5913-7. OCLC 1285459723.\n- Wilentz, Sean (2005). Andrew Jackson. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company. ISBN 978-0-8050-6925-9. OCLC 863515036.\nBooks\n- Adams, Sean P. (2013). "Introduction: The President and his Era". In Adams, Sean P. (ed.). A Companion to the Era of Andrew Jackson. Wiley. pp. 1–11. ISBN 9781444335415. OCLC 1152040405.\n- Aptheker, Herbert (1974) [1943]. "The Turner Cataclysm and Some Repercussions". American Negro Slave Revolts. International Publishers. pp. 293–394. ISBN 9780717800032. OCLC 1028031914.\n- Baptist, Edward E. (2016). The Half has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism. New York, NY: Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-00296-2. OCLC 1302085747.\n- Booraem, Hendrik (2001). Young Hickory: The Making of Andrew Jackson. Lanham, MD: Taylor Trade Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8783-3263-2.\n- Boller, Paul F. Jr. (2004). Presidential Campaigns: From George Washington to George W. Bush. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19516-716-0. OCLC 1285570008.\n- Borneman, Walter R. (2008). Polk: The Man Who Transformed the Presidency and America. New York, NY: Random House. ISBN 978-1-4000-6560-8. OCLC 1150943134.\n- Brands, Henry W. (2008). Traitor to his Class: The Privileged Life and radical Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Doubleday. ISBN 9780385519588. OCLC 759509803.\n- Breen, Patrick H. (2015). The Land Shall be Deluged in Blood : A New History of the Nat Turner Revolt. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199828005. OCLC 929856251.\n- Burstein, Andrew (2003). The Passions of Andrew Jackson. Knopf. ISBN 0375714049. OCLC 1225864865.\n- Cave, Alfred A. (2017). Sharp Knife: Andrew Jackson and the American Indians. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9781440860409. OCLC 987437631.\n- Cheathem, Mark R. (2013). ""The Shape of Democracy": Historical Interpretations of Jacksonian Democracy". In McKnight, Brian D.; Humphreys, James S. (eds.). Interpreting American History: The Age of Andrew Jackson. Kent State University Press. pp. 1–21. ISBN 9781606350980. OCLC 700709151.\n- Cheathem, Mark R. (2014a). Andrew Jackson: Southerner (Ebook). LSU Press. ISBN 9780807151006. OCLC 858995561.\n- Clark, Thomas D.; Guice, John D. W. (1996). The Old Southwest, 1765–1830: Frontiers in conflict. University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 9780806128368. OCLC 1285743152.\n- Durham, Walter T. (1990). Before Tennessee: the Southwest Territory, 1790–1796: a narrative history of the Territory of the United States South of the River Ohio. Piney Flats, TN: Rocky Mount Historical Association. ISBN 978-0-9678-3071-1.\n- Ellis, Richard E. (1974). "Andrew Jackson:1829-1837". In Woodward, C. Vann (ed.). Responses of the Presidents to Charges of Misconduct. Dell. pp. 51–656. OCLC 1036817744.\n- Ellis, Richard E. (1989). The Union at Risk: Jacksonian Democracy, States\' Rights, and the Nullification Crisis. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195345155. OCLC 655900280.\n- Feerick, John D. (1965). From Failing Hands: the Story of Presidential Succession. New York City: Fordham University Press.\n- Fish, Carl R. (1927). The Rise of the Common Man 1830–1850. MacMillian. OCLC 1151151619.\n- Freehling, William (1966). Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, 1816–1836. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195076813. OCLC 1151067281.\n- Garrison, Tim Allen (2002). The Legal Ideology of Removal: The Southern Judiciary and the Sovereignty of Native American Nations. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. ISBN 978-0-8203-3417-2. OCLC 53956489.\n- Gatell, Frank Otto (1967). The Jacksonians and the Money Power. Chicago, Rand McNally. OCLC 651767466.\n- Gilo-Whitaker, Dina (2019). As Long as Grass Grows: The Indigenous Fight for Environmental Justice, from Colonization to Standing Rock. Beacon Press. ISBN 9780807073780. OCLC 1044542033.\n- Greeley, Horace (1864). The American Conflict: A History of the Great Rebellion in the United States of America, 1860-64. Its Causes, Incidents and Results. O. D. Case and Company.\n- Gullan, Harold I. (2004). "Dramatic Departure: Andrew Jackson Sr., Abraham Van Buren". First fathers: the men who inspired our Presidents. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-471-46597-3. OCLC 53090968.\n- Hammond, Bray (1957). Banks and Politics in America from the Revolution to the Civil War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. OCLC 1147712456.\n- Hickey, Donald R. (1989). The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 0252060598. OCLC 1036973138.\n- Howe, Daniel Walker (2007). What Hath God Wrought: the Transformation of America, 1815–1848. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-974379-7. OCLC 646814186.\n- Kakel, Carroll (2011). The American West and the Nazi East: A Comparative and Interpretive Perspective. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9780230307063. OCLC 743799760.\n- Kalaitzidis, Akis; Streich, Gregory W. (2011). U.S. Foreign Policy: A Documentary and Reference Guide. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-0-313-38375-5. OCLC 759101504.\n- Lane, Carl (2014). A Nation Wholly Free: The Elimination of the National Debt in the Age of Jackson. Westholme. ISBN 9781594162091. OCLC 1150853554.\n- Lansford, Tom; Woods, Thomas E., eds. (2008). Exploring American History: From Colonial Times to 1877. Vol. 10. New York: Marshall Cavendish. ISBN 978-0-7614-7758-7.\n- Lynn, John A. (2019). Another Kind of War: The Nature and History of Terrorism. Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300189988. OCLC 1107042059.\n- Mahon, John K. (1962). "The Treaty of Moultrie Creek, 1823". The Florida Historical Quarterly. 40 (4): 350–372. JSTOR 30139875.\n- Marszalek, John F. (1997). The Petticoat Affair: Manners, Mutiny, and Sex in Andrew Jackson\'s White House. Free Press. ISBN 0684828014. OCLC 36767691.\n- McGrane, Reginald C. (1965). The Panic of 1837. University of Chicago Press. OCLC 1150938709.\n- Meyers, Marvin (1960). The Jacksonian Persuasion: Politics & Belief. Vintage Books. OCLC 1035884705.\n- Missall, John; Missall, Mary Lou (2004). The Seminole Wars: America\'s Longest Indian Conflict. University Press of Florida. ISBN 0813027152. OCLC 1256504949.\n- Moser, Harold D.; Macpherson, Sharon, eds. (1984). The Papers of Andrew Jackson, Volume II, 1804–1813. University of Tennessee Press. Retrieved May 25, 2022.\n- Moser, Harold D.; Hoth, David R.; Macpherson, Sharon; Reinbold, John H., eds. (1991). The Papers of Andrew Jackson, Volume III, 1814–1815. University of Tennessee Press. p. 35. Retrieved May 25, 2022.\nI have not heard whether Genl Coffee has taken on to him little Lyncoya-I have got another Pett-given to me by the chief Jame Fife, ... [The Indian children were probably Theodore and Charley.]\n* - Murphy, Sharon A. (2013). "The Myth and Reality of andrew Jackson\'s Rise in the Election of 1824". In Adams, Sean P. (ed.). A Companion to the Era of Andrew Jackson. Wiley. pp. 260–279. ISBN 9781444335415. OCLC 1152040405.\n- Nester, William R. (2013). The Age of Jackson and the Art of Power. Potomac Books. ISBN 9781612346052. OCLC 857769985.\n- Niven, John (1988). John C. Calhoun and the Price of Union: A Biography. Baton Rouge, LA: LSU Press. ISBN 978-0-8071-1858-0. OCLC 1035889000.\n- Nowlan, Robert A. (2012). The American Presidents, Washington to Tyler. Jefferson, NC: McFarland Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7864-6336-7. OCLC 692291434.\n- Ogg, Frederic Austin (1919). The Reign of Andrew Jackson; Vol. 20, Chronicles of America Series. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. OCLC 928924919.\n- Olson, James Stuart (2002). Robert L. Shadle (ed.). Encyclopedia of the Industrial Revolution in America. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0-313-30830-7. OCLC 1033573148.\n- Owsley, Frank Lawrence Jr. (1981). Struggle for the Gulf Borderlands: The Creek War and the Battle of New Orleans, 1812-1815. University Presses of Florida. ISBN 0813006627. OCLC 1151350587.\n- Ostler, Jeffrey (2019). Surviving Genocide. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-24526-4. OCLC 1099434736.\n- Parins, James W.; Littlefield, Daniel F. (2011). "Introduction". In Parins, James W.; Littlefield, Daniel F. (eds.). Encyclopedia of American Indian Removal [2 Volumes]. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9780313360428. OCLC 720586004.\n- Remini, Robert V. (1990). The Legacy of Andrew Jackson: Essays on Democracy, Indian Removal, and Slavery. Louisiana State University Press. ISBN 9780807116425. OCLC 1200479832.\n- Rogin, Michael P. (1975). Fathers and Children: Andrew Jackson and the Subjugation of the American Indian. Knopf. ISBN 0394482042. OCLC 1034678255.\n- Sabato, Larry; O\'Connor, Karen (2002). American Government: Continuity and Change. New York: Pearson Longman. ISBN 978-0-321-31711-7. OCLC 1028046888.\n- Satz, Ronald N. (1974). American Indian Policy in the Jacksonian Era. University of Nebraska. ISBN 9780803208230.\n- Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr. (1945). The Age of Jackson. Little, Brown and Company. ISBN 9780316773430. OCLC 1024176654.\n- Schwartz, Bernard (1993). A History of the Supreme Court. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-509387-2. OCLC 1035668728.\n- Temin, Peter (1969). Jacksonian Economy. Norton. OCLC 1150111725.\n- Turner, Frederick Jackson (1920). The Frontier in American History. Henry Holt. OCLC 1045610195.\n- Unger, Harlow G. (2012). John Quincy Adams. De Capo. ISBN 9780306822650. OCLC 1035758771.\n- Van Deusen, Glyndon G. (1963). The Jacksonian Era, 1828-1848. Harper & Row. ISBN 9780061330285. OCLC 1176180758.\n- Wallace, Anthony F. C. (1993). The Long, Bitter Trail: Andrew Jackson and the Indians. Hill and Wang. ISBN 9780809066315. OCLC 1150209732.\n- Ward, John. W. (1962). "The Age of the Common Man". In Higham, John (ed.). The Reconstruction of American History. Hutchison. pp. 82–97. OCLC 1151080132.\nJournal articles and dissertations\n- Anderson, Gary Clayton (2016). "The Native Peoples of the American West: Genocide or Ethnic Cleansing?". Western Historical Quarterly. 47 (4). Oxford University Press: 416. doi:10.1093/whq/whw126. ISSN 0043-3810. JSTOR 26782720.\n- Bergeron, Paul H. (1976). "The nullification controversy revisited". Tennessee Historical Quarterly. 35 (3): 263–275. JSTOR 42623589.\n- Berutti, Ronald A. (1992). "The Cherokee Cases: The Fight to Save the Supreme Court and the Cherokee Indians". American Indian Law Review. 17 (1): 291–308. doi:10.2307/20068726. ISSN 0094-002X. JSTOR 20068726.\n- Brogdon, Matthew S. (2011). "Defending the Union: Andrew Jackson\'s Nullifaction Proclamation and American federalism". Review of Politics. 73 (2): 245–273. doi:10.1017/S0034670511000064. JSTOR 42623589. S2CID 145679939.\n- Campbell, Stephen W. (2016). "Funding the Bank War: Nicholas Biddle and the public relations campaign to recharter the second bank of the U.S., 1828–1832". American Nineteenth Century History. 17 (3): 279–299. doi:10.1080/14664658.2016.1230930. S2CID 152280055.\n- Cave, Alfred A. (2003). "Abuse of Power: Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act of 1830". The Historian. 65 (6): 1330–1353. doi:10.2307/2205966. JSTOR 2205966.\n- Cheathem, Mark R. (2011). "Andrew Jackson, Slavery, and Historians" (PDF). History Compass. 9 (4): 326–338. doi:10.1111/j.1478-0542.2011.00763.x. ISSN 1478-0542. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 12, 2022.\n- Cheathem, Mark (2014). "Frontiersman or Southern Gentleman? Newspaper Coverage of Andrew Jackson during the 1828 Presidential Campaign". The Readex Report. 9 (3). Archived from the original on January 12, 2015.\n- Carson, James T. (2008). ""The obituary of nations": Ethnic cleansing, memory, and the origins of the Old South". Southern Culture. 14 (4): 6–31. doi:10.1353/scu.0.0026. JSTOR 26391777. S2CID 144154298.\n- Clifton, Frances (1952). "John Overton as Andrew Jackson\'s friend". Tennessee Historical Quarterly. 11 (1): 23–40. JSTOR 42621095.\n- Cole, Donald B. (1986). "Review: The Age of Jackson: After Forty Years". Reviews in American History. 14 (1): 149–159. doi:10.2307/2702131. JSTOR 2702131.\n- Cole, Donald P. (1997). "A yankee in Kentucky: The early years of Amos Kendall, 1789–1828". Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society. Third Series. 109 (1): 24–36. JSTOR 25081127.\n- Davis, Ethan (2010). "An administrative Trail of Tears: Indian removal". The American Journal of Legal History. 50 (1): 1330–1353. doi:10.2307/2205966. JSTOR 2205966.\n- Davis, Karl (2002). ""Remember Fort Mims": Reinterpreting the origins of the Creek War". Journal of the Early Republic. 22 (4): 611–636. doi:10.2307/3124760. JSTOR 3124760.\n- Ely, James W Jr. (1981). "Andrew Jackson as Tennessee state court judge, 1798–1804". Tennessee Historical Quarterly. 40 (2): 144–157. JSTOR 42626180.\n- Ericson, David F. (1995). "The nullification crisis, American republicanism, and the Force Bill debate". Journal of Southern History. 81 (2): 249–270. doi:10.2307/2211577. JSTOR 2211577.\n- Friedrich, Carl Joachim (1937). "The rise and decline of the spoils tradition". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 189: 10–16. doi:10.1177/000271623718900103. JSTOR 1019439. S2CID 144735397.\n- Gammon, Samuel G. (1922). The Presidential Campaign of 1832 (Thesis). Johns Hopkins University. OCLC 1050835838.\n- Gatell, Frank O. (1964). "Spoils of the Bank War: Political Bias in the Selection of Pet Banks". The American Historical Review. 70 (1): 35–58. doi:10.2307/1842097. JSTOR 1842097.\n- Gilman, Stuart C. (1995). "Presidential Ethics and the Ethics of the Presidency". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 537: 58–75. doi:10.1177/0002716295537000006. JSTOR 1047754. S2CID 143876977.\n- Hall, Kermit (1992). "Judiciary Act of 1837". The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Oxford University Press. p. 475. ISBN 0195058356. OCLC 1036760206.\n- Haveman, Christopher D. (2009). The Removal of the Creek Indians from the Southeast, 1825–1838 (PDF) (PhD). Auburn University. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 26, 2022.\n- Heidler, David S. (1993). "The politics of national aggression: Congress and the First Seminole War". Journal of the Early Republic. 13 (4): 501–530. doi:10.2307/3124558. JSTOR 3124558.\n- Henig, Gerald S. (1969). "The Jacksonian attitude toward Abolitionism". Tennessee Historical Quarterly. 28 (1): 42–56. JSTOR 1901307.\n- Howell, William Huntting (2010). ""Read, Pause, and Reflect!!"". Journal of the Early Republic. 30 (2): 293–300. doi:10.1353/jer.0.0149. JSTOR 40662272. S2CID 144448483.\n- Jackson, Carlton (1966). "The internal improvement vetoes of Andrew Jackson". Tennessee Historical Quarterly. 25 (3): 531–550. doi:10.2307/3115344. JSTOR 3115344. S2CID 55379727.\n- Jackson, Carlton (1967). "--Another Time, Another Place--: The attempted assassination of President Andrew Jackson". Tennessee Historical Quarterly. 26 (2): 184–190. JSTOR 42622937.\n- Kanon, Thomas (1999). ""A slow, laborious slaughter": The battle of Horseshoe Bend". Tennessee Historical Quarterly. 58 (1): 2–15. JSTOR 42627446.\n- Koenig, Louis W. (1964). "American Politics: The First Half-Century". Current History. 47 (278): 193–198. doi:10.1525/curh.1964.47.278.193. JSTOR 45311183.\n- Knodell, Jane (2006). "Rethinking the Jacksonian economy: The impact of the 1832 bank veto on commercial banking". Journal of Economic History. 66 (3): 641–574. doi:10.1017/S0022050706000258 (inactive November 1, 2024). JSTOR 3874852. S2CID 155084029.\n{{cite journal}}\n: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link) - Mahon, John K. (1998). "The First Seminole War: November 21, 1817-May24,1818". Florida Historical Quarterly. 77 (1): 62–67. JSTOR 30149093.\n- Latner, Richard B. (1978). "The Kitchen Cabinet and Andrew Jackson\'s advisory system". The Journal of American History. 65 (2): 367–388. doi:10.2307/1894085. JSTOR 1894085.\n- McFaul, John M. (1975). "Expediency vs. morality: Jacksonian politics and slavery". The Journal of American History. 82 (1): 24–39. doi:10.2307/1901307. JSTOR 1901307.\n- McLoughlin, William G. (1986). "Georgia\'s role in instigating compulsory Indian removal". The Georgia Historical Quarterly. 70 (4): 605–632. JSTOR 40581582.\n- Morgan, William G. (1969). "The origin and development of the congressional nominating caucus". Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 113 (2): 184–196. JSTOR 985965.\n- Miles, Edwin A. (1992). "After John Marshall\'s Decision: Worcester v. Georgia and the Nullification Crisis". Journal of Southern History. 39 (4): 519–544. doi:10.2307/2205966. JSTOR 2205966.\n- Nettels, Curtis (1925). "The Mississippi Valley and the federal judiciary, 1807-1837". The Mississippi Valley Historical Review. 12 (2): 202–226. doi:10.2307/1886513. JSTOR 1886513.\n- Owsley, Harriet Chappel (1977). "The marriages of Rachel Donelson". Tennessee Historical Quarterly. 36 (4): 479–492. JSTOR 42625784.\n- Parsons, Lynn Hudson (1973). ""A perpetual harrow upon my feelings": John Quincy Adams and the American indian". The New England Quarterly. 46 (3): 339–379. doi:10.2307/364198. JSTOR 364198.\n- Perdue, Theda (2012). "The Legacy of Indian Removal". Journal of Southern History. 78 (1): 3–36. JSTOR 23247455.\n- Perkins, Edwin J. (1987). "Lost opportunities for compromise in the Bank War: A reassessment of jackson\'s veto message". Business History Review. 61 (4): 531–550. doi:10.2307/3115344. JSTOR 3115344. S2CID 55379727.\n- Phillips, Kim T. (1976). "The Pennsylvania origins of the Jackson movement". Political Science Quarterly. 91 (3): 489–501. doi:10.2307/2148938. JSTOR 2148938.\n- Porter, Kenneth Wiggins (1951). "Negroes and the Seminole War, 1817-1818". Journal of Negro History. 36 (3): 249–280. doi:10.2307/2715671. JSTOR 2715671. S2CID 150360181.\n- Ratcliffe, Donald J. (2000). "The Nullification Crisis, Southern discontents, and the American political process". American Nineteenth Century History. 1 (2): 1–30. doi:10.1080/14664650008567014. S2CID 144242176.\n- Remini, Robert V. (1991). "Andrew Jackson\'s Adventures on the Natchez Trace". Southern Quarterly. 29 (4). Hattiesburg, Mississippi: University of Southern Mississippi: 35–42. ISSN 0038-4496. OCLC 1644229.\n- Rousseau, Peter L. (2002). "Jacksonian money policy, specie flows, and the panic of 1837". The Journal of Economic History. 82 (2): 457–488. JSTOR 2698187.\n- Rottinghaus, Brandon; Vaughn, Justin S. (2017). "Presidential Greatness and Political Science: Assessing the 2014 APSA Presidents and Executive Politics Section Presidential Greatness Survey". PS: Political Science & Politics. 50 (3): 824–830. doi:10.1017/S1049096517000671. S2CID 157101605.\n- Schmidt, Louis Bernard (1955). "Andrew Jackson and the Agrarian West". Current History. 28 (166): 321–330. doi:10.1525/curh.1955.28.166.321. JSTOR 45308841. S2CID 249685683.\n- Sellers, Charles G. Jr. (1958). "Andrew Jackson versus the Historians". Mississippi Valley Historical Review. 44 (4): 615–634. doi:10.2307/1886599. JSTOR 1886599.\n- Sellers, Charles G. Jr. (1954). "Banking and politics in Jackson\'s Tennessee, 1817–1827". Mississippi Valley Historical Review. 41 (1): 61–84. doi:10.2307/1898150. JSTOR 1898150.\n- Somit, Albert (1948). "Andrew Jackson: Legend and Reality". Tennessee Historical Quarterly. 7 (4): 291–313. JSTOR 42620991.\n- Stenberg, Richard R. (1934). "The Texas schemes of Jackson and Houston, 1829–1836". The Southwestern Social Science Quarterly. 15 (3): 229–250. JSTOR 42879202.\n- Thomas, Robert C. (1976). "Andrew Jackson versus France: American policy towards France, 1834–1836". Tennessee Historical Quarterly. 35 (1): 457–488. JSTOR 42623553.\n- Thompson, Sheneese; Barchiesi, Franco (2018). "Harriet Tubman and Andrew Jackson on the Twenty-Dollar Bill: A Monstrous Intimacy". Open Cultural Studies. 2: 417–429. doi:10.1515/culture-2018-0038. S2CID 166210849.\n- Timberlake, Richard H. (1965). "The Specie Circular and Sales of public land". The American Historical Review. 25 (3): 414–416. JSTOR 2116177.\n- Tregle, Joseph G. Jr. (1981). "Andrew Jackson and the continuing Battle of New Orleans". Journal of the Early Republic. 1 (4): 373–393. doi:10.2307/3122827. JSTOR 3122827.\n- Watson, Harry L. (2017). "Andrew Jackson\'s Populism". Tennessee Historical Quarterly. 76 (3): 236–237. JSTOR 26540290.\n- Warshauer, Matthew (2006). "Andrew Jackson: Chivalric slave master". Tennessee Historical Quarterly. 65 (3): 203–229. JSTOR 42627964.\n- Whapples, Robert (2014). "Were Andrew Jackson\'s policies "Good for the Economy"?". The Independent Review. 18 (4): 545–558. JSTOR 24563169.\n- Wood, Kirsten E. (1997). ""One woman so dangerous to public morals": Gender and power in the Eaton Affair". Journal of the Early Republic. 17 (2): 237–275. doi:10.2307/3124447. JSTOR 3124447.\n- Wright, J. Leitch Jr. (1968). "A note on the First Seminole War as seen by the Indians, negroes, and their British advisors". The Journal of Southern History. 34 (4): 565–576. doi:10.2307/2204387. JSTOR 2204387.\nPrimary sources\n- Binns, John (1828). "Some account of some of the bloody deeds of General Jackson". Library of Congress. Archived from the original on January 16, 2014. Retrieved January 15, 2014.\n- "Expunged Senate censure motion against President Andrew Jackson, January 16, 1837". Andrew Jackson – National Archives and Records Administration, Records of the U.S. Senate. The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. Archived from the original on November 3, 2014. Retrieved February 21, 2014.\n- Jackson, Andrew (1829). "Andrew Jackson\'s First Annual Message to Congress". The American Presidency Project. Archived from the original on February 26, 2008. Retrieved March 14, 2008.\n- Jackson, Andrew (1832). "President Jackson\'s Proclamation Regarding Nullification, December 10, 1832". The Avalon Project. Archived from the original on August 24, 2006. Retrieved August 10, 2006.\n- "South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification, November 24, 1832". The Avalon Project. Archived from the original on August 19, 2016. Retrieved August 22, 2016.\n- Taliaferro, John (1828). "Supplemental account of some of the bloody deeds of General Jackson, being a supplement to the "Coffin handbill"". Library of Congress. Archived from the original on June 28, 2017.\n- de Tocqueville, Alexis (1969) [1840]. Democracy in America. Translated by Lawrence, George. Harper & Row. ISBN 9780385081702. OCLC 1148815334.\nExternal links\n- Scholarly coverage of Jackson at Miller Center, U of Virginia\n- Works by Andrew Jackson at Project Gutenberg\n- Works by or about Andrew Jackson at the Internet Archive\n- Works by Andrew Jackson at LibriVox (public domain audiobooks)\n- The Papers of Andrew Jackson at the Avalon Project\n- The Hermitage, home of President Andrew Jackson\n- "Andrew Jackson Papers". Library of Congress. A digital archive providing access to manuscript images of many of Jackson\'s documents.\n- Andrew Jackson\n- 1767 births\n- 1830s in the United States\n- 1845 deaths\n- 18th-century American merchants\n- 18th-century members of the United States House of Representatives\n- 18th-century Presbyterians\n- 18th-century United States senators\n- 19th-century American planters\n- 19th-century deaths from tuberculosis\n- 19th-century presidents of the United States\n- 19th-century United States senators\n- American cotton plantation owners\n- American duellists\n- American Freemasons\n- American militia generals\n- American people of English descent\n- American people of Scotch-Irish descent\n- American people of Scottish descent\n- American Presbyterians\n- American prosecutors\n- American racehorse owners and breeders\n- American Revolutionary War prisoners of war held by Great Britain\n- American shooting survivors\n- Battle of New Orleans\n- Businesspeople from Nashville, Tennessee\n- Candidates in the 1824 United States presidential election\n- Candidates in the 1828 United States presidential election\n- Candidates in the 1832 United States presidential election\n- Congressional Gold Medal recipients\n- Deaths from edema\n- Democratic Party (United States) presidential nominees\n- Democratic Party presidents of the United States\n- Democratic-Republican Party members of the United States House of Representatives from Tennessee\n- Democratic-Republican Party United States senators\n- Family of Andrew Jackson\n- Florida Democratic-Republicans\n- Governors of Florida Territory\n- Grand masters of the Grand Lodge of Tennessee\n- Hall of Fame for Great Americans inductees\n- Infectious disease deaths in Tennessee\n- Justices of the Tennessee Supreme Court\n- Left-wing populism in the United States\n- Members of the United States House of Representatives who owned slaves\n- Negro Fort\n- North Carolina lawyers\n- People acquitted of assault\n- People from Lancaster County, South Carolina\n- People from pre-statehood Mississippi\n- People from pre-statehood Tennessee\n- People of the Creek War\n- Politicians from Nashville, Tennessee\n- Presidents of the United States\n- Second Party System\n- Southern Democrats\n- Tennessee Democrats\n- Tennessee Jacksonians\n- Trail of Tears perpetrators\n- Tuberculosis deaths in Tennessee\n- United States Army generals\n- United States Army personnel of the Seminole Wars\n- United States Army personnel of the War of 1812\n- United States Indian agents\n- United States military governors\n- United States senators from Tennessee\n- United States senators who owned slaves', - 'relevant': 'Andrew Jackson\nAndrew Jackson | |\n|---|---|\n| 7th President of the United States | |\n| In office March 4, 1829 – March 4, 1837 | |\n| Vice President |\n|\n| Preceded by | John Quincy Adams |\n| Succeeded by | Martin Van Buren |\n| United States Senator from Tennessee | |\n| In office March 4, 1823 – October 14, 1825 | |\n| Preceded by | John Williams |\n| Succeeded by | Hugh Lawson White |\n| In office September 26, 1797 – April 1, 1798 | |\n| Preceded by | William Cocke |\n| Succeeded by | Daniel Smith |\n| Federal Military Commissioner of Florida | |\n| In office March 10, 1821 – December 31, 1821 | |\n| '}, - {'url': 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress', - 'content': 'United States Congress\nThis article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. (May 2024) |\nUnited States Congress | |\n|---|---|\n| 119th Congress | |\n| Type | |\n| Type | |\n| Houses | Senate House of Representatives |\n| History | |\n| Founded | March 4, 1789 |\n| Preceded by | Congress of the Confederation |\nNew session started | January 3, 2025 |\n| Leadership | |\n| Structure | |\n| Seats |\n|\nSenate political groups | Majority (52)\nMinority (47)\nVacant (1)\n|\nHouse of Representatives political groups | Majority (218)\nMinority (215)\nVacant (2)\n|\n| Elections | |\nLast Senate election | November 5, 2024 |\nLast House of Representatives election | November 5, 2024 |\nNext Senate election | November 3, 2026 |\nNext House of Representatives election | November 3, 2026 |\n| Meeting place | |\n| United States Capitol Washington, D.C. United States of America | |\n| Website | |\n| congress | |\n| Constitution | |\n| United States Constitution, article I |\n| This article is part of a series on the |\n| Politics of the United States |\n|---|\nThe United States Congress is the legislature of the federal government of the United States. It is bicameral, composed of a lower body, the United States House of Representatives, and an upper body, the United States Senate. It meets in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. Members are chosen through direct election,[d] though vacancies in the Senate may be filled by a governor\'s appointment. Congress[e] has a total of 535 voting members, a figure which includes 100 senators and 435 representatives; the House of Representatives has 6 additional non-voting members. The vice president of the United States, as President of the Senate, has a vote in the Senate only when there is a tie.[4]\nCongress convenes for a two-year term, commencing every other January. Elections are held every even-numbered year on Election Day. The members of the House of Representatives are elected for the two-year term of a Congress. The Reapportionment Act of 1929 established that there be 435 representatives, and the Uniform Congressional Redistricting Act requires that they be elected from single-member constituencies or districts. It is also required that the congressional districts be apportioned among states by population every ten years using the U.S. census results, provided that each state has at least one congressional representative. Each senator is elected at-large in their state for a six-year term, with terms staggered, so every two years approximately one-third of the Senate is up for election. Each state, regardless of population or size, has two senators, so currently, there are 100 senators for the 50 states.\nArticle One of the U.S. Constitution requires that members of Congress be at least 25 years old for the House and at least 30 years old for the U.S. Senate, be a U.S. citizen for seven years for the House and nine years for the Senate, and be an inhabitant of the state which they represent. Members in both chambers may stand for re-election an unlimited number of times.\nCongress was created by the U.S. Constitution and first met in 1789, replacing the Congress of the Confederation in its legislative function. Although not legally mandated, in practice since the 19th century, members of Congress are typically affiliated with one of the two major parties, the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, and only rarely with a third party or independents affiliated with no party. In the case of the latter, the lack of affiliation with a political party does not mean that such members are unable to caucus with members of the political parties. Members can also switch parties at any time, although this is quite uncommon.\nOverview\n[edit]Article One of the United States Constitution states, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." The House and Senate are equal partners in the legislative process – legislation cannot be enacted without the consent of both chambers. The Constitution grants each chamber some unique powers. The Senate ratifies treaties and approves presidential appointments while the House initiates revenue-raising bills.\nThe House initiates and decides impeachment while the Senate votes on conviction and removal of office for impeachment cases.[5] A two-thirds vote of the Senate is required before an impeached person can be removed from office.[5]\nThe term Congress can also refer to a particular meeting of the legislature. A Congress covers two years; the current one, the 119th Congress, began on January 3, 2025, and will end on January 3, 2027. Since the adoption of the Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Congress has started and ended at noon on the third day of January of every odd-numbered year. Members of the Senate are referred to as senators; members of the House of Representatives are referred to as representatives, congressmen, or congresswomen.\nScholar and representative Lee H. Hamilton asserted that the "historic mission of Congress has been to maintain freedom" and insisted it was a "driving force in American government"[6] and a "remarkably resilient institution".[7] Congress is the "heart and soul of our democracy", according to this view, even though legislators rarely achieve the prestige or name recognition of presidents or Supreme Court justices; one wrote that "legislators remain ghosts in America\'s historical imagination." One analyst argues that it is not a solely reactive institution but has played an active role in shaping government policy and is extraordinarily sensitive to public pressure.[8] Several academics described Congress:\nCongress reflects us in all our strengths and all our weaknesses. It reflects our regional idiosyncrasies, our ethnic, religious, and racial diversity, our multitude of professions, and our shadings of opinion on everything from the value of war to the war over values. Congress is the government\'s most representative body ... Congress is essentially charged with reconciling our many points of view on the great public policy issues of the day.[6]\nCongress is constantly changing and is constantly in flux.[9] In recent times, the American South and West have gained House seats according to demographic changes recorded by the census and includes more women and minorities.[9] While power balances among the different parts of government continue to change, the internal structure of Congress is important to understand along with its interactions with so-called intermediary institutions such as political parties, civic associations, interest groups, and the mass media.[8]\nThe Congress of the United States serves two distinct purposes that overlap: local representation to the federal government of a congressional district by representatives and a state\'s at-large representation to the federal government by senators.\nMost incumbents seek re-election, and their historical likelihood of winning subsequent elections exceeds 90 percent.[10]\nThe historical records of the House of Representatives and the Senate are maintained by the Center for Legislative Archives, which is a part of the National Archives and Records Administration.[11]\nCongress is directly responsible for the governing of the District of Columbia, the current seat of the federal government.\nHistory\n[edit]18th century\n[edit]The First Continental Congress was a gathering of representatives from twelve of the Thirteen Colonies.[12] On July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence, referring to the new nation as the "United States of America". The Articles of Confederation in 1781 created the Congress of the Confederation, a unicameral body with equal representation among the states in which each state had a veto over most decisions. Congress had executive but not legislative authority, and the federal judiciary was confined to admiralty[13] and lacked authority to collect taxes, regulate commerce, or enforce laws.[14][15]\nGovernment powerlessness led to the Convention of 1787 which proposed a revised constitution with a two-chamber or bicameral Congress.[16] Smaller states argued for equal representation for each state.[17] The two-chamber structure had functioned well in state governments.[18] A compromise plan, the Connecticut Compromise, was adopted with representatives chosen by population (benefiting larger states) and exactly two senators chosen by state governments (benefiting smaller states).[9][19] The ratified constitution created a federal structure with two overlapping power centers so that each citizen as an individual is subject to the powers of state government and national government.[20][21][22] To protect against abuse of power, each branch of government – executive, legislative, and judicial – had a separate sphere of authority and could check other branches according to the principle of the separation of powers.[5] Furthermore, there were checks and balances within the legislature since there were two separate chambers.[23] The new government became active in 1789.[5][24]\nPolitical scientist Julian E. Zelizer suggested there were four main congressional eras, with considerable overlap, and included the formative era (1780s–1820s), the partisan era (1830s–1900s), the committee era (1910s–1960s), and the contemporary era (1970–present).[25]\nFederalists and anti-federalists jostled for power in the early years as political parties became pronounced. With the passage of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the anti-federalist movement was exhausted. Some activists joined the Anti-Administration Party that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were forming about 1790–1791 to oppose policies of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton; it soon became the Democratic-Republican Party or the Jeffersonian Republican Party[26] and began the era of the First Party System.\n19th century\n[edit]In 1800, Thomas Jefferson\'s election to the presidency marked a peaceful transition of power between the parties. John Marshall, 4th chief justice of the Supreme Court, empowered the courts by establishing the principle of judicial review in law in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison in 1803, effectively giving the Supreme Court a power to nullify congressional legislation.[27][28]\nThe Civil War, which lasted from 1861 to 1865, resolved the slavery issue and unified the nation under federal authority but weakened the power of states\' rights. The Gilded Age (1877–1901) was marked by Republican dominance of Congress. During this time, lobbying activity became more intense, particularly during the administration of President Ulysses S. Grant in which influential lobbies advocated for railroad subsidies and tariffs on wool.[29] Immigration and high birth rates swelled the ranks of citizens and the nation grew at a rapid pace. The Progressive Era was characterized by strong party leadership in both houses of Congress and calls for reform; sometimes reformers said lobbyists corrupted politics.[30] The position of Speaker of the House became extremely powerful under leaders such as Thomas Reed in 1890 and Joseph Gurney Cannon.\n20th century\n[edit]By the beginning of the 20th century, party structures and leadership emerged as key organizers of Senate proceedings.[32]\nA system of seniority, in which long-time members of Congress gained more and more power, encouraged politicians of both parties to seek long terms. Committee chairmen remained influential in both houses until the reforms of the 1970s.[33]\nImportant structural changes included the direct popular election of senators according to the Seventeenth Amendment,[19] ratified on April 8, 1913. Supreme Court decisions based on the Constitution\'s commerce clause expanded congressional power to regulate the economy.[34] One effect of popular election of senators was to reduce the difference between the House and Senate in terms of their link to the electorate.[35] Lame duck reforms according to the Twentieth Amendment reduced the power of defeated and retiring members of Congress to wield influence despite their lack of accountability.[36]\nThe Great Depression ushered in President Franklin Roosevelt and strong control by Democrats[37] and historic New Deal policies. Roosevelt\'s election in 1932 marked a shift in government power towards the executive branch. Numerous New Deal initiatives came from the White House rather initiated by Congress.[38] President Roosevelt pushed his agenda in Congress by detailing Executive Branch staff to friendly Senate committees (a practice that ended with the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946).[39] The Democratic Party controlled both houses of Congress for many years.[40][41][42] During this time, Republicans and conservative southern Democrats[43] formed the Conservative Coalition.[42][44] Democrats maintained control of Congress during World War II.[45][46] Congress struggled with efficiency in the postwar era partly by reducing the number of standing congressional committees.[47] Southern Democrats became a powerful force in many influential committees although political power alternated between Republicans and Democrats during these years. More complex issues required greater specialization and expertise, such as space flight and atomic energy policy.[47] Senator Joseph McCarthy exploited the fear of communism during the Second Red Scare and conducted televised hearings.[48][49] In 1960, Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy narrowly won the presidency and power shifted again to the Democrats who dominated both chambers of Congress from 1961 to 1980, and retained a consistent majority in the House from 1955 to 1994.[50]\nCongress enacted Johnson\'s Great Society program to fight poverty and hunger. The Watergate Scandal had a powerful effect of waking up a somewhat dormant Congress which investigated presidential wrongdoing and coverups; the scandal "substantially reshaped" relations between the branches of government, suggested political scientist Bruce J. Schulman.[51] Partisanship returned, particularly after 1994; one analyst attributes partisan infighting to slim congressional majorities which discouraged friendly social gatherings in meeting rooms such as the Board of Education.[8] Congress began reasserting its authority.[38][52] Lobbying became a big factor despite the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act. Political action committees or PACs could make substantive donations to congressional candidates via such means as soft money contributions.[53] While soft money funds were not given to specific campaigns for candidates, the money often benefited candidates substantially in an indirect way and helped reelect candidates.[53] Reforms such as the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act limited campaign donations but did not limit soft money contributions.[54] One source suggests post-Watergate laws amended in 1974 meant to reduce the "influence of wealthy contributors and end payoffs" instead "legitimized PACs" since they "enabled individuals to band together in support of candidates".[55]\nFrom 1974 to 1984, PACs grew from 608 to 3,803 and donations leaped from $12.5 million to $120 million[55][56][57] along with concern over PAC influence in Congress.[58][59] In 2009, there were 4,600 business, labor and special-interest PACs[60] including ones for lawyers, electricians, and real estate brokers.[61] From 2007 to 2008, 175 members of Congress received "half or more of their campaign cash" from PACs.[60][62][63]\nFrom 1970 to 2009, the House expanded delegates, along with their powers and privileges representing U.S. citizens in non-state areas, beginning with representation on committees for Puerto Rico\'s resident commissioner in 1970. In 1971, a delegate for the District of Columbia was authorized, and in 1972 new delegate positions were established for U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam. In 1978, an additional delegate for American Samoa were added.\nIn the late 20th century, the media became more important in Congress\'s work.[64] Analyst Michael Schudson suggested that greater publicity undermined the power of political parties and caused "more roads to open up in Congress for individual representatives to influence decisions".[64] Norman Ornstein suggested that media prominence led to a greater emphasis on the negative and sensational side of Congress, and referred to this as the tabloidization of media coverage.[9] Others saw pressure to squeeze a political position into a thirty-second soundbite.[65] A report characterized Congress in 2013 as unproductive, gridlocked, and "setting records for futility".[66] In October 2013, with Congress unable to compromise, the government was shut down for several weeks and risked a serious default on debt payments, causing 60% of the public to say they would "fire every member of Congress" including their own representative.[67] One report suggested Congress posed the "biggest risk to the U.S. economy" because of its brinksmanship, "down-to-the-wire budget and debt crises" and "indiscriminate spending cuts", resulting in slowed economic activity and keeping up to two million people unemployed.[68] There has been increasing public dissatisfaction with Congress,[69] with extremely low approval ratings[70][71] which dropped to 5% in October 2013.[72]\n21st century\n[edit]In 2009, Congress authorized another delegate for the Northern Mariana Islands. These six members of Congress enjoy floor privileges to introduce bills and resolutions, and in recent Congresses they vote in permanent and select committees, in party caucuses and in joint conferences with the Senate. They have Capitol Hill offices, staff and two annual appointments to each of the four military academies. While their votes are constitutional when Congress authorizes their House Committee of the Whole votes, recent Congresses have not allowed for that, and they cannot vote when the House is meeting as the House of Representatives.[73]\nOn January 6, 2021, Congress gathered to confirm the election of Joe Biden, when supporters of the outgoing president Donald Trump attacked the building. The session of Congress ended prematurely, and Congress representatives evacuated. Trump supporters occupied Congress until D.C police evacuated the area. The event was the first time since the Burning of Washington by the British during the War of 1812 that the United States Congress was forcefully occupied.[74]\nWomen in Congress\n[edit]Various social and structural barriers have prevented women from gaining seats in Congress. In the early 20th century, women\'s domestic roles and the inability to vote forestalled opportunities to run for and hold public office. The two party system and the lack of term limits favored incumbent white men, making the widow\'s succession – in which a woman temporarily took over a seat vacated by the death of her husband – the most common path to Congress for white women.[75]\nWomen candidates began making substantial inroads in the later 20th century, due in part to new political support mechanisms and public awareness of their underrepresentation in Congress. [76] Recruitment and financial support for women candidates were rare until the second-wave feminism movement, when activists moved into electoral politics. Beginning in the 1970s, donors and political action committees like EMILY\'s List began recruiting, training and funding women candidates. Watershed political moments like the confirmation of Clarence Thomas and the 2016 presidential election created momentum for women candidates, resulting in the Year of the Woman and the election of members of The Squad, respectively.[77][78]\nWomen of color faced additional challenges that made their ascension to Congress even more difficult. Jim Crow laws, voter suppression and other forms of structural racism made it virtually impossible for women of color to reach Congress prior to 1965. The passage of the Voting Rights Act that year, and the elimination of race-based immigration laws in the 1960s opened the possibility for Black, Asian American, Latina and other non-white women candidates to run for Congress.[79]\nRacially polarized voting, racial stereotypes and lack of institutional support still prevent women of color from reaching Congress as easily as white people. Senate elections, which require victories in statewide electorates, have been particularly difficult for women of color.[80] Carol Moseley Braun became the first woman of color to reach the Senate in 1993. The second, Mazie Hirono, won in 2013.\nIn 2021, Kamala Harris became the first female President of the Senate, which came with her role as the first female Vice President of the United States.\nRole\n[edit]Powers\n[edit]Overview\n[edit]Article One of the Constitution creates and sets forth the structure and most of the powers of Congress. Sections One through Six describe how Congress is elected and gives each House the power to create its own structure. Section Seven lays out the process for creating laws, and Section Eight enumerates numerous powers. Section Nine is a list of powers Congress does not have, and Section Ten enumerates powers of the state, some of which may only be granted by Congress.[81] Constitutional amendments have granted Congress additional powers. Congress also has implied powers derived from the Constitution\'s Necessary and Proper Clause.\nCongress has authority over financial and budgetary policy through the enumerated power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". There is vast authority over budgets, although analyst Eric Patashnik suggested that much of Congress\'s power to manage the budget has been lost when the welfare state expanded since "entitlements were institutionally detached from Congress\'s ordinary legislative routine and rhythm."[82] Another factor leading to less control over the budget was a Keynesian belief that balanced budgets were unnecessary.[82]\nThe Sixteenth Amendment in 1913 extended congressional power of taxation to include income taxes without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.[83] The Constitution also grants Congress the exclusive power to appropriate funds, and this power of the purse is one of Congress\'s primary checks on the executive branch.[83] Congress can borrow money on the credit of the United States, regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states, and coin money.[84] Generally, the Senate and the House of Representatives have equal legislative authority, although only the House may originate revenue and appropriation bills.[5]\nCongress has an important role in national defense, including the exclusive power to declare war, to raise and maintain the armed forces, and to make rules for the military.[85] Some critics charge that the executive branch has usurped Congress\'s constitutionally defined task of declaring war.[86] While historically presidents initiated the process for going to war, they asked for and received formal war declarations from Congress for the War of 1812, the Mexican–American War, the Spanish–American War, World War I, and World War II,[87] although President Theodore Roosevelt\'s military move into Panama in 1903 did not get congressional approval.[87] In the early days after the North Korean invasion of 1950, President Truman described the American response as a "police action".[88] According to Time magazine in 1970, "U.S. presidents [had] ordered troops into position or action without a formal congressional declaration a total of 149 times."[87] In 1993, Michael Kinsley wrote that "Congress\'s war power has become the most flagrantly disregarded provision in the Constitution," and that the "real erosion [of Congress\'s war power] began after World War II."[89][90][91] Disagreement about the extent of congressional versus presidential power regarding war has been present periodically throughout the nation\'s history.[92]\nCongress can establish post offices and post roads, issue patents and copyrights, fix standards of weights and measures, establish Courts inferior to the Supreme Court, and "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof". Article Four gives Congress the power to admit new states into the Union.\nOne of Congress\'s foremost non-legislative functions is the power to investigate and oversee the executive branch.[93] Congressional oversight is usually delegated to committees and is facilitated by Congress\'s subpoena power.[94] Some critics have charged that Congress has in some instances failed to do an adequate job of overseeing the other branches of government. In the Plame affair, critics including Representative Henry A. Waxman charged that Congress was not doing an adequate job of oversight in this case.[95] There have been concerns about congressional oversight of executive actions such as warrantless wiretapping, although others respond that Congress did investigate the legality of presidential decisions.[96] Political scientists Ornstein and Mann suggested that oversight functions do not help members of Congress win reelection. Congress also has the exclusive power of removal, allowing impeachment and removal of the president, federal judges and other federal officers.[97] There have been charges that presidents acting under the doctrine of the unitary executive have assumed important legislative and budgetary powers that should belong to Congress.[98] So-called signing statements are one way in which a president can "tip the balance of power between Congress and the White House a little more in favor of the executive branch", according to one account.[99] Past presidents, including Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush,[100] have made public statements when signing congressional legislation about how they understand a bill or plan to execute it, and commentators, including the American Bar Association, have described this practice as against the spirit of the Constitution.[101][102] There have been concerns that presidential authority to cope with financial crises is eclipsing the power of Congress.[103] In 2008, George F. Will called the Capitol building a "tomb for the antiquated idea that the legislative branch matters".[104]\nEnumeration\n[edit]The Constitution enumerates the powers of Congress in detail. In addition, other congressional powers have been granted, or confirmed, by constitutional amendments. The Thirteenth (1865), Fourteenth (1868), and Fifteenth Amendments (1870) gave Congress authority to enact legislation to enforce rights of African Americans, including voting rights, due process, and equal protection under the law.[105] Generally militia forces are controlled by state governments, not Congress.[106]\nImplicit, commerce clause\n[edit]Congress also has implied powers deriving from the Constitution\'s Necessary and Proper Clause which permit Congress to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof".[107] Broad interpretations of this clause and of the Commerce Clause, the enumerated power to regulate commerce, in rulings such as McCulloch v. Maryland, have effectively widened the scope of Congress\'s legislative authority far beyond that prescribed in Section Eight.[108][109]\nTerritorial government\n[edit]Constitutional responsibility for the oversight of Washington, D.C., the federal district and national capital, and the U.S. territories of Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands rests with Congress.[110] The republican form of government in territories is devolved by congressional statute to the respective territories including direct election of governors, the D.C. mayor and locally elective territorial legislatures.[111]\nEach territory and Washington, D.C., elects a non-voting delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives as they have throughout congressional history. They "possess the same powers as other members of the House, except that they may not vote when the House is meeting as the House of Representatives". They are assigned offices and allowances for staff, participate in debate, and appoint constituents to the four military service academies for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard.[112]\nWashington, D.C., citizens alone among U.S. territories have the right to directly vote for the President of the United States, although the Democratic and Republican political parties nominate their presidential candidates at national conventions which include delegates from the five major territories.[113]\nChecks and balances\n[edit]Representative Lee H. Hamilton explained how Congress functions within the federal government:\nTo me the key to understanding it is balance. The founders went to great lengths to balance institutions against each other – balancing powers among the three branches: Congress, the president, and the Supreme Court; between the House of Representatives and the Senate; between the federal government and the states; among states of different sizes and regions with different interests; between the powers of government and the rights of citizens, as spelled out in the Bill of Rights ... No one part of government dominates the other.[6]: 6\nThe Constitution provides checks and balances among the three branches of the federal government. Its authors expected the greater power to lie with Congress as described in Article One.[6][114]\nThe influence of Congress on the presidency has varied from period to period depending on factors such as congressional leadership, presidential political influence, historical circumstances such as war, and individual initiative by members of Congress. The impeachment of Andrew Johnson made the presidency less powerful than Congress for a considerable period afterwards.[115] The 20th and 21st centuries have seen the rise of presidential power under politicians such as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush.[116] Congress restricted presidential power with laws such as the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and the War Powers Resolution. The presidency remains considerably more powerful today than during the 19th century.[6][116] Executive branch officials are often loath to reveal sensitive information to members of Congress because of concern that information could not be kept secret; in return, knowing they may be in the dark about executive branch activity, congressional officials are more likely to distrust their counterparts in executive agencies.[117] Many government actions require fast coordinated effort by many agencies, and this is a task that Congress is ill-suited for. Congress is slow, open, divided, and not well matched to handle more rapid executive action or do a good job of overseeing such activity, according to one analysis.[118]\nThe Constitution concentrates removal powers in the Congress by empowering and obligating the House of Representatives to impeach executive or judicial officials for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". Impeachment is a formal accusation of unlawful activity by a civil officer or government official. The Senate is constitutionally empowered and obligated to try all impeachments. A simple majority in the House is required to impeach an official; a two-thirds majority in the Senate is required for conviction. A convicted official is automatically removed from office; in addition, the Senate may stipulate that the defendant be banned from holding office in the future. Impeachment proceedings may not inflict more than this. A convicted party may face criminal penalties in a normal court of law. In the history of the United States, the House of Representatives has impeached sixteen officials, of whom seven were convicted. Another resigned before the Senate could complete the trial. Only three presidents have ever been impeached: Andrew Johnson in 1868, Bill Clinton in 1999, Donald Trump in 2019 and 2021. The trials of Johnson, Clinton, and the 2019 trial of Trump all ended in acquittal; in Johnson\'s case, the Senate fell one vote short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction. In 1974, Richard Nixon resigned from office after impeachment proceedings in the House Judiciary Committee indicated his removal from office.\nThe Senate has an important check on the executive power by confirming Cabinet officials, judges, and other high officers "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate". It confirms most presidential nominees, but rejections are not uncommon. Furthermore, treaties negotiated by the President must be ratified by a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate to take effect. As a result, presidential arm-twisting of senators can happen before a key vote; for example, President Obama\'s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, urged her former senate colleagues to approve a nuclear arms treaty with Russia in 2010.[119] The House of Representatives has no formal role in either the ratification of treaties or the appointment of federal officials, other than in filling a vacancy in the office of the vice president; in such a case, a majority vote in each House is required to confirm a president\'s nomination of a vice president.[5]\nIn 1803, the Supreme Court established judicial review of federal legislation in Marbury v. Madison, holding that Congress could not grant unconstitutional power to the Court itself. The Constitution did not explicitly state that the courts may exercise judicial review. The notion that courts could declare laws unconstitutional was envisioned by the founding fathers. Alexander Hamilton, for example, mentioned and expounded upon the doctrine in Federalist No. 78. Originalists on the Supreme Court have argued that if the constitution does not say something explicitly it is unconstitutional to infer what it should, might, or could have said.[120] Judicial review means that the Supreme Court can nullify a congressional law. It is a huge check by the courts on the legislative authority and limits congressional power substantially. In 1857, for example, the Supreme Court struck down provisions of a congressional act of 1820 in its Dred Scott decision.[121] At the same time, the Supreme Court can extend congressional power through its constitutional interpretations.\nThe congressional inquiry into St. Clair\'s Defeat of 1791 was the first congressional investigation of the executive branch.[122] Investigations are conducted to gather information on the need for future legislation, to test the effectiveness of laws already passed, and to inquire into the qualifications and performance of members and officials of the other branches. Committees may hold hearings, and, if necessary, subpoena people to testify when investigating issues over which it has the power to legislate.[123][124] Witnesses who refuse to testify may be cited for contempt of Congress, and those who testify falsely may be charged with perjury. Most committee hearings are open to the public (the House and Senate intelligence committees are the exception); important hearings are widely reported in the mass media and transcripts published a few months afterwards.[124] Congress, in the course of studying possible laws and investigating matters, generates an incredible amount of information in various forms, and can be described as a publisher.[125] Indeed, it publishes House and Senate reports[125] and maintains databases which are updated irregularly with publications in a variety of electronic formats.[125]\nCongress also plays a role in presidential elections. Both Houses meet in joint session on the sixth day of January following a presidential election to count the electoral votes, and there are procedures to follow if no candidate wins a majority.[5]\nThe main result of congressional activity is the creation of laws,[126] most of which are contained in the United States Code, arranged by subject matter alphabetically under fifty title headings to present the laws "in a concise and usable form".[5]\nStructure\n[edit]Congress is split into two chambers – House and Senate – and manages the task of writing national legislation by dividing work into separate committees which specialize in different areas. Some members of Congress are elected by their peers to be officers of these committees. Further, Congress has ancillary organizations such as the Government Accountability Office and the Library of Congress to help provide it with information, and members of Congress have staff and offices to assist them as well. In addition, a vast industry of lobbyists helps members write legislation on behalf of diverse corporate and labor interests.\nCommittees\n[edit]Specializations\n[edit]The committee structure permits members of Congress to study a particular subject intensely. It is neither expected nor possible that a member be an expert on all subject areas before Congress.[127] As time goes by, members develop expertise in particular subjects and their legal aspects. Committees investigate specialized subjects and advise the entire Congress about choices and trade-offs. The choice of specialty may be influenced by the member\'s constituency, important regional issues, prior background and experience.[128] Senators often choose a different specialty from that of the other senator from their state to prevent overlap.[129] Some committees specialize in running the business of other committees and exert a powerful influence over all legislation; for example, the House Ways and Means Committee has considerable influence over House affairs.[130]\nPower\n[edit]Committees write legislation. While procedures, such as the House discharge petition process, can introduce bills to the House floor and effectively bypass committee input, they are exceedingly difficult to implement without committee action. Committees have power and have been called independent fiefdoms. Legislative, oversight, and internal administrative tasks are divided among about two hundred committees and subcommittees which gather information, evaluate alternatives, and identify problems.[131] They propose solutions for consideration by the full chamber.[131] In addition, they perform the function of oversight by monitoring the executive branch and investigating wrongdoing.[131]\nOfficer\n[edit]At the start of each two-year session, the House elects a speaker who does not normally preside over debates but serves as the majority party\'s leader. In the Senate, the vice president is the ex officio president of the Senate. In addition, the Senate elects an officer called the president pro tempore. Pro tempore means for the time being and this office is usually held by the most senior member of the Senate\'s majority party and customarily keeps this position until there is a change in party control. Accordingly, the Senate does not necessarily elect a new president pro tempore at the beginning of a new Congress. In the House and Senate, the actual presiding officer is generally a junior member of the majority party who is appointed so that new members become acquainted with the rules of the chamber.\nSupport services\n[edit]Library of Congress\n[edit]The Library of Congress was established by an act of Congress in 1800. It is primarily housed in three buildings on Capitol Hill, but also includes several other sites: the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped in Washington, D.C.; the National Audio-Visual Conservation Center in Culpeper, Virginia; a large book storage facility located in Fort Meade, Maryland; and multiple overseas offices. The Library had mostly law books when it was burnt by British forces in 1814 during the War of 1812, but the library\'s collections were restored and expanded when Congress authorized the purchase of Thomas Jefferson\'s private library. One of the library\'s missions is to serve Congress and its staff as well as the American public. It is the largest library in the world with nearly 150 million items including books, films, maps, photographs, music, manuscripts, graphics, and materials in 470 languages.[132]\nCongressional Research Service\n[edit]The Congressional Research Service, part of the Library of Congress, provides detailed, up-to-date and non-partisan research for senators, representatives, and their staff to help them carry out their official duties. It provides ideas for legislation, helps members analyze a bill, facilitates public hearings, makes reports, consults on matters such as parliamentary procedure, and helps the two chambers resolve disagreements. It has been called the "House\'s think tank" and has a staff of about 900 employees.[133]\nCongressional Budget Office\n[edit]The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is a federal agency which provides economic data to Congress.[134]\nIt was created as an independent non-partisan agency by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. It helps Congress estimate revenue inflows from taxes and helps the budgeting process. It makes projections about such matters as the national debt[135] as well as likely costs of legislation. It prepares an annual Economic and Budget Outlook with a mid-year update and writes An Analysis of the President\'s Budgetary Proposals for the Senate\'s Appropriations Committee. The speaker of the House and the Senate\'s president pro tempore jointly appoint the CBO director for a four-year term.\nLobbying\n[edit]Lobbyists represent diverse interests and often seek to influence congressional decisions to reflect their clients\' needs. Lobby groups and their members sometimes write legislation and whip bills. In 2007, there were approximately 17,000 federal lobbyists in Washington, D.C.[136] They explain to legislators the goals of their organizations. Some lobbyists represent non-profit organizations and work pro bono for issues in which they are personally interested.\nPolice\n[edit]Partisanship versus bipartisanship\n[edit]Congress has alternated between periods of constructive cooperation and compromise between parties, known as bipartisanship, and periods of deep political polarization and fierce infighting, known as partisanship. The period after the Civil War was marked by partisanship, as is the case today. It is generally easier for committees to reach accord on issues when compromise is possible. Some political scientists speculate that a prolonged period marked by narrow majorities in both chambers of Congress has intensified partisanship in the last few decades, but that an alternation of control of Congress between Democrats and Republicans may lead to greater flexibility in policies, as well as pragmatism and civility within the institution.[137]\nProcedures\n[edit]Sessions\n[edit]A term of Congress is divided into two "sessions", one for each year; Congress has occasionally been called into an extra or special session. A new session commences on January 3 each year unless Congress decides differently. The Constitution requires Congress to meet at least once each year and forbids either house from meeting outside the Capitol without the consent of the other house.\nJoint sessions\n[edit]Joint sessions of the United States Congress occur on special occasions that require a concurrent resolution from House and Senate. These sessions include counting electoral votes after a presidential election and the president\'s State of the Union address. The constitutionally mandated report, normally given as an annual speech, is modeled on Britain\'s Speech from the Throne, was written by most presidents after Jefferson but personally delivered as a spoken oration beginning with Wilson in 1913. Joint Sessions and Joint Meetings are traditionally presided over by the speaker of the House, except when counting presidential electoral votes when the vice president (acting as the president of the Senate) presides.\nBills and resolutions\n[edit]Ideas for legislation can come from members, lobbyists, state legislatures, constituents, legislative counsel, or executive agencies. Anyone can write a bill, but only members of Congress may introduce bills. Most bills are not written by Congress members, but originate from the Executive branch; interest groups often draft bills as well. The usual next step is for the proposal to be passed to a committee for review.[5] A proposal is usually in one of these forms:\n- Bills are laws in the making. A House-originated bill begins with the letters "H.R." for "House of Representatives", followed by a number kept as it progresses.[126]\n- Joint resolutions. There is little difference between a bill and a joint resolution since both are treated similarly; a joint resolution originating from the House, for example, begins "H.J.Res." followed by its number.[126]\n- Concurrent Resolutions affect only the House and Senate and accordingly are not presented to the president. In the House, they begin with "H.Con.Res."[126]\n- Simple resolutions concern only the House or only the Senate and begin with "H.Res." or "S.Res."[126]\nRepresentatives introduce a bill while the House is in session by placing it in the hopper on the Clerk\'s desk.[126] It is assigned a number and referred to a committee which studies each bill intensely at this stage.[126] Drafting statutes requires "great skill, knowledge, and experience" and sometimes take a year or more.[5] Sometimes lobbyists write legislation and submit it to a member for introduction. Joint resolutions are the normal way to propose a constitutional amendment or declare war. On the other hand, concurrent resolutions (passed by both houses) and simple resolutions (passed by only one house) do not have the force of law but express the opinion of Congress or regulate procedure. Bills may be introduced by any member of either house. The Constitution states: "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." While the Senate cannot originate revenue and appropriation bills, it has the power to amend or reject them. Congress has sought ways to establish appropriate spending levels.[5]\nEach chamber determines its own internal rules of operation unless specified in the Constitution or prescribed by law. In the House, a Rules Committee guides legislation; in the Senate, a Standing Rules committee is in charge. Each branch has its own traditions; for example, the Senate relies heavily on the practice of getting "unanimous consent" for noncontroversial matters.[5] House and Senate rules can be complex, sometimes requiring a hundred specific steps before a bill can become a law.[6] Members sometimes turn to outside experts to learn about proper congressional procedures.[138]\nEach bill goes through several stages in each house including consideration by a committee and advice from the Government Accountability Office.[5] Most legislation is considered by standing committees which have jurisdiction over a particular subject such as Agriculture or Appropriations. The House has twenty standing committees; the Senate has sixteen. Standing committees meet at least once each month.[5] Almost all standing committee meetings for transacting business must be open to the public unless the committee votes, publicly, to close the meeting.[5] A committee might call for public hearings on important bills.[5] Each committee is led by a chair who belongs to the majority party and a ranking member of the minority party. Witnesses and experts can present their case for or against a bill.[126] Then, a bill may go to what is called a mark-up session, where committee members debate the bill\'s merits and may offer amendments or revisions.[126] Committees may also amend the bill, but the full house holds the power to accept or reject committee amendments. After debate, the committee votes whether it wishes to report the measure to the full house. If a bill is tabled then it is rejected. If amendments are extensive, sometimes a new bill with amendments built in will be submitted as a so-called clean bill with a new number.[126] Both houses have procedures under which committees can be bypassed or overruled but they are rarely used. Generally, members who have been in Congress longer have greater seniority and therefore greater power.[139]\nA bill which reaches the floor of the full house can be simple or complex[126] and begins with an enacting formula such as "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled ..." Consideration of a bill requires, itself, a rule which is a simple resolution specifying the particulars of debate – time limits, possibility of further amendments, and such.[126] Each side has equal time and members can yield to other members who wish to speak.[126] Sometimes opponents seek to recommit a bill which means to change part of it.[126] Generally, discussion requires a quorum, usually half of the total number of representatives, before discussion can begin, although there are exceptions.[140] The house may debate and amend the bill; the precise procedures used by the House and Senate differ. A final vote on the bill follows.\nOnce a bill is approved by one house, it is sent to the other which may pass, reject, or amend it. For the bill to become law, both houses must agree to identical versions of the bill.[126] If the second house amends the bill, then the differences between the two versions must be reconciled in a conference committee, an ad hoc committee that includes senators and representatives[126] sometimes by using a reconciliation process to limit budget bills.[5] Both houses use a budget enforcement mechanism informally known as pay-as-you-go or paygo which discourages members from considering acts that increase budget deficits.[5] If both houses agree to the version reported by the conference committee, the bill passes, otherwise it fails.\nThe Constitution specifies that a majority of members (a quorum) be present before doing business in each house. The rules of each house assume that a quorum is present unless a quorum call demonstrates the contrary and debate often continues despite the lack of a majority.\nVoting within Congress can take many forms, including systems using lights and bells and electronic voting.[5] Both houses use voice voting to decide most matters in which members shout "aye" or "no" and the presiding officer announces the result. The Constitution requires a recorded vote if demanded by one-fifth of the members present or when voting to override a presidential veto. If the voice vote is unclear or if the matter is controversial, a recorded vote usually happens. The Senate uses roll-call voting, in which a clerk calls out the names of all the senators, each senator stating "aye" or "no" when their name is announced. In the Senate, the Vice President may cast the tie-breaking vote if present when the senators are equally divided.\nThe House reserves roll-call votes for the most formal matters, as a roll call of all 435 representatives takes quite some time; normally, members vote by using an electronic device. In the case of a tie, the motion in question fails. Most votes in the House are done electronically, allowing members to vote yea or nay or present or open.[5] Members insert a voting ID card and can change their votes during the last five minutes if they choose; in addition, paper ballots are used occasionally (yea indicated by green and nay by red).[5] One member cannot cast a proxy vote for another.[5] Congressional votes are recorded on an online database.[141][142]\nAfter passage by both houses, a bill is enrolled and sent to the president for approval.[126] The president may sign it making it law or veto it, perhaps returning it to Congress with the president\'s objections. A vetoed bill can still become law if each house of Congress votes to override the veto with a two-thirds majority. Finally, the president may do nothing neither signing nor vetoing the bill and then the bill becomes law automatically after ten days (not counting Sundays) according to the Constitution. But if Congress is adjourned during this period, presidents may veto legislation passed at the end of a congressional session simply by ignoring it; the maneuver is known as a pocket veto, and cannot be overridden by the adjourned Congress.\nPublic interaction\n[edit]Advantage of incumbency\n[edit]Citizens and representatives\n[edit]Senators face reelection every six years, and representatives every two. Reelections encourage candidates to focus their publicity efforts at their home states or districts.[64] Running for reelection can be a grueling process of distant travel and fund-raising which distracts senators and representatives from paying attention to governing, according to some critics.[143] Although others respond that the process is necessary to keep members of Congress in touch with voters.\nIncumbent members of Congress running for reelection have strong advantages over challengers.[53] They raise more money[58] because donors fund incumbents over challengers, perceiving the former as more likely to win,[56][144] and donations are vital for winning elections.[145] One critic compared election to Congress to receiving life tenure at a university.[144] Another advantage for representatives is the practice of gerrymandering.[146][147] After each ten-year census, states are allocated representatives based on population, and officials in power can choose how to draw the congressional district boundaries to support candidates from their party. As a result, reelection rates of members of Congress hover around 90 percent,[10] causing some critics to call them a privileged class.[9] Academics such as Princeton\'s Stephen Macedo have proposed solutions to fix gerrymandering in the U.S. Senators and representatives enjoy free mailing privileges, called franking privileges; while these are not intended for electioneering, this rule is often skirted by borderline election-related mailings during campaigns.\nExpensive campaigns\n[edit]In 1971, the cost of running for Congress in Utah was $70,000[148] but costs have climbed.[149] The biggest expense is television advertisements.[57][144][148][150][151] Today\'s races cost more than a million dollars for a House seat, and six million or more for a Senate seat.[9][57][150][152][153] Since fundraising is vital, "members of Congress are forced to spend ever-increasing hours raising money for their re-election."[attribution needed][154]\nThe Supreme Court has treated campaign contributions as a free speech issue.[149] Some see money as a good influence in politics since it "enables candidates to communicate with voters".[149] Few members retire from Congress without complaining about how much it costs to campaign for reelection.[9] Critics contend that members of Congress are more likely to attend to the needs of heavy campaign contributors than to ordinary citizens.[9]\nElections are influenced by many variables. Some political scientists speculate there is a coattail effect (when a popular president or party position has the effect of reelecting incumbents who win by "riding on the president\'s coattails"), although there is some evidence that the coattail effect is irregular and possibly declining since the 1950s.[53] Some districts are so heavily Democratic or Republican that they are called a safe seat; any candidate winning the primary will almost always be elected, and these candidates do not need to spend money on advertising.[155][156] But some races can be competitive when there is no incumbent. If a seat becomes vacant in an open district, then both parties may spend heavily on advertising in these races; in California in 1992, only four of twenty races for House seats were considered highly competitive.[157]\nTelevision and negative advertising\n[edit]Since members of Congress must advertise heavily on television, this usually involves negative advertising, which smears an opponent\'s character without focusing on the issues.[158] Negative advertising is seen as effective because "the messages tend to stick."[159] These advertisements sour the public on the political process in general as most members of Congress seek to avoid blame.[160] One wrong decision or one damaging television image can mean defeat at the next election, which leads to a culture of risk avoidance, a need to make policy decisions behind closed doors,[160][161] and concentrating publicity efforts in the members\' home districts.[64]\nPerceptions\n[edit]Prominent Founding Fathers, writing in The Federalist Papers, felt that elections were essential to liberty, that a bond between the people and the representatives was particularly essential,[162] and that "frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured."[162] In 2009, few Americans were familiar with leaders of Congress.[163][164][165] The percentage of Americans eligible to vote who did, in fact, vote was 63% in 1960, but has been falling since, although there was a slight upward trend in the 2008 election.[166] Public opinion polls asking people if they approve of the job Congress is doing have, in the last few decades, hovered around 25% with some variation.[9][167][168][169][170][171][172] Scholar Julian Zeliger suggested that the "size, messiness, virtues, and vices that make Congress so interesting also create enormous barriers to our understanding the institution ... Unlike the presidency, Congress is difficult to conceptualize."[173] Other scholars suggest that despite the criticism, "Congress is a remarkably resilient institution ... its place in the political process is not threatened ... it is rich in resources" and that most members behave ethically.[7] They contend that "Congress is easy to dislike and often difficult to defend" and this perception is exacerbated because many challengers running for Congress run against Congress, which is an "old form of American politics" that further undermines Congress\'s reputation with the public:[9]\nThe rough-and-tumble world of legislating is not orderly and civil, human frailties too often taint its membership, and legislative outcomes are often frustrating and ineffective ... Still, we are not exaggerating when we say that Congress is essential to American democracy. We would not have survived as a nation without a Congress that represented the diverse interests of our society, conducted a public debate on the major issues, found compromises to resolve conflicts peacefully, and limited the power of our executive, military, and judicial institutions ... The popularity of Congress ebbs and flows with the public\'s confidence in government generally ... the legislative process is easy to dislike – it often generates political posturing and grandstanding, it necessarily involves compromise, and it often leaves broken promises in its trail. Also, members of Congress often appear self-serving as they pursue their political careers and represent interests and reflect values that are controversial. Scandals, even when they involve a single member, add to the public\'s frustration with Congress and have contributed to the institution\'s low ratings in opinion polls.\n— Smith, Roberts & Wielen[9]\nAn additional factor that confounds public perceptions of Congress is that congressional issues are becoming more technical and complex and require expertise in subjects such as science, engineering and economics.[9] As a result, Congress often cedes authority to experts at the executive branch.[9]\nSince 2006, Congress has dropped ten points in the Gallup confidence poll with only nine percent having "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in their legislators.[174] Since 2011, Gallup poll has reported Congress\'s approval rating among Americans at 10% or below three times.[70][71] Public opinion of Congress plummeted further to 5% in October 2013 after parts of the U.S. government deemed \'nonessential government\' shut down.[72]\nSmaller states and bigger states\n[edit]When the Constitution was ratified in 1787, the ratio of the populations of large states to small states was roughly twelve to one. The Connecticut Compromise gave every state, large and small, an equal vote in the Senate.[175] Since each state has two senators, residents of smaller states have more clout in the Senate than residents of larger states. But since 1787, the population disparity between large and small states has grown; in 2006, for example, California had seventy times the population of Wyoming.[176] Critics, such as constitutional scholar Sanford Levinson, have suggested that the population disparity works against residents of large states and causes a steady redistribution of resources from "large states to small states".[177][178][179] Others argue that the Connecticut Compromise was deliberately intended by the Founding Fathers to construct the Senate so that each state had equal footing not based on population,[175] and contend that the result works well on balance.\nMembers and constituents\n[edit]A major role for members of Congress is providing services to constituents.[180] Constituents request assistance with problems.[181] Providing services helps members of Congress win votes and elections[146][182][183] and can make a difference in close races.[184] Congressional staff can help citizens navigate government bureaucracies.[6] One academic described the complex intertwined relation between lawmakers and constituents as home style.[185]: 8\nMotivation\n[edit]One way to categorize lawmakers, according to former University of Rochester political science professor Richard Fenno, is by their general motivation:\n- Reelection: These are lawmakers who "never met a voter they didn\'t like" and provide excellent constituent services.\n- Good public policy: Legislators who "burnish a reputation for policy expertise and leadership".\n- Power in the chamber: Lawmakers who spend serious time along the "rail of the House floor or in the Senate cloakroom ministering to the needs of their colleagues". Famous legislator Henry Clay in the mid-19th century was described as an "issue entrepreneur" who looked for issues to serve his ambitions.[185]: 34\nPrivileges\n[edit]Outside income and gifts\n[edit]Representative Jim Cooper of Tennessee told Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig that a chief problem with Congress was that members focused on their future careers as lobbyists after serving – that Congress was a "Farm League for K Street".[186][187] Family members of active legislators have also been hired by lobbying firms, which while not allowed to lobby their family member, has drawn criticism as a conflict of interest.[188]\nMembers of congress have been accused of insider trading, such as in the 2020 congressional insider trading scandal, where members of congress or their family members have traded on stocks related to work on their committees.[189] One 2011 study concluded that portfolios of members of congress outperformed both the market and hedge funds, which the authors suggested as evidence of insider trading.[190] Proposed solutions include putting stocks in blind trusts to prevent future insider trading.[191]\nSome members of congress have gone on lavish trips paid for by outside groups, sometimes bringing family members, which are often legal even if in an ethical gray area.[192][193]\nPay\n[edit]Some critics complain congressional pay is high compared with a median American income.[194] Others have countered that congressional pay is consistent with other branches of government.[167] Another criticism is that members of Congress are insulated from the health care market due to their coverage.[195] Others have criticized the wealth of members of Congress.[148][151] In January 2014, it was reported that for the first time over half of the members of Congress were millionaires.[196] Congress has been criticized for trying to conceal pay raises by slipping them into a large bill at the last minute.[197]\nMembers elected since 1984 are covered by the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). Like other federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through taxes and participants\' contributions. Members of Congress under FERS contribute 1.3% of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2% of their salary in Social Security taxes. And like federal employees, members contribute one-third of the cost of health insurance with the government covering the other two-thirds.[198] The size of a congressional pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest three years of their salary. By law, the starting amount of a member\'s retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of their final salary. In 2018, the average annual pension for retired senators and representatives under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) was $75,528, while those who retired under FERS, or in combination with CSRS, was $41,208.[199]\nMembers of Congress make fact-finding missions to learn about other countries and stay informed, but these outings can cause controversy if the trip is deemed excessive or unconnected with the task of governing. For example, The Wall Street Journal reported in 2009 that lawmaker trips abroad at taxpayer expense had included spas, $300-per-night extra unused rooms, and shopping excursions.[200] Some lawmakers responded that "traveling with spouses compensates for being away from them a lot in Washington" and justify the trips as a way to meet officials in other nations.[200]\nBy the Twenty-seventh Amendment, changes to congressional pay may not take effect before the next election to the House of the Representatives.[201] In Boehner v. Anderson, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the amendment does not affect cost-of-living adjustments.[202][201]\nPostage\n[edit]The franking privilege allows members of Congress to send official mail to constituents at government expense. Though they are not permitted to send election materials, borderline material is often sent, especially in the run-up to an election by those in close races.[203][204] Some academics consider free mailings as giving incumbents a big advantage over challengers.[10][failed verification][205]\nProtection\n[edit]Members of Congress enjoy parliamentary privilege, including freedom from arrest in all cases except for treason, felony, and breach of the peace, and freedom of speech in debate. This constitutionally derived immunity applies to members during sessions and when traveling to and from sessions.[206] The term "arrest" has been interpreted broadly, and includes any detention or delay in the course of law enforcement, including court summons and subpoenas. The rules of the House strictly guard this privilege; a member may not waive the privilege on their own but must seek the permission of the whole house to do so. Senate rules are less strict and permit individual senators to waive the privilege as they choose.[207]\nThe Constitution guarantees absolute freedom of debate in both houses, providing in the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution that "for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place." Accordingly, a member of Congress may not be sued in court for slander because of remarks made in either house, although each house has its own rules restricting offensive speeches, and may punish members who transgress.[208]\nObstructing the work of Congress is a crime under federal law and is known as contempt of Congress. Each member has the power to cite people for contempt but can only issue a contempt citation – the judicial system pursues the matter like a normal criminal case. If convicted in court of contempt of Congress, a person may be imprisoned for up to one year.[209]\nSee also\n[edit]- Caucuses of the United States Congress\n- Congressional Archives\n- Current members of the United States House of Representatives\n- Current members of the United States Senate\n- Elections in the United States § Congressional elections\n- List of United States Congresses\n- Oath of office § United States\n- Radio and Television Correspondents\' Association\n- United States Congress Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction\n- United States Congressional Baseball Game\n- United States congressional hearing\n- United States presidents and control of Congress\nNotes\n[edit]- ^ Independent Sens. Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont caucus with the Democratic Party;[1]\n- ^ Vice President-elect JD Vance (R-OH) resigned his seat.\n- ^ Matt Gaetz (R) declined to take office after being re-elected. [2]\nA special election will be held on April 1, 2025. - ^ Before the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1913, senators were chosen by state legislatures.\n- ^ Congress does not take a grammatical article, except when referring to a specific session of Congress.[3]\nCitations\n[edit]- ^ "Maine Independent Angus King To Caucus With Senate Democrats". Politico. November 14, 2012. Archived from the original on December 8, 2020. Retrieved November 28, 2020.\nAngus King of Maine, who cruised to victory last week running as an independent, said Wednesday that he will caucus with Senate Democrats. [...] The Senate\'s other independent, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, also caucuses with the Democrats.\n- ^ McIntire, Mary Ellen (November 22, 2024). "Matt Gaetz says he won\'t return to Congress next year". Roll Call. Archived from the original on November 23, 2024. Retrieved November 23, 2024.\n- ^ Garner, Bryan A. (2011). Garner\'s Dictionary of Legal Usage (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 203. ISBN 9780195384208. Retrieved October 22, 2023.\n- ^ "Membership of the 116th Congress: A Profile". Congressional Research Service. p. 4. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved March 5, 2020.\nCongress is composed of 541 individuals from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Puerto Rico.\n- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v John V. Sullivan (July 24, 2007). "How Our Laws Are Made". U.S. House of Representatives. Archived from the original on May 5, 2020. Retrieved November 27, 2016.\n- ^ a b c d e f g Lee H. Hamilton (2004). How Congress works and why you should care. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-253-34425-5. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ a b Steven S. Smith; Jason M. Roberts; Ryan J. Vander Wielen (2006). "The American Congress (Fourth Edition)". Cambridge University Press. p. 23. ISBN 9781139446990. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ a b c Julian E. Zelizer; Joanne Barrie Freeman; Jack N. Rakove; Alan Taylor, eds. (2004). "The American Congress: The Building of Democracy". Houghton Mifflin Company. pp. xiii–xiv. ISBN 0-618-17906-2. Archived from the original on October 19, 2017. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Steven S. Smith; Jason M. Roberts; Ryan J. Vander Wielen (2006). "The American Congress (Fourth Edition)". Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781139446990. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ a b c Perry Bacon Jr. (August 31, 2009). "Post Politics Hour: Weekend Review and a Look Ahead". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 20, 2009.\n- ^ "Information about the Archives of the United States Senate". U.S. Senate. Archived from the original on January 6, 2014. Retrieved January 6, 2014.\n- ^ Thomas Paine (1982). Kramnick, Isaac (ed.). Common Sense. Penguin Classics. p. 21.\n- ^ "References about weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation".*Pauline Maier (book reviewer) (November 18, 2007). "History – The Framers\' Real Motives (book review) Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution book by Woody Holton". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 10, 2009.*"The Constitution and the Idea of Compromise". PBS. October 10, 2009. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 10, 2009.*Alexander Hamilton (1788). "Federalist No. 15 – The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union". FoundingFathers.info. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 10, 2009.\n- ^ English (2003), pp. 5–6.\n- ^ Collier (1986), p. 5.\n- ^ James Madison (1787). "James Madison and the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787 – Engendering a National Government". The Library of Congress – American memory. Archived from the original on May 4, 2015. Retrieved October 10, 2009.\n- ^ "The Founding Fathers: New Jersey". The Charters of Freedom. October 10, 2009. Archived from the original on October 9, 2016. Retrieved October 10, 2009.\n- ^ "The Presidency: Vetoes". Time. March 9, 1931. Archived from the original on August 12, 2013. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ a b David E. Kyvig (2004). Julian E. Zelizer (ed.). "The American Congress: The Building of Democracy". Houghton Mifflin Company. p. 362. ISBN 0-618-17906-2. Archived from the original on October 19, 2017. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ David B. Rivkin Jr. & Lee A. Casey (August 22, 2009). "Illegal Health Reform". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 29, 2020. Retrieved October 10, 2009.\n- ^ Founding Fathers via FindLaw (1787). "U.S. Constitution: Article I (section 8 paragraph 3) – Article Text – Annotations". FindLaw. Archived from the original on February 12, 2010. Retrieved October 10, 2009.\n- ^ English (2003), p. 7.\n- ^ English (2003), p. 8.\n- ^ "The Convention Timeline". U.S. Constitution Online. October 10, 2009. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 10, 2009.\n- ^ Eric Patashnik (2004). Julian E. Zelizer (ed.). "The American Congress: The Building of Democracy". Houghton Mifflin Company. ISBN 0-618-17906-2. Archived from the original on October 19, 2017. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, March 2, 1794 Archived November 14, 2017, at the Wayback Machine "I see by a paper of last evening that even in New York a meeting of the people has taken place, at the instance of the Republican Party, and that a committee is appointed for the like purpose."\nThomas Jefferson to President Washington, May 23, 1792 Archived January 14, 2021, at the Wayback Machine "The republican party, who wish to preserve the government in its present form, are fewer in number. They are fewer even when joined by the two, three, or half dozen anti-federalists. ..." - ^ Chemerinsky, Erwin (2015). Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (5th ed.). New York: Wolters Kluwer. p. 37. ISBN 978-1-4548-4947-6.\n- ^ Van Alstyne, William (1969). "A Critical Guide to Marbury v. Madison". Duke Law Journal. 18 (1): 1. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved November 24, 2018.\n- ^ Margaret S. Thompson, The "Spider Web": Congress and Lobbying in the Age of Grant (1985)\n- ^ Elisabeth S. Clemens, The People\'s Lobby: Organizational Innovation and the Rise of Interest-Group Politics in the United States, 1890–1925 (1997)\n- ^ "Party in Power – Congress and Presidency – A Visual Guide to the Balance of Power in Congress, 1945–2008". Uspolitics.about.com. Archived from the original on November 1, 2012. Retrieved September 17, 2012.\n- ^ Davidson, Roger H.; Oleszek, Walter J.; Lee, Frances E.; Schickler, Eric; Curry, James M. (2022). Congress and Its Members (18th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage CQ Press. pp. 161–162. ISBN 9781071836859.\n- ^ Fromkin, Lauren (February 15, 2024). "Cleaning Up House: Reforms to Empower U.S. House Committees". Bipartisan Policy. Retrieved May 17, 2024.\n- ^ David B. Rivkin Jr. & Lee A. Casey (August 22, 2009). "Illegal Health Reform". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 29, 2020. Retrieved September 28, 2009.\n- ^ Steven S. Smith; Jason M. Roberts; Ryan J. Vander Wielen (2006). "The American Congress (Fourth Edition)". Cambridge University Press. p. 38. ISBN 9781139446990. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ David E. Kyvig (2004). Julian E. Zelizer (ed.). "The American Congress: The Building of Democracy". Houghton Mifflin Company. ISBN 0-618-17906-2. Archived from the original on October 19, 2017. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ "The Congress: 72nd Made". Time. November 17, 1930. Archived from the original on September 30, 2008. Retrieved October 5, 2010.\n- ^ a b English (2003), p. 14.\n- ^ Farley, Bill (January 25, 2021). "Blending Powers: Hamilton, FDR, and the Backlash That Shaped Modern Congress". Journal of Policy History. 33 (1): 60–92. doi:10.1017/S089803062000024X. ISSN 0898-0306. S2CID 231694131. Archived from the original on November 4, 2021. Retrieved March 2, 2021.\n- ^ "The Congress: Democratic Senate". Time. November 14, 1932. Archived from the original on October 27, 2010. Retrieved October 10, 2010.\n- ^ "Political Notes: Democratic Drift". Time. November 16, 1936. Archived from the original on December 15, 2008. Retrieved October 10, 2010.\n- ^ a b "The Congress: The 76th". Time. November 21, 1938. Archived from the original on August 26, 2010. Retrieved October 10, 2010.\n- ^ "The Vice Presidency: Undeclared War". Time. March 20, 1939. Archived from the original on April 29, 2011. Retrieved October 10, 2010.\n- ^ "Congress: New Houses". Time. November 11, 1940. Archived from the original on October 14, 2010. Retrieved October 10, 2010.\n- ^ "Before the G.O.P. Lay a Forked Road". Time. November 16, 1942. Archived from the original on October 14, 2010. Retrieved October 10, 2010.\n- ^ "Business & Finance: Turn of the Tide". Time. November 16, 1942. Archived from the original on October 14, 2010. Retrieved October 10, 2010.\n- ^ a b "The Congress: Effort toward Efficiency". Time. May 21, 1965. Archived from the original on February 20, 2008. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ "National Affairs: Judgments & Prophecies". Time. November 15, 1954. Archived from the original on May 1, 2011. Retrieved October 10, 2010.\n- ^ "The Congress: Ahead of the Wind". Time. November 17, 1958. Archived from the original on January 31, 2011. Retrieved October 10, 2010.\n- ^ Brownstein, Ronald (June 20, 2023). "Why power in Congress is now so precarious | CNN Politics". CNN. Retrieved May 17, 2024.\n...two decades of unbroken Democratic Senate control from 1961 to 1980 ... Neither side lately has consistently reached the heights that Democrats did while they held unbroken control of the lower chamber from 1955 through 1994 when the party routinely won 250 seats or more.\n- ^ Bruce J. Schulman (2004). Julian E. Zelizer (ed.). "The American Congress: The Building of Democracy". Houghton Mifflin Company. p. 638. ISBN 0-618-17906-2. Archived from the original on October 19, 2017. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ "The House: New Faces and New Strains". Time. November 18, 1974. Archived from the original on December 22, 2008.\n- ^ a b c d Steven S. Smith; Jason M. Roberts; Ryan J. Vander Wielen (2006). "The American Congress (Fourth Edition)". Cambridge University Press. p. 58. ISBN 9781139446990. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Nick Anderson (March 30, 2004). "Political Attack Ads Already Popping Up on the Web". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.\n- ^ a b Susan Tifft; Richard Homik; Hays Corey (August 20, 1984). "Taking an Ax to the PACs". Time. Archived from the original on October 29, 2010. Retrieved October 2, 2009.\n- ^ a b Clymer, Adam (October 29, 1992). "Campaign spending in congress races soars to new high". The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 2, 2009.\n- ^ a b c Jeffrey H. Birnbaum (October 3, 2004). "Cost of Congressional Campaigns Skyrockets". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- ^ a b Richard E. Cohen (August 12, 1990). "PAC Paranoia: Congress Faces Campaign Spending – Politics: Hysteria was the operative word when legislators realized they could not return home without tougher campaign finance laws". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 2, 2009.\n- ^ Walter Isaacson; Evan Thomas; other bureaus (October 25, 1982). "Running with the PACs". Time. Archived from the original on April 29, 2011. Retrieved October 2, 2009.\n- ^ a b John Fritze (March 2, 2009). "PACs spent record $416M on federal election". USA Today. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 2, 2009.\n- ^ Thomas Frank (October 29, 2006). "Beer PAC aims to put Congress under influence". USA TODAY. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 2, 2009.\n- ^ Michael Isikoff & Dina Fine Maron (March 21, 2009). "Congress – Follow the Bailout Cash". Newsweek. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 2, 2009.\n- ^ Richard L. Berke (February 14, 1988). "Campaign Finance; Problems in the PAC\'s: Study Finds Frustration". The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 2, 2009.\n- ^ a b c d Michael Schudson (2004). Julian E. Zelizer (ed.). "The American Congress: The Building of Democracy". Houghton Mifflin Company. ISBN 0-618-17906-2. Archived from the original on October 19, 2017. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Steven S. Smith; Jason M. Roberts; Ryan J. Vander Wielen (2006). "The American Congress (Fourth Edition)". Cambridge University Press. p. 12. ISBN 9781139446990. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Mark Murray, NBC News, June 30, 2013, Unproductive Congress: How stalemates became the norm in Washington DC Archived January 14, 2021, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved June 30, 2013.\n- ^ Domenico Montanaro, NBC News, October 10, 2013, NBC/WSJ poll: 60 percent say fire every member of Congress Archived January 14, 2021, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved October 10, 2013, "... 60 percent of Americans ... if they had the chance to vote to defeat and replace every single member of Congress ... they would ..."\n- ^ Andy Sullivan of Reuters, NBC News, October 17, 2013, Washington: the biggest risk to U.S. economy Archived January 14, 2021, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved October 18, 2013, "... the biggest risk to the world\'s largest economy may be its own elected representatives ... Down-to-the-wire budget and debt crises, indiscriminate spending cuts and a 16-day government shutdown ..."\n- ^ Domenico Montanaro, NBC News, October 10, 2013, NBC/WSJ poll: 60 percent say fire every member of Congress Archived January 14, 2021, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved October 10, 2013, "... 60 percent of Americans ... saying if they had the chance to vote to defeat and replace every single member of Congress, including their own representative, they would ..."\n- ^ a b Wall Street Journal, Approval of Congress Matches All-Time Low Archived January 14, 2021, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved June 13, 2013.\n- ^ a b Carrie Dann, NBC News, Americans\' faith in Congress lower than all major institutions – ever Archived January 14, 2021, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved June 13, 2013.\n- ^ a b "White House: Republicans Will \'Do the Right Thing\'". Voice of America. October 9, 2013. Archived from the original on March 5, 2016. Retrieved October 10, 2013.\n- ^ Palmer, Betsy. Delegates to the U.S. Congress: history and current status Archived January 14, 2021, at the Wayback Machine, Congressional Research Service; U.S. House of Representatives, "The House Explained Archived November 11, 2017, at the Wayback Machine", viewed January 9, 2015.\n- ^ Ward, Matthew (January 8, 2021). "The US Capitol has been stormed before – when British troops burned Washington in 1814". The Conversation. Archived from the original on April 7, 2021. Retrieved March 15, 2021.\n- ^ Sanbonmatsu 2020, pp. 42–43.\n- ^ Sanbonmatsu 2020, p. 45.\n- ^ Vogelstein, Rachel; Bro, Alexandra (November 9, 2018). "The \'Year of the Woman\' goes global". CNN. Retrieved May 17, 2024.\n- ^ Sullivan, Kate (July 16, 2019). "Here are the 4 congresswomen known as \'The Squad\' targeted by Trump\'s racist tweets". CNN Politics. Retrieved May 17, 2024.\n- ^ Sanbonmatsu 2020, pp. 44–45.\n- ^ Sanbonmatsu 2020, p. 42.\n- ^ Epps, Garrett (2013). American Epic: Reading the U.S. Constitution. New York: Oxford. p. 9. ISBN 978-0-19-938971-1.\n- ^ a b Eric Patashnik (2004). "The American Congress: The Building of Democracy". Houghton Mifflin Company. pp. 671–2. ISBN 0-618-17906-2. Archived from the original on October 19, 2017. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ a b Davidson (2006), p. 18.\n- ^ "Congress and the Dollar". New York Sun. May 30, 2008. Archived from the original on August 1, 2020. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Kate Zernike (September 28, 2006). "Senate Passes Detainee Bill Sought by Bush". The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 3, 2020. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ "References about congressional war declaring power".\n- Dana D. Nelson (October 11, 2008). "The \'unitary executive\' question". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 4, 2009.\n- Steve Holland (May 1, 2009). "Obama revelling in U.S. power unseen in decades". Reuters UK. Archived from the original on January 3, 2011. Retrieved September 28, 2009.\n- "The Law: The President\'s War Powers". Time. June 1, 1970. Archived from the original on August 22, 2013. Retrieved September 28, 2009.\n- ^ a b c "The Law: The President\'s War Powers". Time. June 1, 1970. Archived from the original on August 22, 2013. Retrieved September 28, 2009.\n- ^ "The President\'s News Conference of June 29, 1950". Teachingamericanhistory.org. June 29, 1950. Archived from the original on December 26, 2010. Retrieved December 20, 2010.\n- ^ Michael Kinsley (March 15, 1993). "The Case for a Big Power Swap". Time. Archived from the original on August 13, 2013. Retrieved September 28, 2009.\n- ^ "Time Essay: Where\'s Congress?". Time. May 22, 1972. Archived from the original on May 21, 2013. Retrieved September 28, 2009.\n- ^ "The Law: The President\'s War Powers". Time. June 1, 1970. Archived from the original on August 22, 2013. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ "The proceedings of congress.; senate". The New York Times. June 28, 1862. Archived from the original on October 10, 2017. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ David S. Broder (March 18, 2007). "Congress\'s Oversight Offensive". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on May 1, 2011. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Thomas Ferraro (April 25, 2007). "House committee subpoenas Rice on Iraq". Reuters. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ James Gerstenzang (July 16, 2008). "Bush claims executive privilege in Valerie Plame Wilson case". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on August 1, 2008. Retrieved October 4, 2009.\n- ^ Elizabeth B. Bazan; Jennifer K. Elsea; legislative attorneys (January 5, 2006). "Presidential Authority to Conduct Warrantless Electronic Surveillance to Gather Foreign Intelligence Information" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Archived (PDF) from the original on February 5, 2012. Retrieved September 28, 2009.\n- ^ Linda P. Campbell & Glen Elsasser (October 20, 1991). "Supreme Court Slugfests A Tradition". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on April 29, 2011. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Eric Cantor (July 30, 2009). "Obama\'s 32 Czars". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on August 31, 2010. Retrieved September 28, 2009.\n- ^ Christopher Lee (January 2, 2006). "Alito Once Made Case For Presidential Power". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 4, 2009.\n- ^ Dan Froomkin (March 10, 2009). "Playing by the Rules". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 4, 2009.\n- ^ Dana D. Nelson (October 11, 2008). "The \'unitary executive\' question". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 4, 2009.\n- ^ Charlie Savage (March 16, 2009). "Obama Undercuts Whistle-Blowers, Senator Says". The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 4, 2009.\n- ^ Binyamin Appelbaum & David Cho (March 24, 2009). "U.S. Seeks Expanded Power to Seize Firms Goal Is to Limit Risk to Broader Economy". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 28, 2009.\n- ^ George F. Will – op-ed columnist (December 21, 2008). "Making Congress Moot". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on May 1, 2011. Retrieved September 28, 2009.\n- ^ Davidson (2006), p. 19.\n- ^ Kincaid, J. Leslie (January 17, 1916). "To Make the Militia a National Force: The Power of Congress Under the Constitution "for Organizing, Arming, and Disciplining" the State Troops". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 30, 2011. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Stephen Herrington (February 25, 2010). "Red State Anxiety and The Constitution". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on July 2, 2010. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ "Timeline". CBS News. 2010. Archived from the original on May 1, 2011. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Randy E. Barnett (April 23, 2009). "The Case for a Federalism Amendment". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on July 2, 2015. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Executive Order 13423 Sec. 9. (l). "The \'United States\' when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, and associated territorial waters and airspace."\n- ^ U.S. State Department, Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty Archived June 21, 2022, at the Wayback Machine\n- ^ House Learn Archived November 11, 2017, at the Wayback Machine webpage. Viewed January 26, 2013.\n- ^ The Green Papers, 2016 Presidential primaries, caucuses and conventions Archived January 14, 2021, at the Wayback Machine, viewed September 3, 2015.\n- ^ "The very structure of the Constitution gives us profound insights about what the founders thought was important ... the Founders thought that the Legislative Branch was going to be the great branch of government." —Hon. John Charles Thomas [1] Archived October 14, 2007, at the Wayback Machine\n- ^ Susan Sachs (January 7, 1999). "Impeachment: The Past; Johnson\'s Trial: 2 Bitter Months for a Still-Torn Nation". The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ a b Greene, Richard (January 19, 2005). "Kings in the White House". BBC News. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 7, 2007.\n- ^ Steven S. Smith; Jason M. Roberts; Ryan J. Vander Wielen (2006). "The American Congress (Fourth Edition)". Cambridge University Press. pp. 18–19. ISBN 9781139446990. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Steven S. Smith; Jason M. Roberts; Ryan J. Vander Wielen (2006). "The American Congress (Fourth Edition)". Cambridge University Press. p. 19. ISBN 9781139446990. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Charles Wolfson (August 11, 2010). "Clinton Presses Senate to Ratify Nuclear Arms Treaty with Russia". CBS News. Archived from the original on September 14, 2010. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ "Constitutional Interpretation the Old Fashioned Way". Center For Individual Freedom. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 15, 2007.\n- ^ "Decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott Case". The New York Times. March 6, 1851. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Waxman, Matthew (November 4, 2018). "Remembering St. Clair\'s Defeat". Lawfare. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved May 22, 2019.\n- ^ Frank Askin (July 21, 2007). "Congress\'s Power To Compel". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 28, 2009.\n- ^ a b "Congressional Hearings: About". GPO Access. September 28, 2005. Archived from the original on August 9, 2010. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ a b c "Congressional Reports: Main Page". U.S. Government Printing Office Access. May 25, 2010. Archived from the original on August 7, 2010. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q "Tying It All Together: Learn about the Legislative Process". United States House of Representatives. Archived from the original on April 20, 2011. Retrieved April 20, 2011.\n- ^ English (2003), pp. 46–47.\n- ^ English, p. 46.\n- ^ Schiller, Wendy J. (2000). Partners and Rivals: Representation in U.S. Senate Delegations. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-04887-8.\n- ^ "Committees". U.S. Senate. 2010. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 12, 2010.\n- ^ a b c Committee Types and Roles, Congressional Research Service, April 1, 2003.\n- ^ "General Information – Library of Congress". Library of Congress. Archived from the original on February 24, 2014. Retrieved December 30, 2017.\n- ^ "The Congressional Research Service and the American Legislative Process" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. 2008. Archived (PDF) from the original on July 18, 2009. Retrieved July 25, 2009.\n- ^ O\'Sullivan, Arthur; Sheffrin, Steven M. (2003). Economics: Principles in Action. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. p. 388. ISBN 0-13-063085-3.\n- ^ "Congressional Budget Office – About CBO". Cbo.gov. Archived from the original on December 5, 2010. Retrieved December 20, 2010.\n- ^ Washington Representatives (32 ed.). Bethesda, MD: Columbia Books. November 2007. p. 949. ISBN 978-1-880873-55-7.\n- ^ Steven S. Smith; Jason M. Roberts; Ryan J. Vander Wielen (2006). The American Congress (Fourth ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 17–18. ISBN 9781139446990. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Partnership for Public Service (March 29, 2009). "Walter Oleszek: A Hill Staffer\'s Guide to Congressional History and Habit". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ "Blacks: Confronting the President". Time. April 5, 1971. Archived from the original on December 21, 2008. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ "News from Washington". The New York Times. December 3, 1861. Archived from the original on October 10, 2017. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ United States government (2010). "Recent Votes". United States Senate. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ "The U.S. Congress – Votes Database – Members of Congress / Robert Byrd". The Washington Post. June 17, 2010. Archived from the original on November 10, 2010. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Larry J. Sabato (September 26, 2007). "An amendment is needed to fix the primary mess". USA Today. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 20, 2009.\n- ^ a b c Joseph A. Califano Jr. (May 27, 1988). "PAC\'s Remain a Pox". The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 2, 2009.\n- ^ Brian Kalish (May 19, 2008). "GOP exits to cost party millions". USA TODAY. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- ^ a b Susan Page (May 9, 2006). "5 keys to who will control Congress: How immigration, gas, Medicare, Iraq and scandal could affect midterm races". USA Today. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Macedo, Stephen (August 11, 2008). "Toward a more democratic Congress? Our imperfect democratic constitution: the critics examined". Boston University Law Review. 89: 609–628. Archived from the original on May 1, 2011. Retrieved September 20, 2009.\n- ^ a b c "Time Essay: Campaign Costs: Floor, Not Ceiling". Time. May 17, 1971. Archived from the original on December 21, 2008. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- ^ a b c Barbara Borst, Associated Press (October 29, 2006). "Campaign spending up in U.S. congressional elections". USA Today. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- ^ a b Dan Froomkin (September 15, 1997). "Campaign Finance – Introduction". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- ^ a b Thomas, Evan (April 4, 2008). "At What Cost? – Sen. John Warner and Congress\'s money culture". Newsweek. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- ^ "References about diffname".\n- Jean Merl (October 18, 2000). "Gloves Come Off in Attack Ads by Harman, Kuykendall". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.\n- Shanto Iyengar (August 12, 2008). "Election 2008: The Advertising". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.\n- Dave Lesher (September 12, 1994). "Column One – TV Blitz Fueled by a Fortune – Once obscure, Huffington now is pressing Feinstein. His well-financed rapid-response team has mounted an unprecedented ad attack". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.\n- Howard Kurtz (October 28, 1998). "Democrats Chase Votes With a Safety Net". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.\n- ^ James Oliphant (April 9, 2008). "\'08 Campaign costs nearing $2 Billion. Is it worth it?". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- ^ "Campaign Finance Groups Praise Rep. Welch for Cosponsoring Fair Elections Now Act". Reuters. May 19, 2009. Archived from the original on January 22, 2010. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- ^ John Balzar (May 24, 2006). "Democrats Battle Over a Safe Seat in Congress". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.\n- ^ "The Congress: An Idea on the March". Time. January 11, 1963. Archived from the original on May 1, 2011. Retrieved September 30, 2009.\n- ^ "Decision \'92 – Special Voters\' Guide to State and Local Elections – The Congressional Races". Los Angeles Times. October 25, 1992. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.\n- ^ "References about prevalence of attack ads".\n- Brooks Jackson & Justin Bank (February 5, 2009). "Radio, Radio – New Democratic ads attacking House Republicans in the lead-up to the 2010 midterm elections don\'t tell the whole story". Newsweek. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.\n- Fredreka Schouten (September 19, 2008). "Union helps non-profit groups pay for attack ads". USA Today. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.\n- Ruth Marcus (August 8, 2007). "Attack Ads You\'ll Be Seeing". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.\n- Chris Cillizza (September 20, 2006). "Ads, Ads Everywhere!". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.\n- Samantha Gross (September 7, 2007). "Coming Soon: Personalized Campaign Ads". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.\n- ^ Howard Kurtz (January 6, 2008). "Campaign on Television People May Dislike Attack Ads, but the Messages Tend to Stick". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.\n- ^ a b Steven S. Smith; Jason M. Roberts; Ryan J. Vander Wielen (2006). "The American Congress (Fourth Edition)". Cambridge University Press. p. 21. ISBN 9781139446990. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Lobbying: influencing decision making with transparency and integrity (PDF). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2012. Archived (PDF) from the original on April 11, 2019. Retrieved March 30, 2019.\n- ^ a b Alexander Hamilton or James Madison (February 8, 1788). "The Federalist Paper No. 52". Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- ^ "Congress\' Approval Rating at Lowest Point for Year". Reuters. September 2, 2009. Archived from the original on September 5, 2009. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- ^ "The Congress: Makings of the 72nd (Cont.)". Time. September 22, 1930. Archived from the original on August 27, 2013. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- ^ Jonathan Peterson (October 21, 1996). "Confident Clinton Lends Hand to Congress Candidates". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- ^ "References about diffname".\n- "The Congress: Makings of the 72nd (Cont.)". Time. September 22, 1930. Archived from the original on August 27, 2013. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- Maki Becker (June 17, 1994). "Informed Opinions on Today\'s Topics – Looking for Answers to Voter Apathy". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- Daniel Brumberg (October 30, 2008). "America\'s Re-emerging Democracy". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 10, 2017. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- Karen Tumulty (July 8, 1986). "Congress Must Now Make Own Painful Choices". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- Janet Hook (December 22, 1997). "As U.S. Economy Flows, Voter Vitriol Ebbs". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- ^ a b "Congress gets $4,100 pay raise". USA Today. Associated Press. January 9, 2008. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 28, 2009.\n- ^ Gallup Poll/Newsweek (October 8, 2009). "Congress and the Public: Congressional Job Approval Ratings Trend (1974–present)". The Gallup Organization. Archived from the original on August 7, 2013. Retrieved October 8, 2009.\n- ^ "References about low approval ratings".\n- "Congress\' Approval Rating Jumps to 31%". Gallup. February 17, 2009. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- "Congress\' Approval Rating at Lowest Point for Year". Reuters. September 2, 2009. Archived from the original on September 5, 2009. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- John Whitesides (September 19, 2007). "Bush, Congress at record low ratings: Reuters poll". Reuters. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- Seung Min Kim (February 18, 2009). "Poll: Congress\' job approval at 31%". USA Today. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- ^ interview by David Schimke (September–October 2008). "Presidential Power to the People – Author Dana D. Nelson on why democracy demands that the next president be taken down a notch". Utne Reader. Archived from the original on January 15, 2013. Retrieved September 20, 2009.\n- ^ Guy Gugliotta (November 3, 2004). "Politics In, Voter Apathy Out Amid Heavy Turnout". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 14, 2017. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- ^ "Voter Turnout Rate Said to Be Highest Since 1968". The Washington Post. Associated Press. December 15, 2008. Archived from the original on October 14, 2017. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- ^ Julian E. Zelizer, ed. (2004). "The American Congress: The Building of Democracy". Houghton Mifflin Company. p. xiv–xv. ISBN 0-618-17906-2. Archived from the original on October 19, 2017. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Norman, Jim (June 13, 2016). "Americans\' Confidence in Institutions Stays Low". Gallup. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved June 14, 2016.\n- ^ a b "Roger Sherman and The Connecticut Compromise". Connecticut Judicial Branch: Law Libraries. January 10, 2010. Archived from the original on January 17, 2010. Retrieved January 10, 2010.\n- ^ Cass R. Sunstein (October 26, 2006). "It Could Be Worse". The New Republic. Archived from the original on July 30, 2010. Retrieved January 10, 2010.\n- ^ Robert Justin Lipkin (January 2007). "Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (And How We the People can Correct It)". Widener University School of Law. Archived from the original on September 25, 2009. Retrieved September 20, 2009.\n- ^ Sanford Levinson (2006). "Our Undemocratic Constitution". Oxford University Press. p. 60. ISBN 9780195345612. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved January 10, 2010.\n- ^ Labunski, Richard; Schwartz, Dan (October 18, 2007). "Time for a Second Constitutional Convention?". Policy Today. Archived from the original on November 20, 2009. Retrieved September 20, 2009.\n- ^ Charles L. Clapp, The Congressman, His Work as He Sees It (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1963), p. 55; cf. pp. 50–55, 64–66, 75–84.\n- ^ Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 35 (September 3, 1977): 1855. English, op. cit., pp. 48–49, notes that members will also regularly appear at local events in their home district, and will maintain offices in the home congressional district or state.\n- ^ Robert Preer (August 15, 2010). "Two Democrats in Senate race stress constituent services". Boston Globe. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Daniel Malloy (August 22, 2010). "Incumbents battle association with stimulus, Obama". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Amy Gardner (November 27, 2008). "Wolf\'s Decisive Win Surprised Even the GOP". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ a b William T. Blanco, ed. (2000). "Congress on display, Congress at work". University of Michigan. ISBN 0-472-08711-8. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Lessig, Lawrence (February 8, 2010). "How to Get Our Democracy Back". CBS News. Archived from the original on January 20, 2013. Retrieved December 14, 2011.\n- ^ Lessig, Lawrence (November 16, 2011). "Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It". Google, YouTube, The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on December 5, 2013. Retrieved December 13, 2011.\n(see 30:13 minutes into the video)\n- ^ Attkisson, Sharyl (June 25, 2010). "Family Ties Bind Federal Lawmakers to Lobbyists - CBS News". www.cbsnews.com. Retrieved May 15, 2024.\n- ^ Parlapiano, Alicia; Playford, Adam; Kelly, Kate; Uz, Ege (September 13, 2022). "These 97 Members of Congress Reported Trades in Companies Influenced by Their Committees". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved May 15, 2024.\n- ^ Schwartz, John (July 9, 2011). "Not-So-Representative Investors". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved May 15, 2024.\n- ^ Vitali, Ali; Tsirkin, Julie; Talbot, Haley (February 8, 2022). "Stock ban proposed for Congress to stop insider trading among lawmakers". NBC News. Retrieved May 15, 2024.\n- ^ Leonard, Kimberly. "An $84,000 trip to Qatar and a $41,000 retreat in Miami: Members of Congress are going on expensive travels paid for by private groups where some bring their loved ones". Business Insider. Retrieved May 15, 2024.\n- ^ House, Billy (March 18, 2023). "US Lawmakers Resume Globe Trotting Paid by Special Interests". Bloomberg.\n- ^ Lee, Timothy B. (September 19, 2013). "This chart shows why members of Congress really should earn more than $172,000". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 17, 2024.\n- ^ Lui, Kevin (March 17, 2017). "A Petition to Remove Health Care Subsidies From Members of Congress Has Nearly 500000 Signatures". Time Magazine. Washington D.C. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved May 22, 2018.\n- ^ Lipton, Eric (January 9, 2014). "Half of Congress Members Are Millionaires, Report Says". The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved January 11, 2014.\n- ^ "A Quiet Raise – Congressional Pay – special report". The Washington Post. 1998. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved February 23, 2015.\n- ^ Scott, Walter (April 25, 2010). "Personality Parade column:Q. Does Congress pay for its own health care?". New York, NY: Parade. p. 2.\n- ^ Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress Archived October 14, 2022, at the Wayback Machine (PDF). Congressional Research Service, August 8, 2019.\n- ^ a b Brody Mullins & T. W. Farnam (December 17, 2009). "Congress Travels More, Public Pays: Lawmakers Ramp Up Taxpayer-Financed Journeys; Five Days in Scotland". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved December 17, 2009.\n- ^ a b "Constitutional Amendments – Amendment 27 – "Financial Compensation for the Congress"". Ronald Reagan. Retrieved May 17, 2024.\n- ^ 30 F.3d 156 (D.C. Cir. 1994)\n- ^ English (2003), pp. 24–25.\n- ^ Simpson, G. R. (October 22, 1992). "Surprise! Top Frankers Also Have the Stiffest Challenges". Roll Call.\n- ^ Steven S. Smith; Jason M. Roberts; Ryan J. Vander Wielen (2006). "The American Congress (Fourth Edition)". Cambridge University Press. p. 79. ISBN 9781139446990. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Davidson (2006), p. 17.\n- ^ "Rules Of The Senate | U.S. Senate Committee on Rules & Administration". www.rules.senate.gov. Archived from the original on December 30, 2017. Retrieved September 30, 2022.\n- ^ Brewer, F. M. (1952). "Congressional Immunity". CQ Press. doi:10.4135/cqresrre1952042500. Archived from the original on January 25, 2021. Retrieved January 16, 2021.\n- ^ "Contempt of Congress". HeinOnline. The Jurist. January 1, 1957. ProQuest 1296619169. Retrieved September 7, 2020.\nReferences\n[edit]- "How To Clean Up The Mess From Inside The System, A Plea – And A Plan – To Reform Campaign Finance Before It\'s Too". Newsweek. October 28, 1996. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 20, 2009.\n- "The Constitution and the Idea of Compromise". PBS. October 10, 2009. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 10, 2009.\n- Alexander Hamilton (1788). "Federalist No. 15 – The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union". FoundingFathers.info. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 10, 2009.\n- Bacon, Donald C.; Davidson, Roger H.; Keller, Morton, eds. (1995). Encyclopedia of the United States Congress (4 vols.). Simon & Schuster.\n- Collier, Christopher & Collier, James Lincoln (1986). Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787. Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-394-52346-6.\n- Davidson, Roger H. & Walter J. Oleszek (2006). Congress and Its Members (10th ed.). Congressional Quarterly (CQ) Press. ISBN 0-87187-325-7. (Legislative procedure, informal practices, and other information)\n- English, Ross M. (2003). The United States Congress. Manchester University Press. ISBN 0-7190-6309-4.\n- Francis-Smith, Janice (October 22, 2008). "Waging campaigns against incumbents in Oklahoma". The Oklahoma City Journal Record. Archived from the original on May 10, 2010. Retrieved September 20, 2009.\n- Herrnson, Paul S. (2004). Congressional Elections: Campaigning at Home and in Washington. CQ Press. ISBN 1-56802-826-1.\n- Huckabee, David C. (2003). Reelection Rates of Incumbents. Hauppauge, New York: Novinka Books, an imprint of Nova Science Publishers. p. 21. ISBN 1-59033-509-0. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 27, 2020.\n- Huckabee, David C. – Analyst in American National Government – Government Division (March 8, 1995). "Reelection rate of House Incumbents 1790–1990 Summary (page 2)" (PDF). Congressional Research Service – The Library of Congress. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 29, 2011. Retrieved September 20, 2009.\n- Maier, Pauline (book reviewer) (November 18, 2007). "HISTORY – The Framers\' Real Motives (book review) Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution book by Woody Holton". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 10, 2009.\n- Oleszek, Walter J. (2004). Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process. CQ Press. ISBN 0-87187-477-6.\n- Polsby, Nelson W. (2004). How Congress Evolves: Social Bases of Institutional Change. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-516195-5.\n- Price, David E. (2000). The Congressional Experience. Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-1157-8.\n- Sanbonmatsu, Kira (2020). "Women\'s Underrepresentation in the U.S. Congress". Daedalus. 149: 40–55. doi:10.1162/daed_a_01772. ISSN 0011-5266. S2CID 209487865. Archived from the original on April 24, 2021. Retrieved April 6, 2021.\n- Struble, Robert Jr. (2007). Chapter seven, Treatise on Twelve Lights. TeLL. Archived from the original on April 14, 2016.\n- Zelizer, Julian E. (2004). The American Congress: The Building of Democracy. Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-618-17906-2.\nFurther reading\n[edit]- Ritchie, Donald A. (2022). The U.S. Congress: A Very Short Introduction. (History, representation, and legislative procedure)\n- Smith, Steven S.; Roberts, Jason M.; Vander Wielen, Ryan (2007). The American Congress (5th ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-19704-5. (Legislative procedure, informal practices, and other information)\n- Hamilton, Lee H. (2004) How Congress Works and Why You Should Care, Indiana University Press.\n- Lee, Frances and Bruce Oppenheimer. (1999). Sizing Up the Senate: The Unequal Consequences of Equal Representation. University of Chicago Press: Chicago. (Equal representation in the Senate)\n- Some information in this article has been provided by the Senate Historical Office.', - 'relevant': 'United States Congress\nThis article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. (May 2024) |\nUnited States Congress | |\n|---|---|\n| 119th Congress | |\n| Type | |\n| Type | |\n| Houses | Senate House of Representatives |\n| History | |\n| Founded | March 4, 1789 |\n| Preceded by | Congress of the Confederation |\nNew session started | January 3, 2025 |\n| Leadership | |\n| Structure | |\n| Seats |\n|\nSenate political groups | Majority (52)\nMinority (47)\nVacant (1)\n|\nHouse of Representatives political groups'}, - {'url': 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States', - 'content': 'Vice President of the United States\nThis article may be affected by the following current event: Second inauguration of Donald Trump. Information in this article may change rapidly as the event progresses. Initial news reports may be unreliable. The last updates to this article may not reflect the most current information. (January 2025) |\n| Vice President of the United States | |\n|---|---|\nsince January 20, 2021 | |\n| Style |\n|\n| Status |\n|\n| Member of | |\n| Residence | Number One Observatory Circle |\n| Seat | Washington, D.C. |\n| Appointer | Electoral College, or, if vacant, President of the United States via congressional confirmation |\n| Term length | Four years, no term limit |\n| Constituting instrument | Constitution of the United States |\n| Formation | March 4, 1789[1][2][3] |\n| First holder | John Adams[4] |\n| Succession | First[5] |\n| Unofficial names | VPOTUS,[6] VP, Veep[7] |\n| Salary | $284,600 per annum |\n| Website | www.whitehouse.gov |\nThe vice president of the United States (VPOTUS) is the second-highest ranking office in the executive branch[8][9] of the U.S. federal government, after the president of the United States, and ranks first in the presidential line of succession. The vice president is also an officer in the legislative branch, as the president of the Senate. In this capacity, the vice president is empowered to preside over the United States Senate, but may not vote except to cast a tie-breaking vote.[10] The vice president is indirectly elected at the same time as the president to a four-year term of office by the people of the United States through the Electoral College, but the electoral votes are cast separately for these two offices.[10] Following the passage in 1967 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, a vacancy in the office of vice president may be filled by presidential nomination and confirmation by a majority vote in both houses of Congress.\nThe modern vice presidency is a position of significant power and is widely seen as an integral part of a president\'s administration. The presidential candidate selects the candidate for the vice presidency, as their running mate in the lead-up to the presidential election. While the exact nature of the role varies in each administration, since the vice president\'s service in office is by election, the president cannot dismiss the vice president, and the personal working-relationship with the president varies, most modern vice presidents serve as a key presidential advisor, governing partner, and representative of the president. The vice president is also a statutory member of the United States Cabinet and United States National Security Council[10] and thus plays a significant role in executive government and national security matters. As the vice president\'s role within the executive branch has expanded, the legislative branch role has contracted; for example, vice presidents now preside over the Senate only infrequently.[11]\nThe role of the vice presidency has changed dramatically since the office was created during the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Originally something of an afterthought, the vice presidency was considered an insignificant office for much of the nation\'s history, especially after the Twelfth Amendment meant that vice presidents were no longer the runners-up in the presidential election. The vice president\'s role began steadily growing in importance during the 1930s, with the Office of the Vice President being created in the executive branch in 1939, and has since grown much further. Due to its increase in power and prestige, the vice presidency is now often considered to be a stepping stone to the presidency. Since the 1970s, the vice president has been afforded an official residence at Number One Observatory Circle.\nThe Constitution does not expressly assign the vice presidency to a branch of the government, causing a dispute among scholars about which branch the office belongs to (the executive, the legislative, both, or neither).[11][12] The modern view of the vice president as an officer of the executive branch—one isolated almost entirely from the legislative branch—is due in large part to the assignment of executive authority to the vice president by either the president or Congress.[11][13] Nevertheless, many vice presidents have previously served in Congress, and are often tasked with helping to advance an administration\'s legislative priorities. Kamala Harris is the 49th and current vice president, having assumed office on January 20, 2021.\nHistory and development\nConstitutional Convention\nNo mention of an office of vice president was made at the 1787 Constitutional Convention until near the end, when an eleven-member committee on "Leftover Business" proposed a method of electing the chief executive (president).[14] Delegates had previously considered the selection of the Senate\'s presiding officer, deciding that "the Senate shall choose its own President", and had agreed that this official would be designated the executive\'s immediate successor. They had also considered the mode of election of the executive but had not reached consensus. This all changed on September 4, when the committee recommended that the nation\'s chief executive be elected by an Electoral College, with each state having a number of presidential electors equal to the sum of that state\'s allocation of representatives and senators.[11][15]\nRecognizing that loyalty to one\'s individual state outweighed loyalty to the new federation, the Constitution\'s framers assumed individual electors would be inclined to choose a candidate from their own state (a so-called "favorite son" candidate) over one from another state. So they created the office of vice president and required the electors to vote for two candidates, at least one of whom must be from outside the elector\'s state, believing that the second vote would be cast for a candidate of national character.[15][16] Additionally, to guard against the possibility that electors might strategically waste their second votes, it was specified that the first runner-up would become vice president.[15]\nThe resultant method of electing the president and vice president, spelled out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3, allocated to each state a number of electors equal to the combined total of its Senate and House of Representatives membership. Each elector was allowed to vote for two people for president (rather than for both president and vice president), but could not differentiate between their first and second choice for the presidency. The person receiving the greatest number of votes (provided it was an absolute majority of the whole number of electors) would be president, while the individual who received the next largest number of votes became vice president. If there were a tie for first or for second place, or if no one won a majority of votes, the president and vice president would be selected by means of contingent elections protocols stated in the clause.[17][18]\nEarly vice presidents and Twelfth Amendment\nThe first two vice presidents, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, both of whom gained the office by virtue of being runners-up in presidential contests, presided regularly over Senate proceedings and did much to shape the role of Senate president.[19][20] Several 19th-century vice presidents—such as George Dallas, Levi Morton, and Garret Hobart—followed their example and led effectively, while others were rarely present.[19]\nThe emergence of political parties and nationally coordinated election campaigns during the 1790s (which the Constitution\'s framers had not contemplated) quickly frustrated the election plan in the original Constitution. In the election of 1796, Federalist candidate John Adams won the presidency, but his bitter rival, Democratic-Republican candidate Thomas Jefferson, came second and thus won the vice presidency. As a result, the president and vice president were from opposing parties; and Jefferson used the vice presidency to frustrate the president\'s policies. Then, four years later, in the election of 1800, Jefferson and fellow Democratic-Republican Aaron Burr each received 73 electoral votes. In the contingent election that followed, Jefferson finally won the presidency on the 36th ballot, leaving Burr the vice presidency. Afterward, the system was overhauled through the Twelfth Amendment in time to be used in the 1804 election.[21]\n19th and early 20th centuries\nFor much of its existence, the office of vice president was seen as little more than a minor position. John Adams, the first vice president, was the first of many frustrated by the "complete insignificance" of the office. To his wife Abigail Adams he wrote, "My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man ... or his imagination contrived or his imagination conceived; and as I can do neither good nor evil, I must be borne away by others and met the common fate."[22] Thomas R. Marshall, who served as vice president from 1913 to 1921 under President Woodrow Wilson, lamented: "Once there were two brothers. One ran away to sea; the other was elected Vice President of the United States. And nothing was heard of either of them again."[23] His successor, Calvin Coolidge, was so obscure that Major League Baseball sent him free passes that misspelled his name, and a fire marshal failed to recognize him when Coolidge\'s Washington residence was evacuated.[24] John Nance Garner, who served as vice president from 1933 to 1941 under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, claimed that the vice presidency "isn\'t worth a pitcher of warm piss".[25] Harry Truman, who also served as vice president under Franklin Roosevelt, said the office was as "useful as a cow\'s fifth teat".[26] Walter Bagehot remarked in The English Constitution that "[t]he framers of the Constitution expected that the vice-president would be elected by the Electoral College as the second wisest man in the country. The vice-presidentship being a sinecure, a second-rate man agreeable to the wire-pullers is always smuggled in. The chance of succession to the presidentship is too distant to be thought of."[27]\nWhen the Whig Party asked Daniel Webster to run for the vice presidency on Zachary Taylor\'s ticket, he replied "I do not propose to be buried until I am really dead and in my coffin."[28] This was the second time Webster declined the office, which William Henry Harrison had first offered to him. Ironically, both the presidents making the offer to Webster died in office, meaning the three-time candidate would have become president had he accepted either. Since presidents rarely die in office, however, the better preparation for the presidency was considered to be the office of Secretary of State, in which Webster served under Harrison, Tyler, and later, Taylor\'s successor, Fillmore.\nIn the first hundred years of the United States\' existence no fewer than seven proposals to abolish the office of vice president were advanced.[29] The first such constitutional amendment was presented by Samuel W. Dana in 1800; it was defeated by a vote of 27 to 85 in the United States House of Representatives.[29] The second, introduced by United States Senator James Hillhouse in 1808, was also defeated.[29] During the late 1860s and 1870s, five additional amendments were proposed.[29] One advocate, James Mitchell Ashley, opined that the office of vice president was "superfluous" and dangerous.[29]\nGarret Hobart, the first vice president under William McKinley, was one of the very few vice presidents at this time who played an important role in the administration. A close confidant and adviser of the president, Hobart was called "Assistant President".[30] However, until 1919, vice presidents were not included in meetings of the President\'s Cabinet. This precedent was broken by Woodrow Wilson when he asked Thomas R. Marshall to preside over Cabinet meetings while Wilson was in France negotiating the Treaty of Versailles.[31] President Warren G. Harding also invited Calvin Coolidge, to meetings. The next vice president, Charles G. Dawes, did not seek to attend Cabinet meetings under President Coolidge, declaring that "the precedent might prove injurious to the country."[32] Vice President Charles Curtis regularly attended Cabinet meetings on the invitation of President Herbert Hoover.[33]\nEmergence of the modern vice presidency\nIn 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt raised the stature of the office by renewing the practice of inviting the vice president to cabinet meetings, which every president since has maintained. Roosevelt\'s first vice president, John Nance Garner, broke with him over the "court-packing" issue early in his second term, and became Roosevelt\'s leading critic. At the start of that term, on January 20, 1937, Garner had been the first vice president to be sworn into office on the Capitol steps in the same ceremony with the president, a tradition that continues. Prior to that time, vice presidents were traditionally inaugurated at a separate ceremony in the Senate chamber. Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller, who were each appointed to the office under the terms of the 25th Amendment, were inaugurated in the House and Senate chambers respectively.\nAt the 1940 Democratic National Convention, Roosevelt selected his own running mate, Henry Wallace, instead of leaving the nomination to the convention, when he wanted Garner replaced.[34] He then gave Wallace major responsibilities during World War II. However, after numerous policy disputes between Wallace and other Roosevelt Administration and Democratic Party officials, he was denied re-nomination at the 1944 Democratic National Convention. Harry Truman was selected instead. During his 82-day vice presidency, Truman was never informed about any war or post-war plans, including the Manhattan Project.[35] Truman had no visible role in the Roosevelt administration outside of his congressional responsibilities and met with the president only a few times during his tenure as vice president.[36] Roosevelt died on April 12, 1945, and Truman succeeded to the presidency (the state of Roosevelt\'s health had also been kept from Truman). At the time he said, "I felt like the moon, the stars and all the planets fell on me."[37] Determined that no future vice president should be so uninformed upon unexpectedly becoming president, Truman made the vice president a member of the National Security Council, a participant in Cabinet meetings and a recipient of regular security briefings in 1949.[35]\nThe stature of the vice presidency grew again while Richard Nixon was in office (1953–1961). He attracted the attention of the media and the Republican Party, when Dwight Eisenhower authorized him to preside at Cabinet meetings in his absence and to assume temporary control of the executive branch, which he did after Eisenhower suffered a heart attack on September 24, 1955, ileitis in June 1956, and a stroke in November 1957. Nixon was also visible on the world stage during his time in office.[35]\nUntil 1961, vice presidents had their offices on Capitol Hill, a formal office in the Capitol itself and a working office in the Russell Senate Office Building. Lyndon B. Johnson was the first vice president to also be given an office in the White House complex, in the Old Executive Office Building. The former Navy Secretary\'s office in the OEOB has since been designated the "Ceremonial Office of the Vice President" and is today used for formal events and press interviews. President Jimmy Carter was the first president to give his vice president, Walter Mondale, an office in the West Wing of the White House, which all vice presidents have since retained. Because of their function as president of the Senate, vice presidents still maintain offices and staff members on Capitol Hill. This change came about because Carter held the view that the office of the vice presidency had historically been a wasted asset and wished to have his vice president involved in the decision-making process. Carter pointedly considered, according to Joel Goldstein, the way Roosevelt treated Truman as "immoral".[38]\nAnother factor behind the rise in prestige of the vice presidency was the expanded use of presidential preference primaries for choosing party nominees during the 20th century. By adopting primary voting, the field of candidates for vice president was expanded by both the increased quantity and quality of presidential candidates successful in some primaries, yet who ultimately failed to capture the presidential nomination at the convention.[34]\nAt the start of the 21st century, Dick Cheney (2001–2009) held much power within the administration, and frequently made policy decisions on his own, without the knowledge of the president.[39] This rapid growth led to Matthew Yglesias and Bruce Ackerman calling for the abolition of the vice presidency[40][41] while 2008\'s both vice presidential candidates, Sarah Palin and Joe Biden, said they would reduce the role to simply being an adviser to the president.[42]\nConstitutional roles\n| This article is part of a series on the |\n| Politics of the United States |\n|---|\nAlthough delegates to the constitutional convention approved establishing the office, with both its executive and senatorial functions, not many understood the office, and so they gave the vice president few duties and little power.[19] Only a few states had an analogous position. Among those that did, New York\'s constitution provided that "the lieutenant-governor shall, by virtue of his office, be president of the Senate, and, upon an equal division, have a casting voice in their decisions, but not vote on any other occasion".[43] As a result, the vice presidency originally had authority in only a few areas, although constitutional amendments have added or clarified some matters.\nPresident of the Senate\nArticle I, Section 3, Clause 4 confers upon the vice president the title "President of the Senate", authorizing the vice president to preside over Senate meetings. In this capacity, the vice president is responsible for maintaining order and decorum, recognizing members to speak, and interpreting the Senate\'s rules, practices, and precedent. With this position also comes the authority to cast a tie-breaking vote.[19] In practice, the number of times vice presidents have exercised this right has varied greatly. Incumbent vice president Kamala Harris holds the record at 33 votes, followed by John C. Calhoun who had previously held the record at 31 votes; John Adams ranks third with 29.[44][45] Nine vice presidents, most recently Joe Biden, did not cast any tie-breaking votes.[46]\nAs the framers of the Constitution anticipated that the vice president would not always be available to fulfill this responsibility, the Constitution provides that the Senate may elect a president pro tempore (or "president for a time") in order to maintain the proper ordering of the legislative process. In practice, since the early 20th century, neither the president of the Senate nor the pro tempore regularly presides; instead, the president pro tempore usually delegates the task to other Senate members.[47] Rule XIX, which governs debate, does not authorize the vice president to participate in debate, and grants only to members of the Senate (and, upon appropriate notice, former presidents of the United States) the privilege of addressing the Senate, without granting a similar privilege to the sitting vice president. Thus, Time magazine wrote in 1925, during the tenure of Vice President Charles G. Dawes, "once in four years the Vice President can make a little speech, and then he is done. For four years he then has to sit in the seat of the silent, attending to speeches ponderous or otherwise, of deliberation or humor."[48]\nPresiding over impeachment trials\nIn their capacity as president of the Senate, the vice president may preside over most impeachment trials of federal officers, although the Constitution does not specifically require it. However, whenever the president of the United States is on trial, the Constitution requires that the chief justice of the United States must preside. This stipulation was designed to avoid the possible conflict of interest in having the vice president preside over the trial for the removal of the one official standing between them and the presidency.[49] In contrast, the Constitution is silent about which federal official would preside were the vice president on trial by the Senate.[12][50] No vice president has ever been impeached, thus leaving it unclear whether an impeached vice president could, as president of the Senate, preside at their own impeachment trial.\nPresiding over electoral vote counts\nThe Twelfth Amendment provides that the vice president, in their capacity as the president of the Senate, receives the Electoral College votes, and then, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, opens the sealed votes.[17] The votes are counted during a joint session of Congress as prescribed by the Electoral Count Act and the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act. The former specifies that the president of the Senate presides over the joint session,[51] and the latter clarifies the solely ministerial role the president of the Senate serves in the process.[52] The next such joint session will next take place following the 2028 presidential election, on January 6, 2029 (unless Congress sets a different date by law).[18]\nIn this capacity, four vice presidents have been able to announce their own election to the presidency: John Adams, in 1797, Thomas Jefferson, in 1801, Martin Van Buren, in 1837 and George H. W. Bush, in 1989.[19] Conversely, John C. Breckinridge, in 1861,[53] Richard Nixon, in 1961,[54] Al Gore, in 2001,[55] and Kamala Harris, in 2025,[56] each had to announce their opponent\'s election victory. In 1969, Vice President Hubert Humphrey would have done so as well, following his 1968 loss to Richard Nixon; however, on the date of the congressional joint session, Humphrey was in Norway attending the funeral of Trygve Lie, the first elected Secretary-General of the United Nations. The president pro tempore, Richard Russell, presided in his absence.[54] On February 8, 1933, Vice President Charles Curtis announced the election victory of his successor, House Speaker John Nance Garner, while Garner was seated next to him on the House dais.[57] Similarly, Walter Mondale, in 1981, Dan Quayle, in 1993, and Mike Pence, in 2021, each had to announce their successor\'s election victory, following their re-election losses.\nSuccessor to the U.S. president\nArticle II, Section 1, Clause 6 stipulates that the vice president takes over the "powers and duties" of the presidency in the event of a president\'s removal, death, resignation, or inability.[58] Even so, it did not clearly state whether the vice president became president or simply acted as president in a case of succession. Debate records from the 1787 Constitutional Convention, along with various participants\' later writings on the subject, show that the framers of the Constitution intended that the vice president would temporarily exercise the powers and duties of the office in the event of a president\'s death, disability or removal, but not actually become the president of the United States in their own right.[59][60]\nThis understanding was first tested in 1841, following the death of President William Henry Harrison, only 31 days into his term. Harrison\'s vice president, John Tyler, asserted that under the Constitution, he had succeeded to the presidency, not just to its powers and duties. He had himself sworn in as president and assumed full presidential powers, refusing to acknowledge documents referring to him as "Acting President".[61] Although some in Congress denounced Tyler\'s claim as a violation of the Constitution,[58] he adhered to his position. His view ultimately prevailed as both the Senate and House voted to acknowledge him as president.[62] The "Tyler Precedent" that a vice president assumes the full title and role of president upon the death, resignation, or removal from office (via impeachment conviction) of their predecessor was codified through the Twenty-fifth Amendment in 1967.[63][64] Altogether, nine vice presidents have succeeded to the presidency intra-term. In addition to Tyler, they are Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester A. Arthur, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Gerald Ford. Four of them—Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, and Lyndon B. Johnson—were later elected to full terms of their own.[59]\nFour sitting vice presidents have been elected president: John Adams in 1796, Thomas Jefferson in 1800, Martin Van Buren in 1836, and George H. W. Bush in 1988. Likewise, two former vice presidents have won the presidency, Richard Nixon in 1968 and Joe Biden in 2020. Also, five incumbent vice presidents lost a presidential election: Breckinridge in 1860, Nixon in 1960, Humphrey in 1968, Gore in 2000, and Harris in 2024. Additionally, former vice president Walter Mondale lost in 1984.[65] In total, 15 vice presidents have become president.[66]\nActing president\nSections 3 and 4 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment provide for situations where the president is temporarily or permanently unable to lead, such as if the president has a surgical procedure, becomes seriously ill or injured, or is otherwise unable to discharge the powers or duties of the presidency. Section 3 deals with self-declared incapacity, and Section 4 addresses incapacity declared by the joint action of the vice president and of a majority of the Cabinet.[67] While Section 4 has never been invoked, Section 3 has been invoked on four occasions by three presidents, first in 1985. When invoked on November 19, 2021, Kamala Harris became the first woman in U.S. history to have presidential powers and duties.[68]\nSections 3 and 4 were added because there was ambiguity in the Article II succession clause regarding a disabled president, including what constituted an "inability", who determined the existence of an inability, and if a vice president became president for the rest of the presidential term in the case of an inability or became merely "acting president". During the 19th century and first half of the 20th century, several presidents experienced periods of severe illness, physical disability or injury, some lasting for weeks or months. During these times, even though the nation needed effective presidential leadership, no vice president wanted to seem like a usurper, and so power was never transferred. After President Dwight D. Eisenhower openly addressed his health issues and made it a point to enter into an agreement with Vice President Richard Nixon that provided for Nixon to act on his behalf if Eisenhower became unable to provide effective presidential leadership (Nixon did informally assume some of the president\'s duties for several weeks on each of three occasions when Eisenhower was ill), discussions began in Congress about clearing up the Constitution\'s ambiguity on the subject.[58][67]\nModern roles\nThe present-day power of the office flows primarily from formal and informal delegations of authority from the president and Congress.[12] These delegations can vary in significance; for example, the vice president is a statutory member of both the National Security Council and the board of regents of the Smithsonian Institution.[10] The extent of the roles and functions of the vice president depend on the specific relationship between the president and the vice president, but often include tasks such as drafter and spokesperson for the administration\'s policies, adviser to the president, and being a symbol of American concern or support. The influence of the vice president in these roles depends almost entirely on the characteristics of the particular administration.[69]\nPresidential advisor\nMost recent vice presidents have been viewed as important presidential advisors. Walter Mondale, unlike his immediate predecessors, did not want specific responsibilities to be delegated to him. Mondale believed, as he wrote President-elect Jimmy Carter a memo following the 1976 election, that his most important role would be as a "general adviser" to the president.[38][70] Al Gore was an important adviser to President Bill Clinton on matters of foreign policy and the environment. Dick Cheney was widely regarded as one of President George W. Bush\'s closest confidants. Joe Biden asked President Barack Obama to let him always be the "last person in the room" when a big decision was made; later, as president himself, Biden adopted this model with his own vice president, Kamala Harris.[71][72]\nGoverning partner\nRecent vice presidents have been delegated authority by presidents to handle significant issue areas independently. Joe Biden (who has held the office of President and Vice President of the United States) has observed that the presidency is "too big anymore for any one man or woman".[73] Dick Cheney was considered to hold a tremendous amount of power and frequently made policy decisions on his own, without the knowledge of the president.[39] Biden was assigned by Barack Obama to oversee Iraq policy; Obama was said to have said, "Joe, you do Iraq."[74] In February 2020, Donald Trump appointed Mike Pence to lead his response to COVID-19[75] and, upon his ascension to the presidency, Biden put Kamala Harris in charge of controlling migration at the US–Mexico border.[76]\nCongressional liaison\nThe vice president is often an important liaison between the administration and Congress, especially in situations where the president has not previously served in Congress or served only briefly. Vice presidents are often selected as running mates in part due to their legislative relationships, notably including Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Walter Mondale, Dick Cheney, Joe Biden, and Mike Pence among others. In recent years, Dick Cheney held weekly meetings in the Vice President\'s Room at the United States Capitol, Joe Biden played a key role in bipartisan budget negotiations, and Mike Pence often met with House and Senate Republicans. Kamala Harris, the current vice president, presided over a 50–50 split Senate during the 117th Congress, which provided her with a key role in passing legislation.\nRepresentative at events\nUnder the American system of government the president is both head of state and head of government,[77] and the ceremonial duties of the former position are often delegated to the vice president. The vice president will on occasion represent the president and the U.S. government at state funerals abroad, or at various events in the United States. This often is the most visible role of the vice president. The vice president may also meet with other heads of state at times when the administration wishes to demonstrate concern or support but cannot send the president personally.\nNational Security Council member\nSince 1949, the vice president has legally been a member of the National Security Council. Harry Truman, having not been told about any war or post-war plans during his vice presidency (notably the Manhattan Project), recognized that upon assuming the presidency a vice president needed to be already informed on such issues. Modern vice presidents have also been included in the president\'s daily intelligence briefings[71] and frequently participate in meetings in the Situation Room with the president.\nSelection process\nEligibility\nTo be constitutionally eligible to serve as the nation\'s vice president, a person must, according to the Twelfth Amendment, meet the eligibility requirements to become president (which are stated in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5). Thus, to serve as vice president, an individual must:\n- be a natural-born U.S. citizen;\n- be at least 35 years old;\n- be a resident in the U.S. for at least 14 years.[78]\nA person who meets the above qualifications is still disqualified from holding the office of vice president under the following conditions:\n- Under Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, upon conviction in impeachment cases, the Senate has the option of disqualifying convicted individuals from holding federal office, including that of vice president;\n- Under the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution, "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States".[78]\n- Under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, no person who has sworn an oath to support the Constitution, who has later "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the United States, or given aid and comfort to the nation\'s enemies can serve in a state or federal office—including as vice president. This disqualification, originally aimed at former supporters of the Confederacy, may be removed by a two-thirds vote of each house of the Congress.[79]\nNomination\nThe vice presidential candidates of the major national political parties are formally selected by each party\'s quadrennial nominating convention, following the selection of the party\'s presidential candidate. The official process is identical to the one by which the presidential candidates are chosen, with delegates placing the names of candidates into nomination, followed by a ballot in which candidates must receive a majority to secure the party\'s nomination.\nIn modern practice, the presidential nominee has considerable influence on the decision, and since the mid 20th century it became customary for that person to select a preferred running mate, who is then nominated and accepted by the convention. Prior to Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940, only two presidents—Andrew Jackson in 1832 and Abraham Lincoln in 1864—had done so.[80] In recent years, with the presidential nomination usually being a foregone conclusion as the result of the primary process, the selection of a vice presidential candidate is often announced prior to the actual balloting for the presidential candidate, and sometimes before the beginning of the convention itself. The most recent presidential nominee not to name a vice presidential choice, leaving the matter up to the convention, was Democrat Adlai Stevenson in 1956. The convention chose Tennessee Senator Estes Kefauver over Massachusetts Senator (and later president) John F. Kennedy. At the tumultuous 1972 Democratic convention, presidential nominee George McGovern selected Missouri Senator Thomas Eagleton as his running mate, but numerous other candidates were either nominated from the floor or received votes during the balloting. Eagleton nevertheless received a majority of the votes and the nomination, though he later resigned from the ticket, resulting in Sargent Shriver from Maryland becoming McGovern\'s final running mate; both lost to the Nixon–Agnew ticket by a wide margin, carrying only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.\nDuring times in a presidential election cycle before the identity of the presidential nominee is clear, including cases where the presidential nomination is still in doubt as the convention approaches, campaigns for the two positions may become intertwined. In 1976, Ronald Reagan, who was trailing President Gerald Ford in the presidential delegate count, announced prior to the Republican National Convention that, if nominated, he would select Pennsylvania Senator Richard Schweiker as his running mate. Reagan was the first presidential aspirant to announce his selection for vice president before the beginning of the convention. Reagan\'s supporters then unsuccessfully sought to amend the convention rules so that Gerald Ford would be required to name his vice presidential running mate in advance as well. This move backfired to a degree, as Schweiker\'s relatively liberal voting record alienated many of the more conservative delegates who were considering a challenge to party delegate selection rules to improve Reagan\'s chances. In the end, Ford narrowly won the presidential nomination and Reagan\'s selection of Schweiker became moot.\nIn the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries, which pitted Hillary Clinton against Barack Obama, Clinton suggested a Clinton–Obama ticket with Obama in the vice president slot, which she said would be "unstoppable" against the presumptive Republican nominee. Obama rejected the offer outright, saying, "I want everybody to be absolutely clear. I\'m not running for vice president. I\'m running for president of the United States of America," adding, "With all due respect. I won twice as many states as Senator Clinton. I\'ve won more of the popular vote than Senator Clinton. I have more delegates than Senator Clinton. So, I don\'t know how somebody who\'s in second place is offering vice presidency to the person who\'s in first place." Obama said the nomination process would have to be a choice between himself and Clinton, saying "I don\'t want anybody here thinking that \'Somehow, maybe I can get both\'", by nominating Clinton and assuming he would be her running mate.[81][82] Some suggested that it was a ploy by the Clinton campaign to denigrate Obama as less qualified for the presidency.[83][failed verification] Later, when Obama became the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, former president Jimmy Carter cautioned against Clinton being picked as the vice presidential nominee on the ticket, saying "I think it would be the worst mistake that could be made. That would just accumulate the negative aspects of both candidates", citing opinion polls showing 50% of US voters with a negative view of Hillary Clinton.[84]\nSelection criteria\nThough the vice president does not need to have any political experience, most major-party vice presidential nominees are current or former United States senators or representatives, with the occasional nominee being a current or former governor, a high-ranking former military officer (active military officers being prohibited under US law from holding political office), or a holder of a major position within the Executive branch. In addition, the vice presidential nominee has always been an official resident of a different state than the presidential nominee. While nothing in the Constitution prohibits a presidential candidate and his or her running mate being from the same state, the "inhabitant clause" of the Twelfth Amendment does mandate that every presidential elector must cast a ballot for at least one candidate who is not from their own state. Prior to the 2000 election, both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney lived in and voted in Texas. To avoid creating a potential problem for Texas\'s electors, Cheney changed his residency back to Wyoming prior to the campaign.[78]\nOften, the presidential nominee will name a vice presidential candidate who will bring geographic or ideological balance to the ticket or appeal to a particular constituency. The vice presidential candidate might also be chosen on the basis of traits the presidential candidate is perceived to lack, or on the basis of name recognition. To foster party unity, popular runners-up in the presidential nomination process are commonly considered. While this selection process may enhance the chances of success for a national ticket, in the past it often resulted in the vice presidential nominee representing regions, constituencies, or ideologies at odds with those of the presidential candidate. As a result, vice presidents were often excluded from the policy-making process of the new administration. Many times their relationships with the president and his staff were aloof, non-existent, or even adversarial.[citation needed]\nHistorically, the vice presidential nominee was usually a second-tier politician, chosen either to appease the party\'s minority faction, satisfy party bosses, or to secure a key state.[85] Factors playing a role in the selection included: geographic and ideological balance, widening a presidential candidate\'s appeal to voters from outside their regional base or wing of the party. Candidates from electoral-vote rich swing states were usually preferred. A 2016 study, which examined vice-presidential candidates over the period 1884-2012, found that vice presidential candidates increased their tickets’ performance in their home states by 2.67 percentage points on average.[86]\nElection\nThe vice president is elected indirectly by the voters of each state and the District of Columbia through the Electoral College, a body of electors formed every four years for the sole purpose of electing the president and vice president to concurrent four-year terms. Each state is entitled to a number of electors equal to the size of its total delegation in both houses of Congress. Additionally, the Twenty-third Amendment provides that the District of Columbia is entitled to the number it would have if it were a state, but in no case more than that of the least populous state.[87] Currently, all states and D.C. select their electors based on a popular election held on Election Day.[18] In all but two states, the party whose presidential–vice presidential ticket receives a plurality of popular votes in the state has its entire slate of elector nominees chosen as the state\'s electors.[88] Maine and Nebraska deviate from this winner-take-all practice, awarding two electors to the statewide winner and one to the winner in each congressional district.[89][90]\nOn the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, about six weeks after the election, the electors convene in their respective states (and in Washington D.C.) to vote for president and, on a separate ballot, for vice president. The certified results are opened and counted during a joint session of Congress, held in the first week of January. A candidate who receives an absolute majority of electoral votes for vice president (currently 270 of 538) is declared the winner. If no candidate has a majority, the Senate must meet to elect a vice president using a contingent election procedure in which senators, casting votes individually, choose between the two candidates who received the most electoral votes for vice president. For a candidate to win the contingent election, they must receive votes from an absolute majority of senators (currently 51 of 100).[18][91]\nThere has been only one vice presidential contingent election since the process was created by the Twelfth Amendment. It occurred on February 8, 1837, after no candidate received a majority of the electoral votes cast for vice president in the 1836 election. By a 33–17 vote, Richard M. Johnson (Martin Van Buren\'s running mate) was elected the nation\'s ninth vice president over Francis Granger (William Henry Harrison\'s and Daniel Webster\'s running mate).[92]\nTenure\nInauguration\nPursuant to the Twentieth Amendment, the vice president\'s term of office begins at noon on January 20, as does the president\'s.[93] The first presidential and vice presidential terms to begin on this date, known as Inauguration Day, were the second terms of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Vice President John Nance Garner in 1937.[94] Previously, Inauguration Day was on March 4. As a result of the date change, both men\'s first terms (1933–1937) were short of four years by 43 days.[95]\nAlso in 1937, the vice president\'s swearing-in ceremony was held on the Inaugural platform on the Capitol\'s east front immediately before the president\'s swearing in. Up until then, most vice presidents took the oath of office in the Senate chamber, prior to the president\'s swearing-in ceremony.[96] Although the Constitution contains the specific wording of the presidential oath, it contains only a general requirement, in Article VI, that the vice president and other government officers shall take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. The current form, which has been used since 1884 reads:\nI, (first name last name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[97]\nTerm of office\nThe term of office for both the vice president and the president is four years. While the Twenty-Second Amendment sets a limit on the number of times an individual can be elected to the presidency (two),[98] there is no such limitation on the office of vice president, meaning an eligible person could hold the office as long as voters continued to vote for electors who in turn would reelect the person to the office; one could even serve under different presidents. This has happened twice: George Clinton (1805–1812) served under both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison; and John C. Calhoun (1825–1832) served under John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson.[19] Additionally, neither the Constitution\'s eligibility provisions nor the Twenty-second Amendment\'s presidential term limit explicitly disqualify a twice-elected president from serving as vice president, though it is arguably prohibited by the last sentence of the Twelfth Amendment: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."[99] As of the 2020 election cycle, however, no former president has tested the amendment\'s legal restrictions or meaning by running for the vice presidency.[100][101]\nImpeachment\nArticle II, Section 4 of the Constitution allows for the removal of federal officials, including the vice president, from office for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". No vice president has ever been impeached.\nVacancies\nPrior to the ratification of the Twenty-fifth Amendment in 1967, no constitutional provision existed for filling an intra-term vacancy in the vice presidency.\nAs a result, when such a vacancy occurred, the office was left vacant until filled through the next ensuing election and inauguration. Between 1812 and 1965, the vice presidency was vacant on sixteen occasions, as a result of seven deaths, one resignation, and eight cases of the vice president succeeding to the presidency. With the vacancy that followed the succession of Lyndon B. Johnson in 1963, the nation had been without a vice president for a cumulative total of 37 years.[102][103]\nSection 2 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment provides that "whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress."[5] This procedure has been implemented twice since the amendment came into force: the first instance occurred in 1973 following the October 10 resignation of Spiro Agnew, when Gerald Ford was nominated by President Richard Nixon and confirmed by Congress. The second occurred ten months later on August 9, 1974, on Ford\'s accession to the presidency upon Nixon\'s resignation, when Nelson Rockefeller was nominated by President Ford and confirmed by Congress.[58][103]\nHad it not been for this new constitutional mechanism, the vice presidency would have remained vacant after Agnew\'s resignation; the speaker of the House, Carl Albert, would have become Acting President had Nixon resigned in this scenario, under the terms of the Presidential Succession Act of 1947.[104]\n| No. | Period of vacancy | Cause of vacancy | Length | Vacancy filled by |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| 1 | April 20, 1812 – March 4, 1813 |\nDeath of George Clinton | 318 days | Election of 1812 |\n| 2 | November 23, 1814 – March 4, 1817 |\nDeath of Elbridge Gerry | 2 years, 101 days | Election of 1816 |\n| 3 | December 28, 1832 – March 4, 1833 |\nResignation of John C. Calhoun | 66 days | Election of 1832 |\n| 4 | April 4, 1841 – March 4, 1845 |\nAccession of John Tyler as president | 3 years, 334 days | Election of 1844 |\n| 5 | July 9, 1850 – March 4, 1853 |\nAccession of Millard Fillmore as president | 2 years, 238 days | Election of 1852 |\n| 6 | April 18, 1853 – March 4, 1857 |\nDeath of William R. King | 3 years, 320 days | Election of 1856 |\n| 7 | April 15, 1865 – March 4, 1869 |\nAccession of Andrew Johnson as president | 3 years, 323 days | Election of 1868 |\n| 8 | November 22, 1875 – March 4, 1877 |\nDeath of Henry Wilson | 1 year, 102 days | Election of 1876 |\n| 9 | September 19, 1881 – March 4, 1885 |\nAccession of Chester A. Arthur as president | 3 years, 166 days | Election of 1884 |\n| 10 | November 25, 1885 – March 4, 1889 |\nDeath of Thomas A. Hendricks | 3 years, 99 days | Election of 1888 |\n| 11 | November 21, 1899 – March 4, 1901 |\nDeath of Garret Hobart | 1 year, 103 days | Election of 1900 |\n| 12 | September 14, 1901 – March 4, 1905 |\nAccession of Theodore Roosevelt as president | 3 years, 171 days | Election of 1904 |\n| 13 | October 30, 1912 – March 4, 1913 |\nDeath of James S. Sherman | 125 days | Election of 1912 |\n| 14 | August 2, 1923 – March 4, 1925 |\nAccession of Calvin Coolidge as president | 1 year, 214 days | Election of 1924 |\n| 15 | April 12, 1945 – January 20, 1949 |\nAccession of Harry S. Truman as president | 3 years, 283 days | Election of 1948 |\n| 16 | November 22, 1963 – January 20, 1965 |\nAccession of Lyndon B. Johnson as president | 1 year, 59 days | Election of 1964 |\n| 17 | October 10, 1973 – December 6, 1973 |\nResignation of Spiro Agnew | 57 days | Confirmation of successor |\n| 18 | August 9, 1974 – December 19, 1974 |\nAccession of Gerald Ford as president | 132 days | Confirmation of successor |\nOffice and status\nSalary\nThe vice president\'s salary in 2019 was $235,100.[105] For 2024, the vice president\'s salary is $284,600,[106] however, due to a pay freeze in effect since 2019, the actual portion of that salary that is payable remains $235,100.[107] The salary was set by the 1989 Government Salary Reform Act, which also provides an automatic cost of living adjustment for federal employees. The vice president does not automatically receive a pension based on that office, but instead receives the same pension as other members of Congress based on their position as president of the Senate.[108] The vice president must serve a minimum of two years to qualify for a pension.[109]\nResidence\nThe home of the vice president was designated in 1974, when Congress established Number One Observatory Circle as the official temporary residence of the vice president of the United States. In 1966 Congress, concerned about safety and security and mindful of the increasing responsibilities of the office, allotted money ($75,000) to fund construction of a residence for the vice president, but implementation stalled and after eight years the decision was revised, and One Observatory Circle was then designated for the vice president.[110] Up until the change, vice presidents lived in homes, apartments, or hotels, and were compensated more like cabinet members and members of Congress, receiving only a housing allowance.\nThe three-story Queen Anne style mansion was built in 1893 on the grounds of the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C., to serve as residence for the superintendent of the Observatory. In 1923, the residence was reassigned to be the home of the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), which it was until it was turned over to the office of the vice president fifty years later.\nTravel and transportation\nThe primary means of long-distance air travel for the vice president is one of two identical Boeing airplanes, which are extensively modified Boeing 757 airliners and are referred to as Air Force Two, while the vice president is on board. Any U.S. Air Force aircraft the vice president is aboard is referred to as "Air Force Two" for the duration of the flight. In-country trips are typically handled with just one of the two planes, while overseas trips are handled with both, one primary and one backup.\nFor short-distance air travel, the vice president has access to a fleet of U.S. Marine Corps helicopters of varying models including Marine Two when the vice president is aboard any particular one in the fleet. Flights are typically handled with as many as five helicopters all flying together and frequently swapping positions as to disguise which helicopter the vice president is actually aboard to any would-be threats.\nStaff\nThe vice president is supported by personnel in the Office of the Vice President of the United States. The office was created in the Reorganization Act of 1939, which included an "office of the Vice President" under the Executive Office of the President. Salary for the staff is provided by both legislative and executive branch appropriations, in light of the vice president\'s roles in each branch.\nProtection\nThe U.S. Secret Service is in charge with protecting the vice president and the second family. As part of their protection, vice presidents, second spouses, their children and other immediate family members, and other prominent persons and locations are assigned Secret Service codenames. The use of such names was originally due to security purposes and safety reasons.\nOffice spaces\nIn the modern era, the vice president makes use of at least four different office spaces. These include an office in the West Wing, a ceremonial office in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building near where most of the vice president\'s staff works, the Vice President\'s Room on the Senate side of the United States Capitol for meetings with members of Congress, and an office at the vice president\'s residence.\nPost–vice presidency\nSince 1977, former presidents and former vice presidents who are elected or re-elected to the Senate are entitled to the largely honorific position of Deputy President pro tempore. To date, the only former vice president to have held this title is Hubert Humphrey. Also, under the terms of an 1886 Senate resolution, all former vice presidents are entitled to a portrait bust in the Senate wing of the United States Capitol, commemorating their service as presidents of the Senate. Dick Cheney is the most recently serving vice president in the collection.[111]\nUnlike former presidents, whose pension is fixed at the same rate, regardless of their time in office, former vice presidents receive their retirement income based on their role as president of the Senate.[112] Additionally, since 2008, each former vice president and their immediate family is entitled (under the Former Vice President Protection Act of 2008) to Secret Service protection for up to six months after leaving office, and again temporarily at any time thereafter if warranted.[113]\nTimeline\nGraphical timeline listing the vice presidents of the United States:\nReferences\n- ^ "The conventions of nine states having adopted the Constitution, Congress, in September or October, 1788, passed a resolution in conformity with the opinions expressed by the Convention and appointed the first Wednesday in March of the ensuing year as the day, and the then seat of Congress as the place, \'for commencing proceedings under the Constitution.\'\n"Both governments could not be understood to exist at the same time. The new government did not commence until the old government expired. It is apparent that the government did not commence on the Constitution\'s being ratified by the ninth state, for these ratifications were to be reported to Congress, whose continuing existence was recognized by the Convention, and who were requested to continue to exercise their powers for the purpose of bringing the new government into operation. In fact, Congress did continue to act as a government until it dissolved on the first of November by the successive disappearance of its members. It existed potentially until 2 March, the day preceding that on which the members of the new Congress were directed to assemble."Owings v. Speed, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat) 420, 422 (1820)\n- ^ Maier, Pauline (2010). Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787–1788. New York: Simon & Schuster. p. 433. ISBN 978-0-684-86854-7.\n- ^ "March 4: A forgotten huge day in American history". Philadelphia: National Constitution Center. March 4, 2013. Archived from the original on February 24, 2018. Retrieved July 24, 2018.\n- ^ Smith, Page (1962). John Adams. Vol. Two 1784–1826. Garden City, New York: Doubleday. p. 744.\n- ^ a b Feerick, John. "Essays on Amendment XXV: Presidential Succession". The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. The Heritage Foundation. Archived from the original on August 22, 2020. Retrieved July 3, 2018.\n- ^ "VPOTUS". Merriam-Webster. Archived from the original on January 25, 2021. Retrieved February 10, 2021.\n- ^ "Veep". Merriam-Webster. Archived from the original on October 14, 2020. Retrieved February 14, 2021.\n- ^ Weinberg, Steve (October 14, 2014). "\'The American Vice Presidency\' sketches all 47 men who held America\'s second-highest office". The Christian Science Monitor. Archived from the original on October 6, 2019. Retrieved October 6, 2019.\n- ^ "Vice President". USLegal.com. n.d. Archived from the original on October 25, 2012. Retrieved October 6, 2019.\nThe Vice President of the United States is the second highest executive office of the United States government, after the President.\n- ^ a b c d "Executive Branch: Vice President". The US Legal System. U.S. Legal Support. Archived from the original on October 25, 2012. Retrieved February 20, 2018.\n- ^ a b c d Garvey, Todd (2008). "A Constitutional Anomaly: Safeguarding Confidential National Security Information Within the Enigma That Is the American Vice Presidency". William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal. 17 (2). Williamsburg, Virginia: William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository: 565–605. Archived from the original on July 16, 2018. Retrieved July 28, 2018.\n- ^ a b c Brownell II, Roy E. (Fall 2014). "A Constitutional Chameleon: The Vice President\'s Place within the American System of Separation of Powers Part I: Text, Structure, Views of the Framers and the Courts" (PDF). Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy. 24 (1): 1–77. Archived (PDF) from the original on December 30, 2017. Retrieved July 27, 2018.\n- ^ Goldstein, Joel K. (1995). "The New Constitutional Vice Presidency". Wake Forest Law Review. 30. Winston Salem, NC: Wake Forest Law Review Association, Inc.: 505. Archived from the original on July 16, 2018. Retrieved July 16, 2018.\n- ^ "Major Themes at the Constitutional Convention: 8. Establishing the Electoral College and the Presidency". TeachingAmericanHistory.org. Ashland, Ohio: Ashbrook Center at Ashland University. Archived from the original on February 10, 2018. Retrieved February 21, 2018.\n- ^ a b c Albert, Richard (Winter 2005). "The Evolving Vice Presidency". Temple Law Review. 78 (4). Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education: 811–896. Archived from the original on April 1, 2019. Retrieved July 29, 2018 – via Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School.\n- ^ Rathbone, Mark (December 2011). "US Vice Presidents". History Review. No. 71. London: History Today. Archived from the original on February 19, 2018. Retrieved February 21, 2018.\n- ^ a b Kuroda, Tadahisa. "Essays on Article II: Electoral College". The Heritage Guide to The Constitution. The Heritage Foundation. Archived from the original on August 22, 2020. Retrieved July 27, 2018.\n- ^ a b c d Neale, Thomas H. (May 15, 2017). "The Electoral College: How It Works in Contemporary Presidential Elections" (PDF). CRS Report for Congress. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service. p. 13. Archived (PDF) from the original on December 6, 2020. Retrieved July 29, 2018.\n- ^ a b c d e f g "Vice President of the United States (President of the Senate)". senate.gov. Washington, D.C.: Secretary of the Senate. Archived from the original on November 15, 2002. Retrieved July 28, 2018.\n- ^ Schramm, Peter W. "Essays on Article I: Vice President as Presiding Officer". Heritage Guide to the Constitution. The Heritage Foundation. Archived from the original on August 22, 2020. Retrieved July 27, 2018.\n- ^ Fried, Charles. "Essays on Amendment XII: Electoral College". The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. The Heritage Foundation. Archived from the original on August 22, 2020. Retrieved February 20, 2018.\n- ^ Smith, Page (1962). John Adams. Vol. II 1784–1826. New York: Doubleday. p. 844. LCCN 63-7188.\n- ^ "A heartbeat away from the presidency: vice presidential trivia". Case Western Reserve University. October 4, 2004. Archived from the original on October 19, 2017. Retrieved September 12, 2008.\n- ^ Greenberg, David (2007). Calvin Coolidge profile. Macmillan. pp. 40–41. ISBN 978-0-8050-6957-0. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 15, 2020.\n- ^ "John Nance Garner quotes". Archived from the original on April 14, 2016. Retrieved August 25, 2008.\n- ^ "Nation: Some Day You\'ll Be Sitting in That Chair". Time. November 29, 1963. Archived from the original on October 7, 2014. Retrieved October 3, 2014.\n- ^ Bagehot, Walter (1963) [1867]. The English Constitution. Collins. p. 80.\n- ^ Binkley, Wilfred Ellsworth; Moos, Malcolm Charles (1949). A Grammar of American Politics: The National Government. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. p. 265. Archived from the original on September 13, 2015. Retrieved October 17, 2015.\n- ^ a b c d e Ames, Herman (1896). The Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the United States During the First Century of Its History. American Historical Association. pp. 70–72.\n- ^ "Garret Hobart". Archived from the original on September 27, 2007. Retrieved August 25, 2008.\n- ^ Harold C. Relyea (February 13, 2001). "The Vice Presidency: Evolution of the Modern Office, 1933–2001" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 9, 2011. Retrieved February 11, 2012.\n- ^ "U.S. Senate Web page on Charles G. Dawes, 30th Vice President (1925–1929)". Senate.gov. Archived from the original on November 6, 2014. Retrieved August 9, 2009.\n- ^ "National Affairs: Curtis v. Brown?". Time. April 21, 1930. Retrieved October 31, 2022.\n- ^ a b Goldstein, Joel K. (September 2008). "The Rising Power of the Modern Vice Presidency". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 38 (3). Wiley: 374–389. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5705.2008.02650.x. ISSN 0360-4918. JSTOR 41219685. Retrieved December 10, 2021.\n- ^ a b c Feuerherd, Peter (May 8, 2018). "How Harry Truman Transformed the Vice Presidency". JSTOR Daily. JSTOR. Retrieved August 12, 2022.\n- ^ Hamby, Alonzo L. (October 4, 2016). "Harry Truman: Life Before the Presidency". Charlottesville, Virginia: Miller Center, University of Virginia. Retrieved August 12, 2022.\n- ^ "Harry S Truman National Historic Site: Missouri". National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Retrieved August 12, 2022.\n- ^ a b Balz, Dan (April 19, 2021). "Mondale lost the presidency but permanently changed the office of vice presidency". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 2, 2023.\n- ^ a b Kenneth T. Walsh (October 3, 2003). "Dick Cheney is the most powerful vice president in history. Is that good?". U.S. News & World Report. Archived from the original on February 5, 2011. Retrieved September 13, 2015.\n- ^ Yglesias, Matthew (July 2009). "End the Vice Presidency". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on December 29, 2017. Retrieved December 28, 2017.\n- ^ Ackerman, Bruce (October 2, 2008). "Abolish the vice presidency". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on December 29, 2017. Retrieved December 28, 2017.\n- ^ "Full Vice Presidential Debate with Gov. Palin and Sen. Biden". YouTube. October 2, 2008. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 30, 2011.\n- ^ "The Senate and the United States Constitution". senate.gov. Washington, D.C.: Secretary of the Senate. Archived from the original on February 11, 2020. Retrieved February 20, 2018.\n- ^ Lebowitz, Megan; Thorp, Frank; Santaliz, Kate (December 5, 2023). "Vice President Harris breaks record for casting the most tie-breaking votes". NBC News. Archived from the original on December 5, 2023. Retrieved December 5, 2023.\n- ^ "U.S. Senate: Votes to Break Ties in the Senate". United States Senate. Retrieved August 25, 2022.\n- ^ "Check out the number of tie-breaking votes vice presidents have cast in the U.S. Senate". Washington Week. PBS. July 25, 2017. Archived from the original on December 12, 2021. Retrieved December 11, 2021.\n- ^ Forte, David F. "Essays on Article I: President Pro Tempore". Heritage Guide to the Constitution. The Heritage Foundation. Archived from the original on August 22, 2020. Retrieved July 27, 2018.\n- ^ "President Dawes". The Congress. Time. Vol. 6, no. 24. New York, New York. December 14, 1925. Archived from the original on October 19, 2017. Retrieved July 31, 2018.\n- ^ Gerhardt, Michael J. "Essays on Article I: Trial of Impeachment". Heritage Guide to the Constitution. The Heritage Foundation. Archived from the original on August 22, 2020. Retrieved October 1, 2019.\n- ^ Goldstein, Joel K. (2000). "Can the Vice President preside at his own impeachment trial?: A critique of bare textualism". Saint Louis University Law Journal. 44: 849–870. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2019.\n- ^ 24 Stat. 373 Archived October 15, 2020, at the Wayback Machine (Feb. 3, 1887).\n- ^ 136 Stat. 5238 Archived October 27, 2023, at the Wayback Machine (Dec. 9, 2022).\n- ^ Glass, Andrew (December 4, 2014). "Senate expels John C. Breckinridge, Dec. 4, 1861". Arlington County, Virginia: Politico. Archived from the original on September 23, 2018. Retrieved July 29, 2018.\n- ^ a b "Electoral Vote Challenge Loses". St. Petersburg Times. January 7, 1969. pp. 1, 6. Retrieved July 29, 2018 – via Google News.\n- ^ Glass, Andrew (January 6, 2016). "Congress certifies Bush as winner of 2000 election, Jan. 6, 2001". Arlington County, Virginia: Politico. Archived from the original on September 23, 2018. Retrieved July 29, 2018.\n- ^ Korecki, Natasha; Leach, Brennan. "With an intent stare, a wide smile and a simple declaration, Harris certifies her loss to Trump". NBC News. Retrieved January 6, 2025.\n- ^ "Congress Counts Electoral Vote; Joint Session Applauds Every State Return as Curtis Performs Grim Task. Yells Drown His Gavel Vice President Finally Laughs With the Rest as Victory of Democrats Is Unfolded. Opponents Cheer Garner Speaker Declares His Heart Will Remain in the House, Replying to Tribute by Snell". The New York Times. February 9, 1933. Archived from the original on February 11, 2020. Retrieved October 1, 2019 – via TimesMachine.\n- ^ a b c d Feerick, John D. (2011). "Presidential Succession and Inability: Before and After the Twenty-Fifth Amendment". Fordham Law Review. 79 (3). New York City: Fordham University School of Law: 907–949. Archived from the original on August 20, 2015. Retrieved July 7, 2017.\n- ^ a b c Neale, Thomas H. (September 27, 2004). "Presidential and Vice Presidential Succession: Overview and Current Legislation" (PDF). CRS Report for Congress. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 14, 2020. Retrieved July 27, 2018.\n- ^ Feerick, John D.; Freund, Paul A. (1965). From Failing Hands: the Story of Presidential Succession. New York City: Fordham University Press. p. 56. LCCN 65-14917. Archived from the original on November 20, 2020. Retrieved July 31, 2018.\n- ^ Freehling, William (October 4, 2016). "John Tyler: Domestic Affairs". Charllotesville, Virginia: Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia. Archived from the original on March 12, 2017. Retrieved July 29, 2018.\n- ^ Abbott, Philip (December 2005). "Accidental Presidents: Death, Assassination, Resignation, and Democratic Succession". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 35 (4): 627–645. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5705.2005.00269.x. JSTOR 27552721.\n- ^ "A controversial President who established presidential succession". Constitution Daily. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: National Constitution Center. March 29, 2017. Retrieved November 25, 2021.\n- ^ "Presidential Succession". US Law. Mountain View, California: Justia. Retrieved July 29, 2018.\n- ^ Waxman, Olivia (April 25, 2019). "Does the Vice Presidency Give Joe Biden an Advantage in the Race to the Top? Here\'s How VPs Before Him Fared". Time. Retrieved December 10, 2021.\n- ^ Lakritz, Talia. "15 vice presidents who became president themselves". Insider.\n- ^ a b Kalt, Brian C.; Pozen, David. "The Twenty-fifth Amendment". The Interactive Constitution. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The National Constitution Center. Archived from the original on September 4, 2019. Retrieved July 28, 2018.\n- ^ Sullivan, Kate (November 19, 2021). "For 85 minutes, Kamala Harris became the first woman with presidential power". CNN. Retrieved November 19, 2021.\n- ^ Lizza, Ryan (October 10, 2008). "Biden\'s Brief". The New Yorker. Retrieved August 1, 2023.\n- ^ Walter Mondale, Memo to Jimmy Carter re: The Role of the Vice President in the Carter Administration Archived March 7, 2020, at the Wayback Machine, Dec. 9, 1976.\n- ^ a b Lizza, Ryan (August 13, 2020). "What Harris Got from Biden During Her Job Interview". Politico. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved August 14, 2020.\n- ^ Bravender, Robin; Sfondeles, Tina (January 29, 2021). "Kamala Harris is the president-in-waiting. Here\'s how the VP is balancing building her own brand against serving as a loyal soldier on Team Biden". Business Insider. Archived from the original on January 29, 2021. Retrieved January 29, 2021.\n- ^ Glueck, Katie (March 16, 2020). "Behind Joe Biden\'s Thinking on a Female Running Mate". The New York Times. Archived from the original on August 25, 2020. Retrieved August 14, 2020.\n- ^ Osnos, Evan (August 12, 2014). "Breaking Up: Maliki and Biden". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on October 2, 2015. Retrieved August 26, 2015.\n- ^ Cancryn, Adam; Forgey, Quint; Diamond, Dan (February 27, 2020). "After fumbled messaging, Trump gets a coronavirus czar by another name". POLITICO. Retrieved July 19, 2021.\n- ^ "Biden tasks Harris with tackling migrant influx on US–Mexico border". BBC News. March 24, 2021. Retrieved July 19, 2021.\n- ^ "Our Government: The Executive Branch". whitehouse.gov. Washington, D.C.: The White House. Archived from the original on July 31, 2018. Retrieved July 31, 2018.\n- ^ a b c "Twelfth Amendment". Annenberg Classroom. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Annenberg Public Policy Center. December 9, 1804. Archived from the original on February 22, 2018. Retrieved February 21, 2018.\n- ^ "Fourteenth Amendment". Annenberg Classroom. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Annenberg Public Policy Center. June 7, 1964. Archived from the original on February 26, 2018. Retrieved February 21, 2018.\n- ^ Py-Lieberman, Beth (November 18, 2014). "How the Office of the Vice Presidency Evolved from Nothing to Something". Smithsonian. Retrieved December 10, 2021.\n- ^ Stratton, Allegra; Nasaw, Daniel (March 11, 2008). "Obama scoffs at Clinton\'s vice-presidential hint". The Guardian. London. Archived from the original on November 22, 2016. Retrieved November 21, 2016.\n- ^ "Obama rejects being Clinton\'s No. 2". CNN. March 11, 2008. Archived from the original on November 22, 2016. Retrieved November 21, 2016.\n- ^ "Trump throws 2008 Obama ad in Clinton\'s face". Politico. June 10, 2016. Archived from the original on November 22, 2016. Retrieved November 21, 2016.{\n- ^ Freedland, Jonathan (June 4, 2008). "US elections: Jimmy Carter tells Barack Obama not to pick Hillary Clinton as running mate". The Guardian. London. Archived from the original on November 16, 2016. Retrieved November 21, 2016.\n- ^ Horwitz, Tony (July 2012). "The Vice Presidents That History Forgot". Smithsonian. Retrieved December 10, 2021.\n- ^ Heersink, Boris; Peterson, Brenton (2016). "Measuring the Vice-Presidential Home State Advantage With Synthetic Controls". American Politics Research. 44 (4): 734–763. doi:10.1177/1532673X16642567. ISSN 1556-5068.\n- ^ "Twenty-third Amendment". Annenberg Classroom. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Annenberg Public Policy Center. March 29, 1961. Archived from the original on July 31, 2018. Retrieved July 30, 2018.\n- ^ "About the Electors". U.S. Electoral College. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration. Archived from the original on July 21, 2018. Retrieved August 2, 2018.\n- ^ "Maine & Nebraska". fairvote.com. Takoma Park, Maryland: FairVote. Archived from the original on August 2, 2018. Retrieved August 1, 2018.\n- ^ "Split Electoral Votes in Maine and Nebraska". 270towin.com. Archived from the original on August 2, 2018. Retrieved August 1, 2018.\n- ^ "What is the Electoral College?". U.S. Electoral College. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration. Archived from the original on December 12, 2019. Retrieved August 2, 2018.\n- ^ Bomboy, Scott (December 19, 2016). "The one election where Faithless Electors made a difference". Constitution Daily. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: National Constitution Center. Archived from the original on February 14, 2021. Retrieved July 30, 2018.\n- ^ Larson, Edward J.; Shesol, Jeff. "The Twentieth Amendment". The Interactive Constitution. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The National Constitution Center. Archived from the original on August 28, 2019. Retrieved June 15, 2018.\n- ^ "The First Inauguration after the Lame Duck Amendment: January 20, 1937". Washington, D.C.: Office of the Historian, U.S. House of Representatives. Archived from the original on July 25, 2018. Retrieved July 24, 2018.\n- ^ "Commencement of the Terms of Office: Twentieth Amendment" (PDF). Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, Library of Congress. pp. 2297–98. Archived (PDF) from the original on July 25, 2018. Retrieved July 24, 2018.\n- ^ "Vice President\'s Swearing-in Ceremony". inaugural.senate.gov. Washington, D.C.: Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. Archived from the original on September 18, 2018. Retrieved July 30, 2018.\n- ^ "Oath of Office". senate.gov. Washington, D.C.: Secretary of the Senate. Archived from the original on July 28, 2018. Retrieved July 30, 2018.\n- ^ "Twenty-second Amendment". Annenberg Classroom. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Annenberg Public Policy Center. Archived from the original on August 2, 2018. Retrieved July 30, 2018.\n- ^ "The Constitution—Full Text". The National Constitution Center. Archived from the original on September 5, 2020. Retrieved September 8, 2020.\n- ^ Baker, Peter (October 20, 2006). "VP Bill? Depends on Meaning of \'Elected\'". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on July 19, 2018. Retrieved February 25, 2018.\n- ^ Peabody, Bruce G.; Gant, Scott E. (1999). "The Twice and Future President: Constitutional Interstices and the Twenty-Second Amendment" (PDF). Minnesota Law Review. 83. Minneapolis, Minnesota: 565. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 29, 2018. Retrieved July 16, 2018.\n- ^ Feerick, John D. (1964). "The Vice-Presidency and the Problems of Presidential Succession and Inability". Fordham Law Review. 31 (3). Fordham University School of Law: 457–498. Archived from the original on October 1, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.\n- ^ a b "Succession: Presidential and Vice Presidential Fast Facts". CNN. September 26, 2016. Archived from the original on January 16, 2017. Retrieved January 15, 2017.\n- ^ Gup, Ted (November 28, 1982). "Speaker Albert Was Ready to Be President". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on July 28, 2018. Retrieved July 24, 2018.\n- ^ Groppe, Maureen (February 14, 2019). "Vice President Pence\'s pay bump is not as big as Republicans wanted". USA Today. Archived from the original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved April 15, 2019.\n- ^ "Executive Order - Adjustment of Certain Rates of Pay" (PDF). OPM. December 21, 2023. Schedule 6. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 15, 2024.\n- ^ Ahuja, Kiran A. (December 21, 2023). "Continued Pay Freeze for Certain Senior Political Officials" (PDF). OPM. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 15, 2024.\n- ^ Purcell, Patrick J. (January 21, 2005). "Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress" (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 3, 2018. Retrieved February 16, 2018.\n- ^ Yoffe, Emily (January 3, 2001). "A Presidential Salary FAQ". Slate. Archived from the original on September 14, 2009. Retrieved August 9, 2009.\n- ^ Groppe, Maureen (November 24, 2017). "Where does the vice president live? Few people know, but new book will show you". USA TODAY. Archived from the original on November 21, 2018. Retrieved November 21, 2018.\n- ^ "Senate Vice Presidential Bust Collection". senate.gov. Washington, D.C.: Secretary of the Senate. Archived from the original on March 18, 2021. Retrieved May 5, 2021.\n- ^ Adamczyk, Alicia (January 20, 2017). "Here\'s How Much Money Obama and Biden Will Get From Their Pensions". Money.com. Archived from the original on March 12, 2022. Retrieved August 3, 2018.\n- ^ "H.R.5938—Former Vice President Protection Act of 2008, 110th Congress (2007–2008)". congress.gov. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress. September 26, 2008. Archived from the original on January 9, 2021. Retrieved August 3, 2018.\nFurther reading\n- Brower, Kate A. (2018). First in Line: Presidents, Vice Presidents, and the Pursuit of Power. New York: Harper. ISBN 978-0062668943.\n- Cohen, Jared (2019). Accidental Presidents: Eight Men Who Changed America (Hardcover ed.). New York: Simon & Schuster. pp. 1–48. ISBN 978-1501109829.\n- Goldstein, Joel K. (1982). The Modern American Vice Presidency. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-02208-9.\n- Hatch, Louis C. (2012). Shoup, Earl L. (ed.). A History of the Vice-Presidency of the United States. Whitefish, MT: Literary Licensing. ISBN 978-1258442262.\n- Kamarck, Elaine C. (2020). Picking the Vice President. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. ISBN 9780815738756. OCLC 1164502534. EBook, 37 pp.\n- Tally, Steve (1992). Bland Ambition: From Adams to Quayle—the Cranks, Criminals, Tax Cheats, and Golfers Who Made It to Vice President. Harcourt. ISBN 0-15-613140-4.\n- Vexler, Robert I. (1975). The Vice-Presidents and Cabinet Members: Biographies Arranged Chronologically by Administration. Vol. I. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Publications. ISBN 0379120895.\n- Vexler, Robert I. (1975). The Vice-Presidents and Cabinet Members: Biographies Arranged Chronologically by Administration. Vol. II. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Publications. ISBN 0379120909.\n- Waldrup, Carole C. (2006). Vice Presidents: Biographies of the 45 Men Who Have Held the Second Highest Office in the United States. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company. ISBN 978-0786426119.\n- Witcover, Jules (2014). The American Vice Presidency: From Irrelevance to Power. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Books. ISBN 978-1588344717.\nExternal links\n- White House website for Vice President Kamala Harris\n- Vice-President Elect Chester Arthur on Expectations of VP Shapell Manuscript Foundation\n- A New Nation Votes: American Election Returns 1787–1825\n- Documentary about the 1996 election and Vice Presidents throughout history, Running Mate, 1996-10-01, The Walter J. Brown Media Archives & Peabody Awards Collection at the University of Georgia, American Archive of Public Broadcasting', - 'relevant': 'Vice President of the United States\nThis article may be affected by the following current event: Second inauguration of Donald Trump. Information in this article may change rapidly as the event progresses. Initial news reports may be unreliable. The last updates to this article may not reflect the most current information. (January 2025) |\n| Vice President of the United States | |\n|---|---|\nsince January 20, 2021 | |\n| Style |\n|\n| Status |\n|\n| Member of | |\n| Residence | Number One Observatory Circle |\n| Seat | Washington, D.C. |\n| Appointer | Electoral College, or, if vacant, President of the'}, - {'url': 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College', - 'content': 'United States Electoral College\n| This article is part of a series on the |\n| Politics of the United States |\n|---|\nIn the United States, the Electoral College is the group of presidential electors that is formed every four years during the presidential election for the sole purpose of voting for the president and vice president. This process is described in Article Two of the Constitution.[1] The number of electoral votes exercised by each state is equal to that state\'s congressional delegation which is the number of Senators (two) plus the number of Representatives for that state. Each state appoints electors using legal procedures determined by its legislature. Federal office holders, including senators and representatives, cannot be electors. Additionally, the Twenty-third Amendment granted the federal District of Columbia three electors (bringing the total number from 535 to 538). A simple majority of electoral votes (270 or more) is required to elect the president and vice president. If no candidate achieves a majority, a contingent election is held by the House of Representatives, to elect the president, and by the Senate, to elect the vice president.\nThe states and the District of Columbia hold a statewide or district-wide popular vote on Election Day in November to choose electors based upon how they have pledged to vote for president and vice president, with some state laws prohibiting faithless electors. All states except Maine and Nebraska use a party block voting, or general ticket method, to choose their electors, meaning all their electors go to one winning ticket. Maine and Nebraska choose one elector per congressional district and two electors for the ticket with the highest statewide vote. The electors meet and vote in December, and the inaugurations of the president and vice president take place in January.\nThe merit of the electoral college system has been a matter of ongoing debate in the United States since its inception at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, becoming more controversial by the latter years of the 19th century, up to the present day.[2][3] More resolutions have been submitted to amend the Electoral College mechanism than any other part of the constitution.[4] An amendment that would have abolished the system was approved by the House in 1969, but failed to move past the Senate.[5]\nSupporters argue that it requires presidential candidates to have broad appeal across the country to win, while critics argue that it is not representative of the popular will of the nation.[a] Winner-take-all systems, especially with representation not proportional to population, do not align with the principle of "one person, one vote".[b][9] Critics object to the inequity that, due to the distribution of electors, individual citizens in states with smaller populations have more voting power than those in larger states. Because the number of electors each state appoints is equal to the size of its congressional delegation, each state is entitled to at least three electors regardless of its population, and the apportionment of the statutorily fixed number of the rest is only roughly proportional. This allocation has contributed to runners-up of the nationwide popular vote being elected president in 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016.[10][11] In addition, faithless electors may not vote in accord with their pledge.[12][c] A further objection is that swing states receive the most attention from candidates.[14] By the end of the 20th century, electoral colleges had been abandoned by all other democracies around the world in favor of direct elections for an executive president.[15][16]:215\nProcedure\nArticle II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution directs each state to appoint a number of electors equal to that state\'s congressional delegation (the number of members of the House of Representatives plus two senators). The same clause empowers each state legislature to determine the manner by which that state\'s electors are chosen but prohibits federal office holders from being named electors. Following the national presidential election day on Tuesday after the first Monday in November,[17] each state, and the federal district, selects its electors according to its laws. After a popular election, the states identify and record their appointed electors in a Certificate of Ascertainment, and those appointed electors then meet in their respective jurisdictions and produce a Certificate of Vote for their candidate; both certificates are then sent to Congress to be opened and counted.[18]\nIn 48 of the 50 states, state laws mandate that the winner of the plurality of the statewide popular vote receives all of that state\'s electoral votes.[19] In Maine and Nebraska, two electoral votes are assigned in this manner, while the remaining electoral votes are allocated based on the plurality of votes in each of their congressional districts.[20] The federal district, Washington, D.C., allocates its 3 electoral votes to the winner of its single district election. States generally require electors to pledge to vote for that state\'s winning ticket; to prevent electors from being faithless electors, most states have adopted various laws to enforce the electors\' pledge.[21]\nThe electors of each state meet in their respective state capital on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday of December, between December 14 and 20, to cast their votes.[19][22] The results are sent to and counted by the Congress, where they are tabulated in the first week of January before a joint meeting of the Senate and the House of Representatives, presided over by the current vice president, as president of the Senate.[19][23]\nShould a majority of votes not be cast for a candidate, a contingent election takes place: the House holds a presidential election session, where one vote is cast by each of the fifty states. The Senate is responsible for electing the vice president, with each senator having one vote.[24] The elected president and vice president are inaugurated on January 20.\nSince 1964, there have been 538 electors. States select 535 of the electors, this number matches the aggregate total of their congressional delegations.[25][26][27] The additional three electors come from the Twenty-third Amendment, ratified in 1961, providing that the district established pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 as the seat of the federal government (namely, Washington, D.C.) is entitled to the same number of electors as the least populous state.[28] In practice, that results in Washington D.C. being entitled to three electors.[29][30]\nBackground\nThe Electoral College was officially selected as the means of electing president towards the end of the Constitutional Convention, due to pressure from slave states wanting to increase their voting power, since they could count slaves as 3/5 of a person when allocating electors, and by small states who increased their power given the minimum of three electors per state.[31] The compromise was reached after other proposals, including a direct election for president (as proposed by Hamilton among others), failed to get traction among slave states.[31] Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt describe it as "not a product of constitutional theory or farsighted design. Rather, it was adopted by default, after all other alternatives had been rejected."[31]\nIn 1787, the Constitutional Convention used the Virginia Plan as the basis for discussions, as the Virginia proposal was the first. The Virginia Plan called for Congress to elect the president.[32][33] Delegates from a majority of states agreed to this mode of election. After being debated, delegates came to oppose nomination by Congress for the reason that it could violate the separation of powers. James Wilson then made a motion for electors for the purpose of choosing the president.[34][35]\nLater in the convention, a committee formed to work out various details. They included the mode of election of the president, including final recommendations for the electors, a group of people apportioned among the states in the same numbers as their representatives in Congress (the formula for which had been resolved in lengthy debates resulting in the Connecticut Compromise and Three-Fifths Compromise), but chosen by each state "in such manner as its Legislature may direct". Committee member Gouverneur Morris explained the reasons for the change. Among others, there were fears of "intrigue" if the president were chosen by a small group of men who met together regularly, as well as concerns for the independence of the president if he were elected by Congress.[36][37]\nOnce the Electoral College had been decided on, several delegates (Mason, Butler, Morris, Wilson, and Madison) openly recognized its ability to protect the election process from cabal, corruption, intrigue, and faction. Some delegates, including James Wilson and James Madison, preferred popular election of the executive.[38][39] Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the South:\nThere was one difficulty, however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.[40]\nThe convention approved the committee\'s Electoral College proposal, with minor modifications, on September 4, 1787.[41][42] Delegates from states with smaller populations or limited land area, such as Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maryland, generally favored the Electoral College with some consideration for states.[43][non-primary source needed] At the compromise providing for a runoff among the top five candidates, the small states supposed that the House of Representatives, with each state delegation casting one vote, would decide most elections.[44]\nIn The Federalist Papers, James Madison explained his views on the selection of the president and the Constitution. In Federalist No. 39, Madison argued that the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government. Congress would have two houses: the state-based Senate and the population-based House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the president would be elected by a mixture of the two modes.[45]\nAlexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 68, published on March 12, 1788, laid out what he believed were the key advantages to the Electoral College. The electors come directly from the people and them alone, for that purpose only, and for that time only. This avoided a party-run legislature or a permanent body that could be influenced by foreign interests before each election.[46][non-primary source needed] Hamilton explained that the election was to take place among all the states, so no corruption in any state could taint "the great body of the people" in their selection. The choice was to be made by a majority of the Electoral College, as majority rule is critical to the principles of republican government. Hamilton argued that electors meeting in the state capitals were able to have information unavailable to the general public, in a time before telecommunications. Hamilton also argued that since no federal officeholder could be an elector, none of the electors would be beholden to any presidential candidate.[46]\nAnother consideration was that the decision would be made without "tumult and disorder", as it would be a broad-based one made simultaneously in various locales where the decision makers could deliberate reasonably, not in one place where decision makers could be threatened or intimidated. If the Electoral College did not achieve a decisive majority, then the House of Representatives was to choose the president from among the top five candidates,[47][citation needed] ensuring selection of a presiding officer administering the laws would have both ability and good character. Hamilton was also concerned about somebody unqualified but with a talent for "low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity" attaining high office.[46]\nIn the Federalist No. 10, James Madison argued against "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs of faction" in an electoral system. He defined a faction as "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." A republican government (i.e., representative democracy, as opposed to direct democracy) combined with the principles of federalism (with distribution of voter rights and separation of government powers), would countervail against factions. Madison further postulated in the Federalist No. 10 that the greater the population and expanse of the Republic, the more difficulty factions would face in organizing due to such issues as sectionalism.[48]\nAlthough the United States Constitution refers to "Electors" and "electors", neither the phrase "Electoral College" nor any other name is used to describe the electors collectively. It was not until the early 19th century that the name "Electoral College" came into general usage as the collective designation for the electors selected to cast votes for president and vice president. The phrase was first written into federal law in 1845, and today the term appears in 3 U.S.C. § 4, in the section heading and in the text as "college of electors".[49]\nHistory\nOriginal plan\nArticle II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution provided the original plan by which the electors voted for president. Under the original plan, each elector cast two votes for president; electors did not vote for vice president. Whoever received a majority of votes from the electors would become president, with the person receiving the second most votes becoming vice president.\nAccording to Stanley Chang, the original plan of the Electoral College was based upon several assumptions and anticipations of the Framers of the Constitution:[50]\n- Choice of the president should reflect the "sense of the people" at a particular time, not the dictates of a faction in a "pre-established body" such as Congress or the State legislatures, and independent of the influence of "foreign powers".[51]\n- The choice would be made decisively with a "full and fair expression of the public will" but also maintaining "as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder".[52]\n- Individual electors would be elected by citizens on a district-by-district basis. Voting for president would include the widest electorate allowed in each state.[53]\n- Each presidential elector would exercise independent judgment when voting, deliberating with the most complete information available in a system that over time, tended to bring about a good administration of the laws passed by Congress.[51]\n- Candidates would not pair together on the same ticket with assumed placements toward each office of president and vice president.\nElection expert, William C. Kimberling, reflected on the original intent as follows:\n"The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party."[54]\nAccording to Supreme Court justice Robert H. Jackson, in a dissenting opinion, the original intention of the framers was that the electors would not feel bound to support any particular candidate, but would vote their conscience, free of external pressure.\n"No one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated, what is implicit in its text, that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation\'s highest offices."[55]\nIn support for his view, Justice Jackson cited Federalist No. 68:\n\'It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any pre-established body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture... It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.\'\nPhilip J. VanFossen of Purdue University explains that the original purpose of the electors was not to reflect the will of the citizens, but rather to "serve as a check on a public who might be easily misled."[56]\nRandall Calvert, the Eagleton Professor of Public Affairs and Political Science at Washington University in St. Louis, stated, "At the framing the more important consideration was that electors, expected to be more knowledgeable and responsible, would actually do the choosing."[57]\nConstitutional expert Michael Signer explained that the electoral college was designed "to provide a mechanism where intelligent, thoughtful and statesmanlike leaders could deliberate on the winner of the popular vote and, if necessary, choose another candidate who would not put Constitutional values and practices at risk."[58] Robert Schlesinger, writing for U.S. News and World Report, similarly stated, "The original conception of the Electoral College, in other words, was a body of men who could serve as a check on the uninformed mass electorate."[59]\nBreakdown and revision\nIn spite of Hamilton\'s assertion that electors were to be chosen by mass election, initially, state legislatures chose the electors in most of the states.[60] States progressively changed to selection by popular election. In 1824, there were six states in which electors were still legislatively appointed. By 1832, only South Carolina had not transitioned. Since 1864 (with the sole exception of newly admitted Colorado in 1876 for logistical reasons), electors in every state have been chosen based on a popular election held on Election Day.[25] The popular election for electors means the president and vice president are in effect chosen through indirect election by the citizens.[61]\nThe emergence of parties and campaigns\nThe framers of the Constitution did not anticipate political parties.[62] Indeed George Washington\'s Farewell Address in 1796 included an urgent appeal to avert such parties. Neither did the framers anticipate candidates "running" for president. Within just a few years of the ratification of the Constitution, however, both phenomena became permanent features of the political landscape of the United States.[citation needed]\nThe emergence of political parties and nationally coordinated election campaigns soon complicated matters in the elections of 1796 and 1800. In 1796, Federalist Party candidate John Adams won the presidential election. Finishing in second place was Democratic-Republican Party candidate Thomas Jefferson, the Federalists\' opponent, who became the vice president. This resulted in the president and vice president being of different political parties.[citation needed]\nIn 1800, the Democratic-Republican Party again nominated Jefferson for president and also again nominated Aaron Burr for vice president. After the electors voted, Jefferson and Burr were tied with one another with 73 electoral votes each. Since ballots did not distinguish between votes for president and votes for vice president, every ballot cast for Burr technically counted as a vote for him to become president, despite Jefferson clearly being his party\'s first choice. Lacking a clear winner by constitutional standards, the election had to be decided by the House of Representatives pursuant to the Constitution\'s contingency election provision.[citation needed]\nHaving already lost the presidential contest, Federalist Party representatives in the lame duck House session seized upon the opportunity to embarrass their opposition by attempting to elect Burr over Jefferson. The House deadlocked for 35 ballots as neither candidate received the necessary majority vote of the state delegations in the House (The votes of nine states were needed for a conclusive election.). On the 36th ballot, Delaware\'s lone Representative, James A. Bayard, made it known that he intended to break the impasse for fear that failure to do so could endanger the future of the Union. Bayard and other Federalists from South Carolina, Maryland, and Vermont abstained, breaking the deadlock and giving Jefferson a majority.[63]\nResponding to the problems from those elections, Congress proposed on December 9, 1803, and three-fourths of the states ratified by June 15, 1804, the Twelfth Amendment. Starting with the 1804 election, the amendment requires electors to cast separate ballots for president and vice president, replacing the system outlined in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3.[citation needed]\nEvolution from unpledged to pledged electors\nSome Founding Fathers hoped that each elector would be elected by the citizens of a district[64] and that elector was to be free to analyze and deliberate regarding who is best suited to be president.[65]\nIn Federalist No. 68 Alexander Hamilton described the Founding Fathers\' view of how electors would be chosen:\nA small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated [tasks]... They [the framers of the constitution] have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men [i.e. Electors pledged to vote one way or another], who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes [i.e., to be told how to vote]; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons [Electors to the Electoral College] for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have EXCLUDED from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office [in other words, no one can be an Elector who is prejudiced toward the president]... Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias [Electors must not come to the Electoral College with bias]. Their transient existence, and their detached [unbiased] situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it."[66]\nHowever, when electors were pledged to vote for a specific candidate, the slate of electors chosen by the state were no longer free agents, independent thinkers, or deliberative representatives. They became, as Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote, "voluntary party lackeys and intellectual non-entities."[67] According to Hamilton, writing in 1788, the selection of the president should be "made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station [of president]."[66]\nHamilton stated that the electors were to analyze the list of potential presidents and select the best one. He also used the term "deliberate." In a 2020 opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, the court additionally cited John Jay\'s view that the electors\' choices would reflect "discretion and discernment."[68] Reflecting on this original intention, a U.S. Senate report in 1826 critiqued the evolution of the system:\nIt was the intention of the Constitution that these electors should be an independent body of men, chosen by the people from among themselves, on account of their superior discernment, virtue, and information; and that this select body should be left to make the election according to their own will, without the slightest control from the body of the people. That this intention has failed of its object in every election, is a fact of such universal notoriety that no one can dispute it. Electors, therefore, have not answered the design of their institution. They are not the independent body and superior characters which they were intended to be. They are not left to the exercise of their own judgment: on the contrary, they give their vote, or bind themselves to give it, according to the will of their constituents. They have degenerated into mere agents, in a case which requires no agency, and where the agent must be useless...[69]\nIn 1833, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story detailed how badly from the framers\' intention the Electoral Process had been "subverted":\nIn no respect have the views of the framers of the constitution been so completely frustrated as relates to the independence of the electors in the electoral colleges. It is notorious, that the electors are now chosen wholly with reference to particular candidates, and are silently pledged to vote for them. Nay, upon some occasions the electors publicly pledge themselves to vote for a particular person; and thus, in effect, the whole foundation of the system, so elaborately constructed, is subverted.[70]\nStory observed that if an elector does what the framers of the Constitution expected him to do, he would be considered immoral:\nSo, that nothing is left to the electors after their choice, but to register votes, which are already pledged; and an exercise of an independent judgment would be treated, as a political usurpation, dishonorable to the individual, and a fraud upon his constituents.[70]\nEvolution to the general ticket\nArticle II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution states:\nEach State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.\nAccording to Hamilton, Madison and others, the original intent was that this would take place district by district.[71][72][73] The district plan was last carried out in Michigan in 1892.[74] For example, in Massachusetts in 1820, the rule stated "the people shall vote by ballot, on which shall be designated who is voted for as an Elector for the district."[75][76] In other words, the name of a candidate for president was not on the ballot. Instead, citizens voted for their local elector.\nSome state leaders began to adopt the strategy that the favorite partisan presidential candidate among the people in their state would have a much better chance if all of the electors selected by their state were sure to vote the same way—a "general ticket" of electors pledged to a party candidate.[77] Once one state took that strategy, the others felt compelled to follow suit in order to compete for the strongest influence on the election.[77]\nWhen James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, two of the most important architects of the Electoral College, saw this strategy being taken by some states, they protested strongly.[71][72][78] Madison said that when the Constitution was written, all of its authors assumed individual electors would be elected in their districts, and it was inconceivable that a "general ticket" of electors dictated by a state would supplant the concept. Madison wrote to George Hay:\nThe district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket [many years later].[79]\nEach state government was free to have its own plan for selecting its electors, and the Constitution does not explicitly require states to popularly elect their electors. However, Federalist No. 68, insofar as it reflects the intent of the founders, states that Electors will be "selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass," and with regard to choosing Electors, "they [the framers] have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America." Several methods for selecting electors are described below.\nMadison and Hamilton were so upset by the trend to "general tickets" that they advocated a constitutional amendment to prevent anything other than the district plan. Hamilton drafted an amendment to the Constitution mandating the district plan for selecting electors.[80][non-primary source needed] Hamilton\'s untimely death in a duel with Aaron Burr in 1804 prevented him from advancing his proposed reforms any further. "[T]he election of Presidential Electors by districts, is an amendment very proper to be brought forward," Madison told George Hay in 1823.[79][non-primary source needed]\nMadison also drafted a constitutional amendment that would ensure the original "district" plan of the framers.[81][non-primary source needed] Jefferson agreed with Hamilton and Madison saying, "all agree that an election by districts would be the best."[74][non-primary source needed] Jefferson explained to Madison\'s correspondent why he was doubtful of the amendment being ratified: "the states are now so numerous that I despair of ever seeing another amendment of the constitution."[82][non-primary source needed]\nEvolution of selection plans\nIn 1789, the at-large popular vote, the winner-take-all method, began with Pennsylvania and Maryland. Massachusetts, Virginia and Delaware used a district plan by popular vote, and state legislatures chose in the five other states participating in the election (Connecticut, Georgia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and South Carolina).[83][failed verification][non-primary source needed] New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island did not participate in the election. New York\'s legislature deadlocked over the method of choosing electors and abstained;[84] North Carolina and Rhode Island had not yet ratified the Constitution.[85]\nBy 1800, Virginia and Rhode Island voted at large; Kentucky, Maryland, and North Carolina voted popularly by district; and eleven states voted by state legislature. Beginning in 1804 there was a definite trend towards the winner-take-all system for statewide popular vote.[86][non-primary source needed]\nBy 1832, only South Carolina legislatively chose its electors, and it abandoned the method after 1860.[86][non-primary source needed] Maryland was the only state using a district plan, and from 1836 district plans fell out of use until the 20th century, though Michigan used a district plan for 1892 only. States using popular vote by district have included ten states from all regions of the country.[87][non-primary source needed]\nSince 1836, statewide winner-take-all popular voting for electors has been the almost universal practice.[88][non-primary source needed] Currently, Maine (since 1972) and Nebraska (since 1992) use a district plan, with two at-large electors assigned to support the winner of the statewide popular vote.[89][non-primary source needed]\nCorrelation between popular vote and electoral college votes\nSince the mid-19th century, when all electors have been popularly chosen, the Electoral College has elected the candidate who received the most (though not necessarily a majority) popular votes nationwide, except in four elections: 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016. A case has also been made that it happened in 1960. In 1824, when there were six states in which electors were legislatively appointed, rather than popularly elected, the true national popular vote is uncertain. The electors in 1824 failed to select a winning candidate, so the matter was decided by the House of Representatives.[90][better source needed]\nThree-fifths clause and the role of slavery\nAfter the initial estimates agreed to in the original Constitution, Congressional and Electoral College reapportionment was made according to a decennial census to reflect population changes, modified by counting three-fifths of slaves. On this basis after the first census, the Electoral College still gave the free men of slave-owning states (but never slaves) extra power (Electors) based on a count of these disenfranchised people, in the choice of the U.S. president.[91]\nAt the Constitutional Convention, the college composition, in theory, amounted to 49 votes for northern states (in the process of abolishing slavery) and 42 for slave-holding states (including Delaware). In the event, the first (i.e. 1788) presidential election lacked votes and electors for unratified Rhode Island (3) and North Carolina (7) and for New York (8) which reported too late; the Northern majority was 38 to 35.[92][non-primary source needed] For the next two decades, the three-fifths clause led to electors of free-soil Northern states numbering 8% and 11% more than Southern states. The latter had, in the compromise, relinquished counting two-fifths of their slaves and, after 1810, were outnumbered by 15.4% to 23.2%.[93]\nWhile House members for Southern states were boosted by an average of 1⁄3,[94] a free-soil majority in the college maintained over this early republic and Antebellum period.[95] Scholars conclude that the three-fifths clause had low impact on sectional proportions and factional strength, until denying the North a pronounced supermajority, as to the Northern, federal initiative to abolish slavery. The seats that the South gained from such "slave bonus" were quite evenly distributed between the parties. In the First Party System (1795–1823), the Jefferson Republicans gained 1.1 percent more adherents from the slave bonus, while the Federalists lost the same proportion. At the Second Party System (1823–1837) the emerging Jacksonians gained just 0.7% more seats, versus the opposition loss of 1.6%.[96]\nThe three-fifths slave-count rule is associated with three or four outcomes, 1792–1860:\n- The clause, having reduced the South\'s power, led to John Adams\'s win in 1796 over Thomas Jefferson.[97]\n- In 1800, historian Garry Wills argues, Jefferson\'s victory over Adams was due to the slave bonus count in the Electoral College as Adams would have won if citizens\' votes were used for each state.[98] However, historian Sean Wilentz points out that Jefferson\'s purported "slave advantage" ignores an offset by electoral manipulation by anti-Jefferson forces in Pennsylvania. Wilentz concludes that it is a myth to say that the Electoral College was a pro-slavery ploy.[99]\n- In 1824, the presidential selection was passed to the House of Representatives, and John Quincy Adams was chosen over Andrew Jackson, who won fewer citizens\' votes. Then Jackson won in 1828, but would have lost if the college were citizen-only apportionment. Scholars conclude that in the 1828 race, Jackson benefited materially from the Three-fifths clause by providing his margin of victory.\nThe first "Jeffersonian" and "Jacksonian" victories were of great importance as they ushered in sustained party majorities of several Congresses and presidential party eras.[100]\nBesides the Constitution prohibiting Congress from regulating foreign or domestic slave trade before 1808 and a duty on states to return escaped "persons held to service",[101][non-primary source needed] legal scholar Akhil Reed Amar argues that the college was originally advocated by slaveholders as a bulwark to prop up slavery. In the Congressional apportionment provided in the text of the Constitution with its Three-Fifths Compromise estimate, "Virginia emerged as the big winner [with] more than a quarter of the [votes] needed to win an election in the first round [for Washington\'s first presidential election in 1788]." Following the 1790 United States census, the most populous state was Virginia, with 39.1% slaves, or 292,315 counted three-fifths, to yield a calculated number of 175,389 for congressional apportionment.[102][non-primary source needed]\n"The "free" state of Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than Virginia but got 20% fewer electoral votes."[103] Pennsylvania split eight to seven for Jefferson, favoring Jefferson with a majority of 53% in a state with 0.1% slave population.[104][non-primary source needed] Historian Eric Foner agrees the Constitution\'s Three-Fifths Compromise gave protection to slavery.[105]\nSupporters of the College have provided many counterarguments to the charges that it defended slavery. Abraham Lincoln, the president who helped abolish slavery, won a College majority in 1860 despite winning 39.8% of citizen\'s votes.[106] This, however, was a clear plurality of a popular vote divided among four main candidates.\nBenner notes that Jefferson\'s first margin of victory would have been wider had the entire slave population been counted on a per capita basis.[107] He also notes that some of the most vociferous critics of a national popular vote at the constitutional convention were delegates from free states, including Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, who declared that such a system would lead to a "great evil of cabal and corruption," and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, who called a national popular vote "radically vicious".[107]\nDelegates Oliver Ellsworth and Roger Sherman of Connecticut, a state which had adopted a gradual emancipation law three years earlier, also criticized a national popular vote.[107] Of like view was Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a member of Adams\' Federalist Party, presidential candidate in 1800. He hailed from South Carolina and was a slaveholder.[107] In 1824, Andrew Jackson, a slaveholder from Tennessee, was similarly defeated by John Quincy Adams, a strong critic of slavery.[107]\nFourteenth Amendment\nSection 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state\'s representation in the House of Representatives to be reduced if the state denies the right to vote to any male citizen aged 21 or older, unless on the basis of "participation in rebellion, or other crime". The reduction is to be proportionate to such people denied a vote. This amendment refers to "the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States" (among other elections). It is the only part of the Constitution currently alluding to electors being selected by popular vote.\nOn May 8, 1866, during a debate on the Fourteenth Amendment, Thaddeus Stevens, the leader of the Republicans in the House of Representatives, delivered a speech on the amendment\'s intent. Regarding Section 2, he said:[108]\nThe second section I consider the most important in the article. It fixes the basis of representation in Congress. If any State shall exclude any of her adult male citizens from the elective franchise, or abridge that right, she shall forfeit her right to representation in the same proportion. The effect of this provision will be either to compel the States to grant universal suffrage or so shear them of their power as to keep them forever in a hopeless minority in the national Government, both legislative and executive.[109]\nFederal law (2 U.S.C. § 6) implements Section 2\'s mandate.\nMeeting of electors\nArticle II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to fix the day on which the electors shall vote, which must be the same day throughout the United States. And both Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 and the Twelfth Amendment that replaced it specifies that "the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted."\nIn 1887, Congress passed the Electoral Count Act, now codified in Title 3, Chapter 1 of the United States Code, establishing specific procedures for the counting of the electoral votes. The law was passed in response to the disputed 1876 presidential election, in which several states submitted competing slates of electors. Among its provisions, the law established deadlines that the states must meet when selecting their electors, resolving disputes, and when they must cast their electoral votes.[23][110]\nFrom 1948 to 2022, the date fixed by Congress for the meeting of the Electoral College was "on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment".[111] As of 2022, with the passing of "S.4573 - Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022", this was changed to be "on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment".[22]\nArticle II, Section 1, Clause 2, disqualifies all elected and appointed federal officials from being electors. The Office of the Federal Register is charged with administering the Electoral College.[112]\nAfter the vote, each state sends to Congress a certified record of their electoral votes, called the Certificate of Vote. These certificates are opened during a joint session of Congress, held on January 6[113][non-primary source needed] unless another date is specified by law, and read aloud by the incumbent vice president, acting in his capacity as president of the Senate. If any person receives an absolute majority of electoral votes, that person is declared the winner.[114][non-primary source needed] If there is a tie, or if no candidate for either or both offices receives an absolute majority, then choice falls to Congress in a procedure known as a contingent election.\nModern mechanics\nSummary\nEven though the aggregate national popular vote is calculated by state officials, media organizations, and the Federal Election Commission, the people only indirectly elect the president and vice president. The president and vice president of the United States are elected by the Electoral College, which consists of 538 electors from the fifty states and Washington, D.C. Electors are selected state-by-state, as determined by the laws of each state. Since the 1824 election, the majority of states have chosen their presidential electors based on winner-take-all results in the statewide popular vote on Election Day.[115]\nAs of 2020[update], Maine and Nebraska are exceptions as both use the congressional district method, Maine since 1972 and in Nebraska since 1992.[116] In most states, the popular vote ballots list the names of the presidential and vice presidential candidates (who run on a ticket). The slate of electors that represent the winning ticket will vote for those two offices. Electors are nominated by the party and, usually, they vote for the ticket to which are promised.[117][non-primary source needed]\nMany states require an elector to vote for the candidate to which the elector is pledged, but some "faithless electors" have voted for other candidates or refrained from voting. A candidate must receive an absolute majority of electoral votes (currently 270) to win the presidency or the vice presidency. If no candidate receives a majority in the election for president or vice president, the election is determined via a contingency procedure established by the Twelfth Amendment. In such a situation, the House chooses one of the top three presidential electoral vote winners as the president, while the Senate chooses one of the top two vice presidential electoral vote winners as vice president.\nElectors\nApportionment\nA state\'s number of electors equals the number of representatives plus two electors for the senators the state has in the United States Congress.[118][119] Each state is entitled to at least one representative, the remaining number of representatives per state is apportioned based on their respective populations, determined every ten years by the United States census. In summary, 153 electors are divided equally among the states and the District of Columbia (3 each), and the remaining 385 are assigned by an apportionment among states.[120][non-primary source needed]\nUnder the Twenty-third Amendment, Washington, D.C., is allocated as many electors as it would have if it were a state but no more electors than the least populous state. Because the least populous state (Wyoming, in the 2020 census) has three electors, D.C. cannot have more than three electors. Even if D.C. were a state, its population would entitle it to only three electors. Based on its population per electoral vote, D.C. has the third highest per capita Electoral College representation, after Wyoming and Vermont.[121][non-primary source needed]\nCurrently, there are 538 electors, based on 435 representatives, 100 senators from the fifty states and three electors from Washington, D.C. The six states with the most electors are California (54), Texas (40), Florida (30), New York (28), Illinois (19), and Pennsylvania (19). The District of Columbia and the six least populous states—Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming—have three electors each.[122][non-primary source needed]\nNominations\nThe custom of allowing recognized political parties to select a slate of prospective electors developed early. In contemporary practice, each presidential-vice presidential ticket has an associated slate of potential electors. Then on Election Day, the voters select a ticket and thereby select the associated electors.[25]\nCandidates for elector are nominated by state chapters of nationally oriented political parties in the months prior to Election Day. In some states, the electors are nominated by voters in primaries the same way other presidential candidates are nominated. In some states, such as Oklahoma, Virginia, and North Carolina, electors are nominated in party conventions. In Pennsylvania, the campaign committee of each candidate names their respective electoral college candidates, an attempt to discourage faithless electors. Varying by state, electors may also be elected by state legislatures or appointed by the parties themselves.[123][unreliable fringe source?]\nSelection process\nArticle II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution requires each state legislature to determine how electors for the state are to be chosen, but it disqualifies any person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, from being an elector.[124] Under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, any person who has sworn an oath to support the United States Constitution in order to hold either a state or federal office, and later rebelled against the United States directly or by giving assistance to those doing so, is disqualified from being an elector. Congress may remove this disqualification by a two-thirds vote in each house.\nAll states currently choose presidential electors by popular vote. As of 2020, eight states[d] name the electors on the ballot. Mostly, the "short ballot" is used. The short ballot displays the names of the candidates for president and vice president, rather than the names of prospective electors.[125] Some states support voting for write-in candidates. Those that do may require pre-registration of write-in candidacy, with designation of electors being done at that time.[126][127] Since 1992, all but two states have followed the winner takes all method of allocating electors by which every person named on the slate for the ticket winning the statewide popular vote are named as presidential electors.[128][129]\nMaine and Nebraska are the only states not using this method.[116] In those states, the winner of the popular vote in each of its congressional districts is awarded one elector, and the winner of the statewide vote is then awarded the state\'s remaining two electors.[128][130] This method has been used in Maine since 1972 and in Nebraska since 1992. The Supreme Court previously upheld the power for a state to choose electors on the basis of congressional districts, holding that states possess plenary power to decide how electors are appointed in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892).\nThe Tuesday following the first Monday in November has been fixed as the day for holding federal elections, called the Election Day.[131] After the election, each state prepares seven Certificates of Ascertainment, each listing the candidates for president and vice president, their pledged electors, and the total votes each candidacy received.[132][non-primary source needed] One certificate is sent, as soon after Election Day as practicable, to the National Archivist in Washington. The Certificates of Ascertainment are mandated to carry the state seal and the signature of the governor, or mayor of D.C.[133][non-primary source needed]\nMeetings\n| External media | |\n|---|---|\n| Images | |\n| A 2020 Pennsylvania elector holds a ballot for Joe Biden (Biden\'s name is handwritten on the blank line). Reuters. December 14, 2020. | |\n| A closeup of the 2020 Georgia Electoral College ballot for Kamala Harris (using a format in which Harris\'s name is checked on the pre-printed card). The New Yorker. December 18, 2020. | |\n| Video | |\n| 2020 California State Electoral College meeting, YouTube video. Reuters. December 14, 2020. |\nThe Electoral College never meets as one body. Electors meet in their respective state capitals (electors for the District of Columbia meet within the District) on the same day (set by Congress as the Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December) at which time they cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for president and vice president.[134][135][136][non-primary source needed][22]\nAlthough procedures in each state vary slightly, the electors generally follow a similar series of steps, and the Congress has constitutional authority to regulate the procedures the states follow.[citation needed] The meeting is opened by the election certification official—often that state\'s secretary of state or equivalent—who reads the certificate of ascertainment. This document sets forth who was chosen to cast the electoral votes. The attendance of the electors is taken and any vacancies are noted in writing. The next step is the selection of a president or chairman of the meeting, sometimes also with a vice chairman. The electors sometimes choose a secretary, often not an elector, to take the minutes of the meeting. In many states, political officials give short speeches at this point in the proceedings.[non-primary source needed]\nWhen the time for balloting arrives, the electors choose one or two people to act as tellers. Some states provide for the placing in nomination of a candidate to receive the electoral votes (the candidate for president of the political party of the electors). Each elector submits a written ballot with the name of a candidate for president. Ballot formats vary between the states: in New Jersey for example, the electors cast ballots by checking the name of the candidate on a pre-printed card. In North Carolina, the electors write the name of the candidate on a blank card. The tellers count the ballots and announce the result. The next step is the casting of the vote for vice president, which follows a similar pattern.[non-primary source needed]\nUnder the Electoral Count Act (updated and codified in 3 U.S.C. § 9), each state\'s electors must complete six certificates of vote. Each Certificate of Vote (or Certificate of the Vote) must be signed by all of the electors and a certificate of ascertainment must be attached to each of the certificates of vote. Each Certificate of Vote must include the names of those who received an electoral vote for either the office of president or of vice president. The electors certify the Certificates of Vote, and copies of the certificates are then sent in the following fashion:[137][non-primary source needed]\n- One is sent by registered mail to the President of the Senate (who usually is the incumbent vice president of the United States);\n- Two are sent by registered mail to the Archivist of the United States;\n- Two are sent to the state\'s secretary of state; and\n- One is sent to the chief judge of the United States district court where those electors met.\nA staff member of the president of the Senate collects the certificates of vote as they arrive and prepares them for the joint session of the Congress. The certificates are arranged—unopened—in alphabetical order and placed in two special mahogany boxes. Alabama through Missouri (including the District of Columbia) are placed in one box and Montana through Wyoming are placed in the other box.[138]\nBefore 1950, the Secretary of State\'s office oversaw the certifications. Since then, the Office of Federal Register in the Archivist\'s office reviews them to make sure the documents sent to the archive and Congress match, and that all formalities have been followed, sometimes requiring states to correct the documents.[112]\nFaithless electors\nAn elector votes for each office, but at least one of these votes (president or vice president) must be cast for a person who is not a resident of the same state as that elector.[139] A "faithless elector" is one who does not cast an electoral vote for the candidate of the party for whom that elector pledged to vote. Faithless electors are comparatively rare because electors are generally chosen among those who are already personally committed to a party and party\'s candidate.[140]\nThirty-three states plus the District of Columbia have laws against faithless electors,[141] which were first enforced after the 2016 election, where ten electors voted or attempted to vote contrary to their pledges. Faithless electors have never changed the outcome of a U.S. election for president. Altogether, 23,529 electors have taken part in the Electoral College as of the 2016 election. Only 165 electors have cast votes for someone other than their party\'s nominee. Of that group, 71 did so because the nominee had died – 63 Democratic Party electors in 1872, when presidential nominee Horace Greeley died; and eight Republican Party electors in 1912, when vice presidential nominee James S. Sherman died.[142]\nWhile faithless electors have never changed the outcome of any presidential election, there are two occasions where the vice presidential election has been influenced by faithless electors:\n- In the 1796 election, 18 electors pledged to the Federalist Party ticket cast their first vote as pledged for John Adams, electing him president, but did not cast their second vote for his running mate Thomas Pinckney. As a result, Adams attained 71 electoral votes, Jefferson received 68, and Pinckney received 59, meaning Jefferson, rather than Pinckney, became vice president.[143]\n- In the 1836 election, Virginia\'s 23 electors, who were pledged to Richard Mentor Johnson, voted instead for former U.S. senator William Smith, which left Johnson one vote short of the majority needed to be elected. In accordance with the Twelfth Amendment, a contingent election was held in the Senate between the top two receivers of electoral votes, Johnson and Francis Granger, for vice president, with Johnson being elected on the first ballot.[144]\nSome constitutional scholars argued that state restrictions would be struck down if challenged based on Article II and the Twelfth Amendment.[145] However, the United States Supreme Court has consistently ruled that state restrictions are allowed under the Constitution. In Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952), the court ruled in favor of state laws requiring electors to pledge to vote for the winning candidate, as well as removing electors who refuse to pledge. As stated in the ruling, electors are acting as a functionary of the state, not the federal government. In Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), and a related case, the court held that electors must vote in accord with their state\'s laws.[146][147] Faithless electors also may face censure from their political party, as they are usually chosen based on their perceived party loyalty.[148]\nJoint session of Congress\n| External videos | |\n|---|---|\n| A joint session of Congress confirms the 2020 electoral college results, YouTube video. Global News. January 6, 2021. |\nThe Twelfth Amendment mandates Congress assemble in joint session to count the electoral votes and declare the winners of the election.[149] The session is ordinarily required to take place on January 6 in the calendar year immediately following the meetings of the presidential electors.[150] Since the Twentieth Amendment, the newly elected joint Congress declares the winner of the election. All elections before 1936 were determined by the outgoing House.\nThe Office of the Federal Register is charged with administering the Electoral College.[112] The meeting is held at 1 p.m. in the chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives.[150] The sitting vice president is expected to preside, but in several cases the president pro tempore of the Senate has chaired the proceedings. The vice president and the speaker of the House sit at the podium, with the vice president sitting to the right of the speaker of the House. Senate pages bring in two mahogany boxes containing each state\'s certified vote and place them on tables in front of the senators and representatives. Each house appoints two tellers to count the vote, normally one member of each political party. Relevant portions of the certificate of vote are read for each state, in alphabetical order.\nBefore an amendment to the law in 2022, members of Congress could object to any state\'s vote count, provided objection is presented in writing and is signed by at least one member of each house of Congress. In 2022, the number of members required to make an objection was raised to one-fifth of each house. An appropriately made objection is followed by the suspension of the joint session and by separate debates and votes in each house of Congress. After both houses deliberate on the objection, the joint session is resumed.\nA state\'s certificate of vote can be rejected only if both houses of Congress vote to accept the objection via a simple majority,[151] meaning the votes from the state in question are not counted. Individual votes can also be rejected, and are also not counted.\nIf there are no objections or all objections are overruled, the presiding officer simply includes a state\'s votes, as declared in the certificate of vote, in the official tally.\nAfter the certificates from all states are read and the respective votes are counted, the presiding officer simply announces the final state of the vote. This announcement concludes the joint session and formalizes the recognition of the president-elect and of the vice president-elect. The senators then depart from the House chamber. The final tally is printed in the Senate and House journals.\nHistorical objections and rejections\nObjections to the electoral vote count are rarely raised, although it has occurred a few times.\n- In 1864, all votes from Louisiana and Tennessee were rejected because of the American Civil War.\n- In 1872, all votes from Arkansas and Louisiana plus three of the eleven electoral votes from Georgia were rejected, due to allegations of electoral fraud, and due to submitting votes for a candidate who had died.[152]\n- After the crises of the 1876 election, where in a few states it was claimed there were two competing state governments, and thus competing slates of electors, Congress adopted the Electoral Count Act to regularize objection procedure.[153]\n- During the vote count in 2001 after the close 2000 presidential election between Governor George W. Bush of Texas and Vice President Al Gore. The election had been controversial, and its outcome was decided by the court case Bush v. Gore. Gore, who as vice president was required to preside over his own Electoral College defeat (by five electoral votes), denied the objections, all of which were raised by representatives and would have favored his candidacy, after no senators would agree to jointly object.\n- Objections were raised in the vote count of the 2004 election, alleging voter suppression and machine irregularities in Ohio, and on that occasion one representative and one senator objected, following protocols mandated by the Electoral Count Act. The joint session was suspended as outlined in these protocols, and the objections were quickly disposed of and rejected by both houses of Congress.\n- Eleven objections were raised during the vote count for the 2016 election, all by various Democratic representatives. As no senator joined the representatives in any objection, all objections were blocked by Vice President Joe Biden.[154]\n- In the 2020 election, there were two objections, and the proceeding was interrupted by an attack on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of outgoing President Donald Trump. Objections to the votes from Arizona and Pennsylvania were each raised by a House member and a senator, and triggered separate debate in each chamber, but were soundly defeated.[155] A few House members raised objections to the votes from Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin, but they could not move forward because no senator joined in those objections.[156]\nContingencies\nContingent presidential election by House\nIf no candidate for president receives an absolute majority of the electoral votes (since 1964, 270 of the 538 electoral votes), then the Twelfth Amendment requires the House of Representatives to go into session immediately to choose a president. In this event, the House of Representatives is limited to choosing from among the three candidates who received the most electoral votes for president. Each state delegation votes en bloc—each delegation having a single vote. The District of Columbia does not get to vote.\nA candidate must receive an absolute majority of state delegation votes (i.e., from 1959, which is the last time a new state was admitted to the union, a minimum of 26 votes) in order for that candidate to become the president-elect. Delegations from at least two thirds of all the states must be present for voting to take place. The House continues balloting until it elects a president.\nThe House of Representatives has been required to choose the president only twice: in 1801 under Article II, Section 1, Clause 3; and in 1825 under the Twelfth Amendment.\nContingent vice presidential election by Senate\nIf no candidate for vice president receives an absolute majority of electoral votes, then the Senate must go into session to choose a vice president. The Senate is limited to choosing from the two candidates who received the most electoral votes for vice president. Normally this would mean two candidates, one less than the number of candidates available in the House vote.\nHowever, the text is written in such a way that all candidates with the most and second-most electoral votes are eligible for the Senate election—this number could theoretically be larger than two. The Senate votes in the normal manner in this case (i.e., ballots are individually cast by each senator, not by state delegations). Two-thirds of the senators must be present for voting to take place.\nThe Twelfth Amendment states a "majority of the whole number" of senators, currently 51 of 100, is necessary for election.[157] The language requiring an absolute majority of Senate votes precludes the sitting vice president from breaking any tie that might occur,[158] although some academics and journalists have speculated to the contrary.[159]\nThe only time the Senate chose the vice president was in 1837. In that instance, the Senate adopted an alphabetical roll call and voting aloud. The rules further stated, "[I]f a majority of the number of senators shall vote for either the said Richard M. Johnson or Francis Granger, he shall be declared by the presiding officer of the Senate constitutionally elected Vice President of the United States"; the Senate chose Johnson.[160]\nDeadlocked election\nSection 3 of the Twentieth Amendment specifies that if the House of Representatives has not chosen a president-elect in time for the inauguration (noon EST on January 20), then the vice president-elect becomes acting president until the House selects a president. Section 3 also specifies that Congress may statutorily provide for who will be acting president if there is neither a president-elect nor a vice president-elect in time for the inauguration. Under the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, the Speaker of the House would become acting president until either the House selects a president or the Senate selects a vice president. Neither of these situations has ever arisen to this day.\nContinuity of government and peaceful transitions of power\nIn Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton argued that one concern that led the Constitutional Convention to create the Electoral College was to ensure peaceful transitions of power and continuity of government during transitions between presidential administrations.[161][e] While recognizing that the question had not been presented in the case, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in the majority opinion in Chiafalo v. Washington (2020) that "nothing in this opinion should be taken to permit the States to bind electors to a deceased candidate" after noting that more than one-third of the cumulative faithless elector votes in U.S. presidential elections history were cast during the 1872 presidential election when Liberal Republican Party and Democratic Party nominee Horace Greeley died after the polls were held and vote tabulations were completed by the states but before the Electoral College cast its ballots, and acknowledging the petitioners concern about the potential turmoil that the death of a presidential candidate between Election Day and the Electoral College meetings could cause.[162][163]\nIn 1872, Greeley carried the popular vote in 6 states (Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas) and had 66 electoral votes pledged to him. After his death on November 29, 1872, 63 of the electors pledged to him voted faithlessly, while 3 votes (from Georgia) that remained pledged to him were rejected at the Electoral College vote count on February 12, 1873, on the grounds that he had died.[164][165] Greeley\'s running mate, B. Gratz Brown, still received the 3 electoral votes from Georgia for vice president that were rejected for Greeley. This brought Brown\'s number of electoral votes for vice president to 47 since he still received all 28 electoral votes from Maryland, Tennessee, and Texas, and 16 other electoral votes from Georgia, Kentucky, and Missouri in total. The other 19 electors from the latter states voted faithlessly for vice president.[166]\nDuring the presidential transition following the 1860 presidential election, Abraham Lincoln had to arrive in Washington, D.C. in disguise and on an altered train schedule after the Pinkerton National Detective Agency found evidence that suggested a secessionist plot to assassinate Lincoln would be attempted in Baltimore.[167][168] During the presidential transition following the 1928 presidential election, an Argentine anarchist group plotted to assassinate Herbert Hoover while Hoover was traveling through Central and South America and crossing the Andes from Chile by train. The plotters were arrested before the attempt was made.[169][170]\nDuring the presidential transition following the 1932 presidential election, Giuseppe Zangara attempted to assassinate Franklin D. Roosevelt by gunshot while Roosevelt was giving an impromptu speech in a car in Miami, but instead killed Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak, who was a passenger in the car, and wounded 5 bystanders.[171][172] During the presidential transition following the 1960 presidential election, Richard Paul Pavlick plotted to assassinate John F. Kennedy while Kennedy was vacationing in Palm Beach, Florida, by detonating a dynamite-laden car where Kennedy was staying. Pavlick delayed his attempt and was arrested and committed to a mental hospital.[173][174][175][176]\nDuring the presidential transition following the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama was targeted in separate security incidents by an assassination plot and a death threat,[177][178] after an assassination plot in Denver during the 2008 Democratic National Convention and an assassination plot in Tennessee during the election were prevented.[179][180]\nDuring the presidential transition following the 2020 presidential election, as a result of former president Donald Trump\'s false insistence that he had won the election, the General Services Administration did not declare Biden the winner until November 23.[181] The subsequent attack on the United States Capitol on January 6 caused delays in the counting of electoral votes to certify Joe Biden\'s victory in the 2020 election, but was ultimately unsuccessful in preventing the count from occurring.[182]\nRatified in 1933, Section 3 of the 20th Amendment requires that if a president-elect dies before Inauguration Day, that the vice president-elect becomes the president.[183][184] Akhil Amar has noted that the explicit text of the 20th Amendment does not specify when the candidates of the winning presidential ticket officially become the president-elect and vice president-elect, and that the text of Article II, Section I and the 12th Amendment suggests that candidates for president and vice president are only formally elected upon the Electoral College vote count.[185] Conversely, a 2020 report issued by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), stated that the balance of scholarly opinion has concluded that the winning presidential ticket is formally elected as soon as the majority of the electoral votes they receive are cast, according to the 1932 House committee report on the 20th Amendment.[183]\nIf a vacancy on a presidential ticket occurs before Election Day—as in 1912 when Republican nominee for Vice President James S. Sherman died less than a week before the election and was replaced by Nicholas Murray Butler at the Electoral College meetings, and in 1972 when Democratic nominee for Vice President Thomas Eagleton withdrew his nomination less than three weeks after the Democratic National Convention and was replaced by Sargent Shriver—the internal rules of the political parties apply for filling vacancies.[186] If a vacancy on a presidential ticket occurs between Election Day and the Electoral College meetings, the 2020 CRS report notes that most legal commentators have suggested that political parties would still follow their internal rules for filling the vacancies.[187] However, in 1872, the Democratic National Committee did not meet to name a replacement for Horace Greeley,[164] and the 2020 CRS report notes that presidential electors may argue that they are permitted to vote faithlessly if a vacancy occurs between Election Day and the Electoral College meetings since they were pledged to vote for a specific candidate.[187]\nUnder the Presidential Succession Clause of Article II, Section I, Congress is delegated the power to "by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected."[188][f][g] Pursuant to the Presidential Succession Clause, the 2nd United States Congress passed the Presidential Succession Act of 1792 that required a special election by the Electoral College in the case of a dual vacancy in the presidency and vice presidency.[192][193] Despite vacancies in the Vice Presidency from 1792 to 1886,[h] the special election requirement would be repealed with the rest of the Presidential Succession Act of 1792 by the 49th United States Congress in passing the Presidential Succession Act of 1886.[196][197]\nIn a special message to the 80th United States Congress calling for revisions to the Presidential Succession Act of 1886, President Harry S. Truman proposed restoring special elections for dual vacancies in the Presidency and Vice Presidency. While most of Truman\'s proposal was included in the final version of the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, the restoration of special elections for dual vacancies was not.[198][199] Along with six other recommendations related to presidential succession,[200] the Continuity of Government Commission recommended restoring special elections for president in the event of a dual vacancy in the presidency and vice presidency due to a catastrophic terrorist attack or nuclear strike, in part because all members of the presidential line of succession live and work in Washington, D.C.[201]\nUnder the 12th Amendment, presidential electors are still required to meet and cast their ballots for president and vice president within their respective states.[202] The CRS noted in a separate 2020 report that members of the presidential line of succession, after the vice president, only become an acting president under the Presidential Succession Clause and Section 3 of the 20th Amendment, rather than fully succeeding to the presidency.[203]\nCurrent electoral vote distribution\n| EV × States | States* |\n|---|---|\n| 54 × 1 = 54 | California |\n| 40 × 1 = 40 | Texas |\n| 30 × 1 = 30 | Florida |\n| 28 × 1 = 28 | New York |\n| 19 × 2 = 38 | Illinois, Pennsylvania |\n| 17 × 1 = 17 | Ohio |\n| 16 × 2 = 32 | Georgia, North Carolina |\n| 15 × 1 = 15 | Michigan |\n| 14 × 1 = 14 | New Jersey |\n| 13 × 1 = 13 | Virginia |\n| 12 × 1 = 12 | Washington |\n| 11 × 4 = 44 | Arizona, Indiana, Massachusetts, Tennessee |\n| 10 × 5 = 50 | Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin |\n| 9 × 2 = 18 | Alabama, South Carolina |\n| 8 × 3 = 24 | Kentucky, Louisiana, Oregon |\n| 7 × 2 = 14 | Connecticut, Oklahoma |\n| 6 × 6 = 36 | Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Nevada, Utah |\n| 5 × 2 = 10 | Nebraska**, New Mexico |\n| 4 × 7 = 28 | Hawaii, Idaho, Maine**, Montana, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, West Virginia |\n| 3 × 7 = 21 | Alaska, Delaware, District of Columbia*, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming |\n| = 538 | Total electors |\n- * The Twenty-third Amendment grants D.C. the same number of electors as the least populous state. This has always been three.\n- ** Maine\'s four electors and Nebraska\'s five are distributed using the Congressional district method.\nChronological table\n| Election year |\n1788–1800 | 1804–1900 | 1904–2000 | 2004– | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| \'88 | \'92 | \'96 \'00 |\n\'04 \'08 |\n\'12 | \'16 | \'20 | \'24 \'28 |\n\'32 | \'36 \'40 |\n\'44 | \'48 | \'52 \'56 |\n\'60 | \'64 | \'68 | \'72 | \'76 \'80 |\n\'84 \'88 |\n\'92 | \'96 \'00 |\n\'04 | \'08 | \'12 \'16 \'20 \'24 \'28 |\n\'32 \'36 \'40 |\n\'44 \'48 |\n\'52 \'56 |\n\'60 | \'64 \'68 |\n\'72 \'76 \'80 |\n\'84 \'88 |\n\'92 \'96 \'00 |\n\'04 \'08 |\n\'12 \'16 \'20 |\n\'24 \'28 | ||\n| # | Total | 81 | 135 | 138 | 176 | 218 | 221 | 235 | 261 | 288 | 294 | 275 | 290 | 296 | 303 | 234 251 |\n294 | 366 | 369 | 401 | 444 | 447 | 476 | 483 | 531 | 537 | 538 | |||||||||\n| State | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||\n| 22 | Alabama | 3 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 0 | 8 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | ||||||\n| 49 | Alaska | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||\n| 48 | Arizona | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 11 | 11 | |||||||||||||||||||||||\n| 25 | Arkansas | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | |||||||||\n| 31 | California | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 13 | 22 | 25 | 32 | 32 | 40 | 45 | 47 | 54 | 55 | 55 | 54 | ||||||||||||\n| 38 | Colorado | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 10 | |||||||||||||||||\n| 5 | Connecticut | 7 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 |\n| – | D.C. | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||\n| 1 | Delaware | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |\n| 27 | Florida | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 10 | 14 | 17 | 21 | 25 | 27 | 29 | 30 | |||||||||||\n| 4 | Georgia | 5 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 9 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 14 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 15 | 16 | 16 |\n| 50 | Hawaii | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||\n| 43 | Idaho | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||\n| 21 | Illinois | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 9 | 9 | 11 | 11 | 16 | 16 | 21 | 21 | 22 | 24 | 24 | 27 | 27 | 29 | 29 | 28 | 27 | 27 | 26 | 26 | 24 | 22 | 21 | 20 | 19 | ||||||\n| 19 | Indiana | 3 | 3 | 5 | 9 | 9 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 14 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 11 | |||||\n| 29 | Iowa | 4 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 8 | 11 | 11 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | |||||||||||\n| 34 | Kansas | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | ||||||||||||||\n| 15 | Kentucky | 4 | 4 | 8 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 14 | 15 | 15 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | |\n| 18 | Louisiana | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 8 | ||||\n| 23 | Maine | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | ||||||\n| 7 | Maryland | 8 | 10 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |\n| 6 | Massachusetts | 10 | 16 | 16 | 19 | 22 | 22 | 15 | 15 | 14 | 14 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 15 | 16 | 16 | 18 | 17 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 14 | 14 | 13 | 12 | 12 | 11 | 11 |\n| 26 | Michigan | 3 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 11 | 11 | 13 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 15 | 19 | 19 | 20 | 20 | 21 | 21 | 20 | 18 | 17 | 16 | 15 | |||||||||\n| 32 | Minnesota | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | |||||||||||||\n| 20 | Mississippi | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6 | ||||||\n| 24 | Missouri | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 11 | 11 | 15 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 17 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 15 | 15 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 10 | ||||||\n| 41 | Montana | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||\n| 37 | Nebraska | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | |||||||||||||||\n| 36 | Nevada | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 6 | ||||||||||||||\n| 9 | New Hampshire | 5 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |\n| 3 | New Jersey | 6 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 12 | 12 | 14 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 17 | 17 | 16 | 15 | 15 | 14 | 14 |\n| 47 | New Mexico | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||\n| 11 | New York | 8 | 12 | 12 | 19 | 29 | 29 | 29 | 36 | 42 | 42 | 36 | 36 | 35 | 35 | 33 | 33 | 35 | 35 | 36 | 36 | 36 | 39 | 39 | 45 | 47 | 47 | 45 | 45 | 43 | 41 | 36 | 33 | 31 | 29 | 28 |\n| 12 | North Carolina | 12 | 12 | 14 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 15 | 16 | |\n| 39 | North Dakota | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||\n| 17 | Ohio | 3 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 16 | 21 | 21 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 21 | 21 | 22 | 22 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 24 | 26 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 26 | 25 | 23 | 21 | 20 | 18 | 17 | |||\n| 46 | Oklahoma | 7 | 10 | 11 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||\n| 33 | Oregon | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | |||||||||||||\n| 2 | Pennsylvania | 10 | 15 | 15 | 20 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 28 | 30 | 30 | 26 | 26 | 27 | 27 | 26 | 26 | 29 | 29 | 30 | 32 | 32 | 34 | 34 | 38 | 36 | 35 | 32 | 32 | 29 | 27 | 25 | 23 | 21 | 20 | 19 |\n| 13 | Rhode Island | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |\n| 8 | South Carolina | 7 | 8 | 8 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 |\n| 40 | South Dakota | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||\n| 16 | Tennessee | 3 | 5 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 11 | 15 | 15 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 12 | 10 | 10 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 11 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | ||\n| 28 | Texas | 4 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 8 | 13 | 15 | 15 | 18 | 18 | 20 | 23 | 23 | 24 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 29 | 32 | 34 | 38 | 40 | |||||||||||\n| 45 | Utah | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | ||||||||||||||||||||\n| 14 | Vermont | 4 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |\n| 10 | Virginia | 12 | 21 | 21 | 24 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 24 | 23 | 23 | 17 | 17 | 15 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 |\n| 42 | Washington | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 12 | |||||||||||||||||||\n| 35 | West Virginia | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | ||||||||||||||\n| 30 | Wisconsin | 4 | 5 | 5 | 8 | 8 | 10 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 10 | |||||||||||\n| 44 | Wyoming | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||\n| # | Total | 81 | 135 | 138 | 176 | 218 | 221 | 235 | 261 | 288 | 294 | 275 | 290 | 296 | 303 | 234 251 |\n294 | 366 | 369 | 401 | 444 | 447 | 476 | 483 | 531 | 537 | 538 |\nSource: Presidential Elections 1789–2000 at Psephos (Adam Carr\'s Election Archive)\nNote: In 1788, 1792, 1796, and 1800, each elector cast two votes for president.\nAlternative methods of choosing electors\n| Year | AL | CT | DE | GA | IL | IN | KY | LA | ME | MD | MA | MS | MO | NH | NJ | NY | NC | OH | PA | RI | SC | TN | VT | VA | |||||\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| 1789 | – | L | D | L | – | – | – | – | – | A | H | – | – | H | L | – | – | – | A | – | L | – | – | D | |||||\n| 1792 | – | L | L | L | – | – | D | – | – | A | H | – | – | H | L | L | L | – | A | L | L | – | L | D | |||||\n| 1796 | – | L | L | A | – | – | D | – | – | D | H | – | – | H | L | L | D | – | A | L | L | H | L | D | |||||\n| 1800 | – | L | L | L | – | – | D | – | – | D | L | – | – | L | L | L | D | – | L | A | L | H | L | A | |||||\n| 1804 | – | L | L | L | – | – | D | – | – | D | D | – | – | A | A | L | D | A | A | A | L | D | L | A | |||||\n| 1808 | – | L | L | L | – | – | D | – | – | D | L | – | – | A | A | L | D | A | A | A | L | D | L | A | |||||\n| 1812 | – | L | L | L | – | – | D | L | – | D | D | – | – | A | L | L | L | A | A | A | L | D | L | A | |||||\n| 1816 | – | L | L | L | – | L | D | L | – | D | L | – | – | A | A | L | A | A | A | A | L | D | L | A | |||||\n| 1820 | L | A | L | L | D | L | D | L | D | D | D | A | L | A | A | L | A | A | A | A | L | D | L | A | |||||\n| 1824 | A | A | L | L | D | A | D | L | D | D | A | A | D | A | A | L | A | A | A | A | L | D | L | A | |||||\n| 1828 | A | A | L | A | A | A | A | A | D | D | A | A | A | A | A | D | A | A | A | A | L | D | A | A | |||||\n| 1832 | A | A | A | A | A | A | A | A | A | D | A | A | A | A | A | A | A | A | A | A | L | A | A | A | |||||\n| Year | AL | CT | DE | GA | IL | IN | KY | LA | ME | MD | MA | MS | MO | NH | NJ | NY | NC | OH | PA | RI | SC | TN | VT | VA |\n| Key | A | Popular vote, At-large | D | Popular vote, Districting | L | Legislative selection | H | Hybrid system |\n|---|\nBefore the advent of the "short ballot" in the early 20th century (as described in Selection process) the most common means of electing the presidential electors was through the general ticket. The general ticket is quite similar to the current system and is often confused with it. In the general ticket, voters cast ballots for individuals running for presidential elector. In the short ballot, voters cast ballots for an entire slate of electors.\nIn the general ticket, the state canvass would report the number of votes cast for each candidate for elector, a complicated process in states like New York with multiple positions to fill. Both the general ticket and the short ballot are often considered at-large or winner-takes-all voting. The short ballot was adopted by the various states at different times. It was adopted for use by North Carolina and Ohio in 1932. Alabama was still using the general ticket as late as 1960 and was one of the last states to switch to the short ballot.\nThe question of the extent to which state constitutions may constrain the legislature\'s choice of a method of choosing electors has been touched on in two U.S. Supreme Court cases. In McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892), the Court cited Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 which states that a state\'s electors are selected "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct" and wrote these words "operat[e] as a limitation upon the state in respect of any attempt to circumscribe the legislative power".\nIn Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70 (2000), a Florida Supreme Court decision was vacated (not reversed) based on McPherson. On the other hand, three dissenting justices in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), wrote: "[N]othing in Article II of the Federal Constitution frees the state legislature from the constraints in the State Constitution that created it."[207]\nAppointment by state legislature\nIn the earliest presidential elections, state legislative choice was the most common method of choosing electors. A majority of the state legislatures selected presidential electors in both 1792 (9 of 15) and 1800 (10 of 16), and half of them did so in 1812.[208] Even in the 1824 election, a quarter of state legislatures (6 of 24) chose electors. In that election, Andrew Jackson lost in spite of having a plurality of both the popular vote and the number of electoral votes representing them.[209] Yet, as six states did not hold a popular election for their electoral votes, the full expression of the popular vote nationally cannot be known.[209]\nSome state legislatures simply chose electors. Other states used a hybrid method in which state legislatures chose from a group of electors elected by popular vote.[210] By 1828, with the rise of Jacksonian democracy, only Delaware and South Carolina used legislative choice.[209] Delaware ended its practice the following election (1832). South Carolina continued using the method until it seceded from the Union in December 1860.[209] South Carolina used the popular vote for the first time in the 1868 election.[211]\nExcluding South Carolina, legislative appointment was used in only four situations after 1832:\n- In 1848, Massachusetts statute awarded the state\'s electoral votes to the winner of the at-large popular vote, but only if that candidate won an absolute majority. When the vote produced no winner between the Democratic, Free Soil, and Whig parties, the state legislature selected the electors, giving all 12 electoral votes to the Whigs, which had won the plurality of votes in the state.[212]\n- In 1864, Nevada, having joined the Union only a few days prior to Election Day, had no choice but to legislatively appoint.[212]\n- In 1868, the newly reconstructed state of Florida legislatively appointed its electors, having been readmitted too late to hold elections.[212]\n- In 1876, the legislature of the newly admitted state of Colorado used legislative choice due to a lack of time and money to hold a popular election.[212]\nLegislative appointment was brandished as a possibility in the 2000 election. Had the recount continued, the Florida legislature was prepared to appoint the Republican slate of electors to avoid missing the federal safe-harbor deadline for choosing electors.[213]\nThe Constitution gives each state legislature the power to decide how its state\'s electors are chosen[209] and it can be easier and cheaper for a state legislature to simply appoint a slate of electors than to create a legislative framework for holding elections to determine the electors. As noted above, the two situations in which legislative choice has been used since the Civil War have both been because there was not enough time or money to prepare for an election. However, appointment by state legislature can have negative consequences: bicameral legislatures can deadlock more easily than the electorate. This is precisely what happened to New York in 1789 when the legislature failed to appoint any electors.[214]\nElectoral districts\nAnother method used early in U.S. history was to divide the state into electoral districts. By this method, voters in each district would cast their ballots for the electors they supported and the winner in each district would become the elector. This was similar to how states are currently separated into congressional districts. The difference stems from the fact that every state always had two more electoral districts than congressional districts. As with congressional districts, this method is vulnerable to gerrymandering.\nCongressional district method\nThere are two versions of the congressional district method: one has been implemented in Maine and Nebraska; another was used in New York in 1828 and proposed for use in Virginia. Under the implemented method, electors are awarded the way seats in Congress are awarded. One electoral vote goes per the plurality of the popular votes of each congressional district (for the U.S. House Of Representatives), and two per the statewide popular vote. This may result in greater proportionality. But it can give results similar to the winner-takes-all states, as in 1992, when George H. W. Bush won all five of Nebraska\'s electoral votes with a clear plurality on 47% of the vote; in a truly proportional system, he would have received three and Bill Clinton and Ross Perot each would have received one.[215]\nIn 2013, the Virginia proposal was tabled. Like the other congressional district methods, this would have distributed the electoral votes based on the popular vote winner within each of Virginia\'s 11 congressional districts; the two statewide electoral votes would be awarded based on which candidate won the most congressional districts.[216] A similar method was used in New York in 1828: the two at large electors were elected by the electors selected in districts.\nA congressional district method is more likely to arise than other alternatives to the winner-takes-whole-state method, in view of the main two parties\' resistance to scrap first-past-the-post. State legislation is sufficient to use this method.[217][non-primary source needed] Advocates of the method believe the system encourages higher voter turnout or incentivizes candidates, to visit and appeal to some states deemed safe, overall, for one party.[218]\nWinner-take-all systems ignore thousands of votes. In Democratic California there are Republican districts, in Republican Texas there are Democratic districts. Because candidates have an incentive to campaign in competitive districts, with a district plan, candidates have an incentive to actively campaign in over thirty states versus about seven "swing" states.[219][220] Opponents of the system argue that candidates might only spend time in certain battleground districts instead of the entire state and cases of gerrymandering could become exacerbated as political parties attempt to draw as many safe districts as they can.[221]\nUnlike simple congressional district comparisons, the district plan popular vote bonus in the 2008 election would have given Obama 56% of the Electoral College versus the 68% he did win; it "would have more closely approximated the percentage of the popular vote won [53%]".[222] However, the district plan would have given Obama 49% of the Electoral College in 2012, and would have given Romney a win in the Electoral College even though Obama won the popular vote by nearly 4% (51.1–47.2) over Romney.[223]\nImplementation\nOf the 44 multi-district states whose 517 electoral votes are amenable to the method, only Maine (4 EV) and Nebraska (5 EV) apply it.[224][225] Maine began using the congressional district method in the election of 1972. Nebraska has used the congressional district method since the election of 1992.[226][227] Michigan used the system for the 1892 presidential election,[215][228][229] and several other states used various forms of the district plan before 1840: Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, North Carolina, Massachusetts, Illinois, Maine, Missouri, and New York.[230]\nThe congressional district method allows a state the chance to split its electoral votes between multiple candidates. Prior to 2008, Nebraska had never split its electoral votes, while Maine had only done so once under its previous district plan in the 1828 election.[215][231][232] Nebraska split its electoral votes for the first time in 2008, giving John McCain its statewide electors and those of two congressional districts, while Barack Obama won the electoral vote of Nebraska\'s 2nd congressional district, centered on the state\'s largest city, Omaha.[233] Following the 2008 split, some Nebraska Republicans made efforts to discard the congressional district method and return to the winner-takes-all system.[234] In January 2010, a bill was introduced in the Nebraska legislature to revert to a winner-take-all system;[235] the bill died in committee in March 2011.[236] Republicans had passed bills in 1995 and 1997 to do the same, which were vetoed by Democratic Governor Ben Nelson.[234]\nMore recently, Maine split its electoral votes for the first time under the congressional district method in 2016. Hillary Clinton won its two statewide electors and its 1st congressional district, which covers the state\'s southwestern coastal region and its largest city of Portland, while Donald Trump won the electoral vote of Maine\'s 2nd congressional district, which takes in the remainder of the state and is much larger by area. In the 2020 election, both Nebraska and Maine split their electoral votes, following the same pattern of congressional district differences that were seen in 2008 and 2016 respectively: Nebraska\'s 2nd congressional district voted for Democrat Joe Biden while the remainder of the state voted for Republican Donald Trump; and Maine\'s 2nd congressional district voted for Trump while the remainder of the state voted for Biden.[237]\nRecent abandoned adoption in other states\nIn 2010, Republicans in Pennsylvania, who controlled both houses of the legislature as well as the governorship, put forward a plan to change the state\'s winner-takes-all system to a congressional district method system. Pennsylvania had voted for the Democratic candidate in the five previous presidential elections, so this was seen an attempt to take away Democratic electoral votes. Democrat Barack Obama won Pennsylvania in 2008 with 55% of its vote. The district plan would have awarded him 11 of its 21 electoral votes, a 52.4% which was much closer to the popular vote percentage.[238][239] The plan later lost support.[240] Other Republicans, including Michigan state representative Pete Lund,[241] RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, have floated similar ideas.[242][243]\nProportional vote\nIn a proportional system, electors would be selected in proportion to the votes cast for their candidate or party, rather than being selected by the statewide plurality vote.[244]\nImpacts and reception\nGary Bugh\'s research of congressional debates over proposed constitutional amendments to abolish the Electoral College reveals reform opponents have often appealed to tradition and the preference for indirect elections, whereas reform advocates often champion a more egalitarian one person, one vote system.[246] Electoral colleges have been scrapped by all other democracies around the world in favor of direct elections for an executive president.[247][15]\nCritics argue that the Electoral College is less democratic than a national direct popular vote and is subject to manipulation because of faithless electors;[12][13] that the system is antithetical to a democracy that strives for a standard of "one person, one vote";[9] and there can be elections where one candidate wins the national popular vote but another wins the electoral vote, as in the 2000 and 2016 elections.[11] Individual citizens in less populated states with 5% of the Electoral College have proportionately more voting power than those in more populous states,[248] and candidates can win by focusing on just a few "swing states".[14][249]\nPolling ~40%\n21st century polling data shows that a majority of Americans consistently favor having a direct popular vote for presidential elections. The popularity of the Electoral College has hovered between 35% and 44%.[245][250][k]\nDifference with popular vote\nOpponents of the Electoral College claim such outcomes do not logically follow the normative concept of how a democratic system should function. One view is the Electoral College violates the principle of political equality, since presidential elections are not decided by the one-person one-vote principle.[251]\nWhile many assume the national popular vote observed under the Electoral College system would reflect the popular vote observed under a National Popular Vote system, supporters contend that is not necessarily the case as each electoral institution produces different incentives for, and strategy choices by, presidential campaigns.[252][253]\nNotable elections\nThe elections of 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016 produced an Electoral College winner who did not receive at least a plurality of the nationwide popular vote.[251] In 1824, there were six states in which electors were legislatively appointed, rather than popularly elected, so it is uncertain what the national popular vote would have been if all presidential electors had been popularly elected. When no presidential candidate received a majority of electoral votes in 1824, the election was decided by the House of Representatives and so could be considered distinct from the latter four elections in which all of the states had popular selection of electors.[254] The true national popular vote was also uncertain in the 1960 election, and the plurality for the winner depends on how votes for Alabama electors are allocated.[255]\nElections where the popular vote and electoral college results differed\n- 1800: Jefferson won with 61.4% of the popular vote; Adams had 38.6%*\n- 1824: Adams won with 30.9% of the popular vote; Jackson had 41.4%*\n- 1836 (only for vice president): Johnson won with 63.5% of the popular vote; Granger had 30.8%*\n- 1876: Tilden (D) received 50.9% of the vote, Hayes (R) received 47.9%\n- 1888: Cleveland (D) received 48.6% of the vote, Harrison (R) received 47.8%\n- 2000: Gore (D) received 48.4% of the vote, Bush (R) received 47.9%\n- 2016: Clinton (D) received 48.2% of the vote, Trump (R) received 46.1%\n*These popular vote tallies are partial because several of the states still used their legislature to choose electors not a popular vote. In both elections a tied electoral college threw the contest over to Congress to decide.\nFavors largest swing states\nThe Electoral College encourages political campaigners to focus on a few so-called swing states while ignoring the rest of the country. Populous states in which pre-election poll results show no clear favorite are inundated with campaign visits, saturation television advertising, get-out-the-vote efforts by party organizers, and debates, while four out of five voters in the national election are "absolutely ignored", according to one assessment.[257] Since most states use a winner-takes-all arrangement in which the candidate with the most votes in that state receives all of the state\'s electoral votes, there is a clear incentive to focus almost exclusively on only a few key undecided states.[251]\nNot all votes count the same\nEach state gets a minimum of three electoral votes, regardless of population, which has increasingly given low-population states more electors per voter (or more voting power).[258][259] For example, an electoral vote represents nearly four times as many people in California as in Wyoming.[258][260] On average, voters in the ten least populated states have 2.5 more electors per person compared with voters in the ten most populous states.[258]\nIn 1968, John F. Banzhaf III developed the Banzhaf power index (BPI) which argued that a voter in the state of New York had, on average, 3.3 times as much voting power in presidential elections as the average voter outside New York.[261] Mark Livingston used a similar method and estimated that individual voters in the largest state, based on the 1990 census, had 3.3 times more individual power to choose a president than voters of Montana.[262][better source needed]\nHowever, others argue that Banzhaf\'s method ignores the demographic makeup of the states and treats votes like independent coin-flips. Critics of Banzhaf\'s method say empirically based models used to analyze the Electoral College have consistently found that sparsely populated states benefit from having their resident\'s votes count for more than the votes of those residing in the more populous states.[263]\nLowers turnout\nExcept in closely fought swing states, voter turnout does not affect the election results due to entrenched political party domination in most states. The Electoral College decreases the advantage a political party or campaign might gain for encouraging voters to turn out, except in those swing states.[264] If the presidential election were decided by a national popular vote, in contrast, campaigns and parties would have a strong incentive to work to increase turnout everywhere.[265]\nIndividuals would similarly have a stronger incentive to persuade their friends and neighbors to turn out to vote. The differences in turnout between swing states and non-swing states under the current electoral college system suggest that replacing the Electoral College with direct election by popular vote would likely increase turnout and participation significantly.[264]\nObscures disenfranchisement within states\nAccording to this criticism, the electoral college reduces elections to a mere count of electors for a particular state, and, as a result, it obscures any voting problems within a particular state. For example, if a particular state blocks some groups from voting, perhaps by voter suppression methods such as imposing reading tests, poll taxes, registration requirements, or legally disfranchising specific groups (like women or people of color), then voting inside that state would be reduced, but as the state\'s electoral count would be the same, disenfranchisement has no effect on its overall electoral power. Critics contend that such disenfranchisement is not penalized by the Electoral College.\nA related argument is the Electoral College may have a dampening effect on voter turnout: there is no incentive for states to reach out to more of its citizens to include them in elections because the state\'s electoral count remains fixed in any event. According to this view, if elections were by popular vote, then states would be motivated to include more citizens in elections since the state would then have more political clout nationally. Critics contend the electoral college system insulates states from negative publicity as well as possible federal penalties for disenfranchising subgroups of citizens.\nLegal scholars Akhil Amar and Vikram Amar have argued that the original Electoral College compromise was enacted partially because it enabled Southern states to disenfranchise their slave populations.[266] It permitted Southern states to disfranchise large numbers of slaves while allowing these states to maintain political clout and prevent Northern dominance within the federation by using the Three-Fifths Compromise. They noted that James Madison believed the question of counting slaves had presented a serious challenge, but that "the substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections."[267] Akhil and Vikram Amar added:\nThe founders\' system also encouraged the continued disfranchisement of women. In a direct national election system, any state that gave women the vote would automatically have doubled its national clout. Under the Electoral College, however, a state had no such incentive to increase the franchise; as with slaves, what mattered was how many women lived in a state, not how many were empowered ... a state with low voter turnout gets precisely the same number of electoral votes as if it had a high turnout. By contrast, a well-designed direct election system could spur states to get out the vote.[266]\nAfter the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, white voters in Southern states benefited from elimination of the Three-Fifths Compromise because with all former slaves counted as one person, instead of 3/5, Southern states increased their share of electors in the Electoral College. Southern states also enacted laws that restricted access to voting by former slaves, thereby increasing the electoral weight of votes by southern whites.[268]\nMinorities tend to be disproportionately located in noncompetitive states, reducing their impact on the overall election and over-representing white voters who have tended to live in the swing states that decide elections.[269][270]\nAmericans in U.S. territories cannot vote\nRoughly four million Americans in Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam, do not have a vote in presidential elections.[29][258] Only U.S. states (per Article II, Section 1, Clause 2) and Washington, D.C. (per the Twenty-third Amendment) are entitled to electors. Various scholars consequently conclude that the U.S. national-electoral process is not fully democratic.[271][272] Guam has held non-binding straw polls for president since the 1980s to draw attention to this fact.[273][274] The Democratic and Republican parties, as well as other third parties, have, however, made it possible for people in U.S. territories to vote in party presidential primaries.[275][276]\nDisadvantages third parties\nIn practice, the winner-take-all manner of allocating a state\'s electors generally decreases the importance of minor parties.[277]\nFederalism and state power\nFor many years early in the nation\'s history, up until the Jacksonian Era (1830s), many states appointed their electors by a vote of the state legislature, and proponents argue that, in the end, the election of the president must still come down to the decisions of each state, or the federal nature of the United States will give way to a single massive, centralized government, to the detriment of the States.[278]\nIn his 2007 book A More Perfect Constitution, Professor Larry Sabato preferred allocating the electoral college (and Senate seats) in stricter proportion to population while keeping the Electoral College for the benefit of lightly populated swing states and to strengthen the role of the states in federalism.[279][278]\nWillamette University College of Law professor Norman R. Williams has argued that the Constitutional Convention delegates chose the Electoral College to choose the president largely in reaction to the experience during the Confederation period where state governors were often chosen by state legislatures and wanting the new federal government to have an executive branch that was effectively independent of the legislative branch.[280] For example, Alexander Hamilton argued that the Electoral College would prevent, sinister bias, foreign interference and domestic intrigue in presidential elections by not permitting members of Congress or any other officer of the United States to serve as electors.[281]\nEfforts to abolish or reform\nMore resolutions have been submitted to amend the U.S. Electoral College mechanism than any other part of the constitution.[4] Since 1800, over 700 proposals to reform or eliminate the system have been introduced in Congress. Proponents of these proposals argued that the electoral college system does not provide for direct democratic election, affords less-populous states an advantage, and allows a candidate to win the presidency without winning the most votes. None of these proposals has received the approval of two thirds of Congress and three fourths of the states required to amend the Constitution.[282] Ziblatt and Levitsky argue that America has by far the most difficult constitution to amend, which is why reform efforts have only stalled in America.[283]\n1969–1970: Bayh–Celler amendment\nThe closest the United States has come to abolishing the Electoral College occurred during the 91st Congress (1969–1971).[284] The 1968 election resulted in Richard Nixon receiving 301 electoral votes (56% of electors), Hubert Humphrey 191 (35.5%), and George Wallace 46 (8.5%) with 13.5% of the popular vote. However, Nixon had received only 511,944 more popular votes than Humphrey, 43.5% to 42.9%, less than 1% of the national total.[285][non-primary source needed]\nRepresentative Emanuel Celler (D–New York), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, responded to public concerns over the disparity between the popular vote and electoral vote by introducing House Joint Resolution 681, a proposed Constitutional amendment that would have replaced the Electoral College with a simpler plurality system based on the national popular vote. With this system, the pair of candidates (running for president and vice-president) who had received the highest number of votes would win the presidency and vice presidency provided they won at least 40% of the national popular vote. If no pair received 40% of the popular vote, a runoff election would be held in which the choice of president and vice president would be made from the two pairs of persons who had received the highest number of votes in the first election.[286]\nOn April 29, 1969, the House Judiciary Committee voted 28 to 6 to approve the proposal.[287] Debate on the proposal before the full House of Representatives ended on September 11, 1969[288] and was eventually passed with bipartisan support on September 18, 1969, by a vote of 339 to 70.[289]\nOn September 30, 1969, President Nixon gave his endorsement for adoption of the proposal, encouraging the Senate to pass its version of the proposal, which had been sponsored as Senate Joint Resolution 1 by Senator Birch Bayh (D–Indiana).[290]\nOn October 8, 1969, the New York Times reported that 30 state legislatures were "either certain or likely to approve a constitutional amendment embodying the direct election plan if it passes its final Congressional test in the Senate." Ratification of 38 state legislatures would have been needed for adoption. The paper also reported that six other states had yet to state a preference, six were leaning toward opposition, and eight were solidly opposed.[291]\nOn August 14, 1970, the Senate Judiciary Committee sent its report advocating passage of the proposal to the full Senate. The Judiciary Committee had approved the proposal by a vote of 11 to 6. The six members who opposed the plan, Democratic senators James Eastland of Mississippi, John Little McClellan of Arkansas, and Sam Ervin of North Carolina, along with Republican senators Roman Hruska of Nebraska, Hiram Fong of Hawaii, and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, all argued that although the present system had potential loopholes, it had worked well throughout the years. Senator Bayh indicated that supporters of the measure were about a dozen votes shy from the 67 needed for the proposal to pass the full Senate.[292] He called upon President Nixon to attempt to persuade undecided Republican senators to support the proposal.[293] However, Nixon, while not reneging on his previous endorsement, chose not to make any further personal appeals to back the proposal.[294]\nOn September 8, 1970, the Senate commenced openly debating the proposal,[295] and the proposal was quickly filibustered. The lead objectors to the proposal were mostly Southern senators and conservatives from small states, both Democrats and Republicans, who argued that abolishing the Electoral College would reduce their states\' political influence.[294] On September 17, 1970, a motion for cloture, which would have ended the filibuster, received 54 votes to 36 for cloture,[294] failing to receive the then-required two-thirds majority of senators voting.[296] [non-primary source needed] A second motion for cloture on September 29, 1970, also failed, by 53 to 34. Thereafter, the Senate majority leader, Mike Mansfield of Montana, moved to lay the proposal aside so the Senate could attend to other business.[297] However, the proposal was never considered again and died when the 91st Congress ended on January 3, 1971.\nCarter proposal\nOn March 22, 1977, President Jimmy Carter wrote a letter of reform to Congress that also included his expression of abolishing the Electoral College. The letter read in part:\nMy fourth recommendation is that the Congress adopt a Constitutional amendment to provide for direct popular election of the President. Such an amendment, which would abolish the Electoral College, will ensure that the candidate chosen by the voters actually becomes president. Under the Electoral College, it is always possible that the winner of the popular vote will not be elected. This has already happened in three elections, 1824, 1876, and 1888. In the last election, the result could have been changed by a small shift of votes in Ohio and Hawaii, despite a popular vote difference of 1.7 million. I do not recommend a Constitutional amendment lightly. I think the amendment process must be reserved for an issue of overriding governmental significance. But the method by which we elect our President is such an issue. I will not be proposing a specific direct election amendment. I prefer to allow the Congress to proceed with its work without the interruption of a new proposal.[298]\nPresident Carter\'s proposed program for the reform of the Electoral College was very liberal for a modern president during this time, and in some aspects of the package, it went beyond original expectations.[299] Newspapers like The New York Times saw President Carter\'s proposal at that time as "a modest surprise" because of the indication of Carter that he would be interested in only eliminating the electors but retaining the electoral vote system in a modified form.[299]\nNewspaper reaction to Carter\'s proposal ranged from some editorials praising the proposal to other editorials, like that in the Chicago Tribune, criticizing the president for proposing the end of the Electoral College.[300]\nIn a letter to The New York Times, Representative Jonathan B. Bingham (D-New York) highlighted the danger of the "flawed, outdated mechanism of the Electoral College" by underscoring how a shift of fewer than 10,000 votes in two key states would have led to President Gerald Ford winning the 1976 election despite Jimmy Carter\'s nationwide 1.7 million-vote margin.[301]\nRecent proposals to abolish\nSince January 3, 2019, joint resolutions have been made proposing constitutional amendments that would replace the Electoral College with the popular election of the president and vice president.[302][303] Unlike the Bayh–Celler amendment, with its 40% threshold for election, these proposals do not require a candidate to achieve a certain percentage of votes to be elected.[304][305][306][non-primary source needed]\nNational Popular Vote Interstate Compact\nAs of April 2024, seventeen states plus the District of Columbia have joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.[307][308][better source needed] Those joining the compact will, acting together if and when reflecting a majority of electors (at least 270), pledge their electors to the winner of the national popular vote. The compact applies Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which gives each state legislature the plenary power to determine how it chooses electors.\nSome scholars have suggested that Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution requires congressional consent before the compact could be enforceable;[309] thus, any attempted implementation of the compact without congressional consent could face court challenges to its constitutionality. Others have suggested that the compact\'s legality was strengthened by Chiafalo v. Washington, in which the Supreme Court upheld the power of states to enforce electors\' pledges.[310][311]\nThe eighteen adherents of the compact have 209 electors, which is 77% of the 270 required for it to take effect, or be considered justiciable.[307][better source needed]\nLitigation based on the 14th amendment\nIt has been argued by the advocacy group Equal Citizens that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution bars the winner-takes-all apportionment of electors by the states. According to this argument, the votes of the losing party are discarded entirely, thereby leading to an unequal position between different voters in the same state.[312] Lawsuits have been filed to this end in California, Massachusetts, Texas and South Carolina, though all have been unsuccessful.[312]\nSee also\n- Democratic backsliding in the United States\n- List of United States presidential elections by Electoral College margin\n- List of U.S. states and territories by population\n- Lists of United States presidential electors (2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, 2024)\n- Trump fake electors plot\n- Voter turnout in United States presidential elections\nNotes\n- ^ The constitutional convention of 1787 had rejected presidential selection by direct popular vote.[6] That being the case, election mechanics based on an electoral college were devised to render selection of the president independent of both state legislatures and the national legislature.[7]\n- ^ Writing in the policy journal National Affairs, Allen Guelzo argues, "it is worthwhile to deal directly with three popular arguments against the Electoral College. The first, that the Electoral College violates the principle of "one man, one vote". In assigning electoral college votes by winner-take-all, the states themselves violate the one-person-one-vote principle. Hillary Clinton won 61.5% of the California vote, and she received all 55 of California\'s electoral votes as a result. The disparity in Illinois was "even more dramatic". Clinton won that state\'s popular vote 3.1 million to 2.1 million, and that 59.6% share granted her Illinois\'s 20 electoral votes.[8]\n- ^ Although faithless electors have never changed the outcome of a state popular vote, or the national total, that scenario was further weakened by the 2020 court case Chiafalo v. Washington.[13]\n- ^ Arizona, Idaho, Louisiana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee\n- ^ "It was ... peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible [in the election of the President] to tumult and disorder. ... [The] precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of several, to form an intermediate body of Electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community, with any extraordinary or violent movements... [As] the Electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated [to] them [by] the People, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place."\n- ^ Section 1 of the 25th Amendment superseded the text of the Presidential Succession Clause of Article II, Section I that stated "In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President". Instead, Section 1 of the 25th Amendment provides that "In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President." Section 2 of the 25th Amendment authorizes the president to nominate a vice president in the event of a vacancy subject to confirmation by both houses of Congress.[189][190]\n- ^ In 1841, the death of William Henry Harrison as president caused debate in Congress about whether John Tyler had formally succeeded to the Presidency or whether he was an acting president. Tyler took the oath of office and Congress implicitly ratified Tyler\'s decision in documents published subsequent to his ascension that referred to him as "the President of the United States". Tyler\'s ascension set the precedent that the vice president becomes the president in the event of a vacancy until the ratification of the 25th Amendment.[191]\n- ^ For nearly one-fourth of the period of time from 1792 to 1886, the Vice Presidency was vacant due to the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln and James A. Garfield in 1865 and 1881 respectively, the deaths of Presidents William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor in 1841 and 1850 respectively, the deaths of vice presidents George Clinton, Elbridge Gerry, William R. King, Henry Wilson, and Thomas A. Hendricks in 1812, 1814, 1853, 1875, and 1885 respectively, and the resignation of the vice presidency by John C. Calhoun in 1832.[194][195]\n- ^ California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia\n- ^ Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon\n- ^ Americans favored a Constitutional Amendment to elect the president by a nationwide popular vote on average 61% and those for electoral college selection 35%. In 2016 polling, the gap closed to 51% direct election versus 44% electoral college. By 2020, American thinking had again diverged with 58% for direct election versus 40% for the electoral college choosing a president.[250]\nReferences\n- ^ "Article II". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved March 7, 2024.\n- ^ Karimi, Faith (October 10, 2020). "Why the Electoral College has long been controversial". CNN. Retrieved December 31, 2021.\n- ^ Keim, Andy. "Mitch McConnell Defends the Electoral College". The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved December 31, 2021.\n- ^ a b Bolotnikova, Marina N. (July 6, 2020). "Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?". Harvard Magazine.\n- ^ Ziblatt, Daniel; Levitsky, Steven (September 5, 2023). "How American Democracy Fell So Far Behind". The Atlantic. Retrieved September 20, 2023.\n- ^ Beeman 2010, pp. 129–130\n- ^ Beeman 2010, p. 135\n- ^ Guelzo, Allen (April 2, 2018). "In Defense of the Electoral College". National Affairs. Retrieved November 5, 2020.\n- ^ a b Lounsbury, Jud (November 17, 2016). "One Person One Vote? Depends on Where You Live". The Progressive. Madison, Wisconsin: Progressive, Inc. Retrieved August 14, 2020.\n- ^ Neale, Thomas H. (October 6, 2017). "Electoral College Reform: Contemporary Issues for Congress" (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved October 24, 2020.\n- ^ a b Mahler, Jonathan; Eder, Steve (November 10, 2016). "The Electoral College Is Hated by Many. So Why Does It Endure?". The New York Times. Retrieved January 5, 2019.\n- ^ a b West, Darrell M. (2020). "It\'s Time to Abolish the Electoral College" (PDF).\n- ^ a b "Should We Abolish the Electoral College?". Stanford Magazine. September 2016. Retrieved September 3, 2020.\n- ^ a b Tropp, Rachel (February 21, 2017). "The Case Against the Electoral College". Harvard Political Review. Archived from the original on August 5, 2020. Retrieved January 5, 2019.\n- ^ a b Collin, Richard Oliver; Martin, Pamela L. (January 1, 2012). An Introduction to World Politics: Conflict and Consensus on a Small Planet. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9781442218031.\n- ^ Levitsky, Steven; Ziblatt, Daniel (2023). Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point (First ed.). New York: Crown. ISBN 978-0-593-44307-1.\n- ^ Statutes at Large, 28th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 721.\n- ^ Neale, Thomas H. (January 17, 2021). "The Electoral College: A 2020 Presidential Election Timeline". Congressional Research Service. Archived from the original on November 9, 2020. Retrieved November 19, 2020.\n- ^ a b c "What is the Electoral College?". National Archives. December 23, 2019. Retrieved September 27, 2020.\n- ^ "Distribution of Electoral Votes". National Archives. March 6, 2020. Retrieved September 27, 2020.\n- ^ "Faithless Elector State Laws". Fair Vote. July 7, 2020. Retrieved July 7, 2020.\nThere are 33 states (plus the District of Columbia) that require electors to vote for a pledged candidate. Most of those states (16 plus DC) nonetheless do not provide for any penalty or any mechanism to prevent the deviant vote from counting as cast.\n- ^ a b c "S.4573 - Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022". October 18, 2022. Retrieved June 28, 2024.\n- ^ a b Counting Electoral Votes: An Overview of Procedures at the Joint Session, Including Objections by Members of Congress (Report). Congressional Research Service. December 8, 2020. Retrieved April 17, 2024.\n- ^ "Vision 2020: What happens if the US election is contested?". AP NEWS. September 16, 2020. Retrieved September 18, 2020.\n- ^ a b c Neale, Thomas H. (May 15, 2017). "The Electoral College: How It Works in Contemporary Presidential Elections" (PDF). CRS Report for Congress. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service. p. 13. Retrieved July 29, 2018.\n- ^ Elhauge, Einer R. "Essays on Article II: Presidential Electors". The Heritage Guide to The Constitution. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved August 6, 2018.\n- ^ Ross, Tara (2017). The Indispensable Electoral College: How the Founders\' Plan Saves Our Country from Mob Rule. Washington, D.C.: Regenary Gateway. p. 26. ISBN 978-1-62157-707-2.\n- ^ United States Government Printing Office. "Presidential Electors for D.C. – Twenty-third Amendment" (PDF).\n- ^ a b Murriel, Maria (November 1, 2016). "Millions of Americans can\'t vote for president because of where they live". PRI\'s The World. Retrieved September 5, 2019.\n- ^ King, Ledyard (May 7, 2019). "Puerto Rico: At the center of a political storm, but can its residents vote for president?". USA Today. Archived from the original on July 31, 2020. Retrieved September 6, 2019.\n- ^ a b c Levitsky, Steven; Ziblatt, Daniel (2023). "Chapter 5". Tyranny of the Minority: why American democracy reached the breaking point. New York: Crown. ISBN 978-0-593-44307-1.\n- ^ "Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: May 29". Avalon Project. Retrieved April 13, 2011.\n- ^ Senate.gov.\n- ^ "Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: June 2". Avalon Project. Retrieved April 13, 2011.\n- ^ Matt Riffe, "James Wilson," Constitution Center>\n- ^ "Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: September 4". Avalon Project. Retrieved April 13, 2011.\n- ^ Mayer, William G. (November 15, 2008). The Making of the Presidential Candidates 2008. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7425-4719-3 – via Google Books.\n- ^ "James Wilson, popular sovereignty, and the Electoral College". National Constitution Center. November 28, 2016. Retrieved April 9, 2019.\n- ^ "The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 by James Madison" (PDF). Ashland University. Retrieved July 30, 2020.\n- ^ Records of the Federal Convention, p. 57 Farrand\'s Records, Volume 2, A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774–1875, Library of Congress\n- ^ "Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: September 6". Avalon Project. Retrieved April 13, 2011.\n- ^ "September 4, 1787: The Electoral College (U.S. National Park Service)". www.nps.gov.\n- ^ Madison, James (1966). Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787. The Norton Library. p. 294. ASIN B003G6AKX2.\n- ^ Patrick, John J.; Pious, Richard M.; Ritchie, Donald A. (2001). The Oxford Guide to the United States Government. Oxford University Press, USA. p. 208. ISBN 978-0-19-514273-0.\n- ^ "The Federalist 39". Avalon Project. Retrieved April 13, 2011.\n- ^ a b c Hamilton. The Federalist Papers: No. 68 The Avalon Project, Yale Law School. viewed November 10, 2016.\n- ^ The Twelfth Amendment changed this to the top three candidates,\n- ^ The Federalist Papers: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay The New American Library, 1961.\n- ^ "U. S. Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions". archives.gov. September 19, 2019.\n- ^ Chang, Stanley (2007). "Updating the Electoral College: The National Popular Vote Legislation" (PDF). Harvard Journal on Legislation. 44 (205, at 208). Cambridge, MA: President and Fellows of Harvard College. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 4, 2022. Retrieved May 28, 2020.\n- ^ a b Hamilton, Alexander. "The Federalist Papers : No. 68", The Avalon Project, 2008. From the Lillian Goldman Law Library. Retrieved 22 Jan 2022.\n- ^ Hamilton, Alexander. Draft of a Resolution for the Legislature of New York for the Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, 29 January 1802, National Archives, Founders Online, viewed March 2, 2019.\n- ^ Describing how the Electoral College was designed to work, Alexander Hamilton wrote, "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations [decisions regarding the selection of a president]." (Hamilton, Federalist 68). Hamilton strongly believed this was to be done district by district, and when states began doing otherwise, he proposed a constitutional amendment to mandate the district system (Hamilton, Draft of a Constitutional Amendment). Madison concurred, "The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted." (Madison to Hay, 1823 Archived May 25, 2017, at the Wayback Machine)\n- ^ William C. Kimberling, Essays in Elections: The Electoral College (1992).\n- ^ "Ray v. Blair". LII / Legal Information Institute.\n- ^ VanFossen, Phillip J. (November 4, 2020). "Who invented the Electoral College?". The Conversation.\n- ^ "WashU Expert: Electoral College ruling contradicts Founders\' \'original intent\' – The Source – Washington University in St. Louis". The Source. July 6, 2020.\n- ^ Staff, TIME (November 17, 2016). "The Electoral College Was Created to Stop Demagogues Like Trump". TIME.\n- ^ Robert Schlesinger, "Not Your Founding Fathers\' Electoral College," U.S. News and World Report, December 27, 2016.\n- ^ "Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3: [Selection of Electors, 1796—1832], McPherson v. Blacker". press-pubs.uchicago.edu.\n- ^ "Electoral College". history.com. A+E Networks. Retrieved August 6, 2018.\n- ^ Davis, Kenneth C. (2003). Don\'t Know Much About History: Everything You Need to Know About American History but Never Learned (1st ed.). New York: HarperCollins. p. 620. ISBN 978-0-06-008381-6.\n- ^ "Today in History – February 17". Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.\n- ^ Jr, Arthur Schlesinger (March 6, 2002). "Not the People\'s Choice". The American Prospect.\n- ^ Alexander, Robert M. (April 1, 2019). Representation and the Electoral College. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-093944-1 – via Google Books.\n- ^ a b "Federalist No. 68". The Avalon Project.\n- ^ Justice Robert Jackson, Ray v. Blair, dissent, 1952\n- ^ "Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U.S. ___ (2020)". Justia Law.\n- ^ "A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875". memory.loc.gov.\n- ^ a b "Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3: Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1449—52, 1454—60, 1462—67". press-pubs.uchicago.edu.\n- ^ a b "Founders Online: Draft of a Resolution for the Legislature of New York for the ..." founders.archives.gov.\n- ^ a b "James Madison to George Hay, 23 August 1823". May 25, 2017. Archived from the original on May 25, 2017.\n- ^ Michener, James A. (April 15, 2014). Presidential Lottery: The Reckless Gamble in Our Electoral System. Random House Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-8041-5160-3 – via Google Books.\n- ^ a b Senate, United States Congress (November 3, 1961). "Hearings". U.S. Government Printing Office – via Google Books.\n- ^ "Resolves of the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Passed at Their Session, which Commenced on Wednesday, the Thirty First of May, and Ended on the Seventeenth of June, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty. Published Agreeably to Resolve of 16th January, 1812. Boston, Russell & Gardner, for B. Russell, 1820; [repr". Boston Book Company. January 1, 1820 – via Google Books.\n- ^ Nash, Darrel A. (May 1, 2018). A Perspective on How Our Government Was Built And Some Needed Changes. Dorrance Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4809-7915-4 – via Google Books.\n- ^ a b "How the Electoral College Became Winner-Take-All". FairVote. August 21, 2012. Retrieved February 13, 2024.\n- ^ "Electoral College". The Charlatan | The Exposé of Politics & Style.\n- ^ a b "Founders Online: James Madison to George Hay, 23 August 1823". Archived from the original on May 25, 2017.\n- ^ "Founders Online: Draft of a Resolution for the Legislature of New York for the ..." founders.archives.gov.\n- ^ "Founders Online: From James Madison to George Hay, 23 August 1823". founders.archives.gov.\n- ^ "Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to George Hay, 17 August 1823". founders.archives.gov.\n- ^ "1788 Election For the First Term, 1789–1793". U. S. Electoral College. U.S. National Archives. Archived from the original on June 1, 2006. Retrieved April 19, 2017.\n- ^ Stephens, Frank Fletcher. The transitional period, 1788-1789, in the government of the United States, University of Missouri Press, 1909, pp. 67-74.\n- ^ "United States presidential election of 1789". Encyclopedia Britannica. September 19, 2013. Retrieved April 19, 2017.\n- ^ a b Presidential Elections 1789–1996. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 1997, ISBN 978-1-5680-2065-5, pp. 9–10.\n- ^ Presidential Elections 1789–1996. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 1997, ISBN 978-1-5680-2065-5, pp. 10–11.\n- ^ "Batan v. McMaster, No. 19-1297 (4th Cir., 2020), p. 5" (PDF).\n- ^ Presidential Elections 1789–1996. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 1997, ISBN 978-1-5680-2065-5, p. 11.\n- ^ Gore, D\'Angelo (December 23, 2016). "Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote". FactCheck.org.\n- ^ Apportionment by State (PDF), House of Representatives, History, Art & Archives, viewed January 27, 2019. Unlike composition in the College, from 1803 to 1846, the U.S. Senate sustained parity between free-soil and slave-holding states. Later a run of free-soil states, including Iowa, Wisconsin, California, Minnesota, Oregon and Kansas, were admitted before the outbreak of the Civil War.\n- ^ U.S. Constitution Transcript, held at the U.S. National Archives, viewed online on February 5, 2019.\n- ^ Brian D. Humes, Elaine K. Swift, Richard M. Valelly, Kenneth Finegold, and Evelyn C. Fink, "Representation of the Antebellum South in the House of Representatives: Measuring the Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause" in David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Party, Process and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress (2002), Stanford University Press ISBN 978-0-8047-4571-0 p. 453, and Table 15.1, "Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause on Slave and Nonslave Representation (1790–1861)", p. 454.\n- ^ Leonard L. Richards, Slave Power: The Free North and Southern Domination, 1780–1860 (2001), referenced in a review at Humanities and Social Sciences Net Online, viewed February 2, 2019.\n- ^ Brian D. Humes, et al. "Representation of the Antebellum South in the House of Representatives: Measuring the Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause" in David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Party, Process and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress (2002), Stanford University Press, ISBN 978-0-8047-4571-0, pp. 464–65, Table 16.6, "Impact of the Three-fifths Clause on the Electoral College, 1792–1860". The continuing, uninterrupted northern free-soil majority margin in the Electoral College would have been significantly smaller had slaves been counter-factually counted as whole persons, but still the South would have been a minority in the Electoral College over these sixty-eight years.\n- ^ Brian D. Humes, et al. "Representation of the Antebellum South in the House of Representatives: Measuring the Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause" in David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Party, Process and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress (2002), Stanford University Press ISBN 978-0-8047-4571-0, pp. 454–55.\n- ^ Brian D. Humes, Elaine K. Swift, Richard M. Valley, Kenneth Finegold, and Evelyn C. Fink, "Representation of the Antebellum South in the House of Representatives: Measuring the Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause", Chapter 15 in David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Party, Process and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress (2002), Stanford University Press ISBN 978-0-8047-4571-0, p. 453, and Table 15.1, "Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause on Slave and Nonslave Representation (1790–1861)", p. 454.\n- ^ Wills, Garry (2005). Negro President: Jefferson and the Slave Power. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. pp. 1–3. ISBN 978-0618485376.\n- ^ Wilentz, Sean (April 4, 2019). "Opinion | The Electoral College Was Not a Pro-Slavery Ploy". The New York Times. Retrieved May 20, 2020.\n- ^ Brian D. Humes, et al. "Representation of the Antebellum South in the House of Representatives: Measuring the Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause" in David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Party, Process and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress (2002), Stanford University Press, ISBN 978-0-8047-4571-0, p. 464.\n- ^ Constitution of the United States: A Transcription, online February 9, 2019. See Article I, Section 9, and in Article IV, Section 2.\n- ^ First Census of the United States, Chapter III in "A Century of Population Growth from the first Census", volume 900, United States Census Office, 1909 In the 1790, Virginia\'s...population was 747,610, Pennsylvania was 433,633. (p. 8). Virginia had 59.1 percent white and 1.7 percent free black counted whole, and 39.1 percent, or 292,315 counted three-fifths, or a 175,389 number for congressional apportionment. Pennsylvania had 97.5 percent white and 1.6 percent free black, and 0.9 percent slave, or 7,372 persons, p. 82.\n- ^ Amar, Akhil (November 10, 2016). "The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists". Time.\n- ^ Tally of Electoral Votes for the 1800 Presidential Election, February 11, 1801, National Archives, The Center for Legislative Archives, viewed January 27, 2019.\n- ^ Foner, Eric (2010). The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery. W.W. Norton & Company. p. 16. ISBN 978-0393080827.\n- ^ Guelzo, Adam; Hulme, James (November 15, 2016). "In Defense of the Electoral College". The Washington Post.\n- ^ a b c d e Benner, Dave (November 15, 2016). "Blog: Cherry Picking James Madison". Abbeville Institute.\n- ^ The Fourteenth Amendment from America Book 9 (archived from the original on 2011-10-27)\n- ^ The selected papers of Thaddeus Stevens, v. 2, Stevens, Thaddeus, 1792–1868, Palmer, Beverly Wilson, 1936, Ochoa, Holly Byers, 1951, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, Digital Research Library, 2011, pp. 135–36.\n- ^ Dovere, Edward-Isaac (September 9, 2020). "The Deadline That Could Hand Trump the Election". The Atlantic. Retrieved November 9, 2020.\n- ^ "U.S.C. Title 3 - THE PRESIDENT". 2011. Retrieved June 28, 2024.\n- ^ a b c Zak, Dan (November 16, 2016). "The electoral college isn\'t a real place: But someone has to answer all the angry phone calls these days". Washington Post. Retrieved November 21, 2016.\n- ^ 3 U.S.C. § 15\n- ^ "What is the Electoral College?". U.S. Electoral College. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved August 2, 2018.\n- ^ McCarthy, Devin. "How the Electoral College Became Winner-Take-All". Fairvote. Archived from the original on March 10, 2014. Retrieved November 22, 2014.\n- ^ a b "The Electoral College – Maine and Nebraska". FairVote. Archived from the original on October 12, 2011. Retrieved November 16, 2011.\n- ^ "The Electoral College". National Conference of State Legislatures. November 11, 2020. Retrieved November 15, 2020.\n- ^ The present allotment of electors by state is shown in the Electoral vote distribution section.\n- ^ The number of electors allocated to each state is based on Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution, subject to being reduced pursuant to Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment.\n- ^ Table C2. Apportionment Population and Number of Seats in U.S. House of Representatives by State: 1910 to 2020 U.S. 2020 Census.\n- ^ Table 1. Apportionment Population and Number of Representatives by State U.S. 2020 Census.\n- ^ Distribution of Electoral Votes U.S. National Archives.\n- ^ "How is the president elected? Here is a basic guide to the electoral college system". Raw Story. October 25, 2016.\n- ^ Sabrina Eaton (October 29, 2004). "Brown learns he can\'t serve as Kerry elector, steps down" (PDF). Cleveland Plain Dealer (reprint at Edison Research). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 10, 2011. Retrieved January 3, 2008.\n- ^ Darrell J. Kozlowski (2010). Federalism. Infobase Publishing. pp. 33–34. ISBN 978-1-60413-218-2.\n- ^ "Write-in Votes". electoral-vote.com. Retrieved August 3, 2020.\n- ^ "Planning to write in Paul Ryan or Bernie Sanders? It won\'t count in most states". The Washington Post. November 3, 2015.\n- ^ a b "Maine & Nebraska". FairVote. Takoma Park, Maryland. Archived from the original on August 2, 2018. Retrieved August 1, 2018.\n- ^ "About the Electors". U.S. Electoral College. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved August 2, 2018.\n- ^ "Split Electoral Votes in Maine and Nebraska". 270 to Win. Retrieved August 1, 2018.\n- ^ 3 U.S.C. § 1 A uniform national date for presidential elections was not set until 1845, although the Congress always had constitutional authority to do so. — Kimberling, William C. (1992) The Electoral College, p. 7\n- ^ "Electoral College Instructions to State Officials" (PDF). National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved January 22, 2014.\n- ^ District of Columbia Certificate of Ascertainment (archived from the original on 2006-03-05)\n- ^ "Twelfth Amendment". FindLaw. Retrieved August 26, 2010.\n- ^ "Twenty-third Amendment". FindLaw. Retrieved August 26, 2010.\n- ^ "U.S.C. § 7 : US Code – Section 7: Meeting and vote of electors". FindLaw. Retrieved August 26, 2010.\n- ^ "U.S. Electoral College – For State Officials". National Archives and Records Administration. Archived from the original on October 25, 2012. Retrieved November 7, 2012.\n- ^ "Congress meets to count electoral votes". NBC News. Associated Press. January 9, 2009. Retrieved April 5, 2012.\n- ^ Kuroda, Tadahisa (1994). The Origins of the Twelfth Amendment: The Electoral College in the Early Republic, 1787–1804. Greenwood. p. 168. ISBN 978-0-313-29151-7.\n- ^ Johnson, Linda S. (November 2, 2020). "Electors seldom go rogue in casting a state\'s votes for president". Retrieved November 9, 2020.\n- ^ "Faithless Elector State Laws". Fair Vote. Retrieved July 25, 2020.\n- ^ Penrose, Drew (March 19, 2020). "Faithless Electors". Fair Vote. Archived from the original on February 9, 2021. Retrieved March 19, 2020.\n- ^ Chernow, Ron. Alexander Hamilton. New York: Penguin, 2004. p. 514.\n- ^ Bomboy, Scott (December 19, 2016). "The one election where Faithless Electors made a difference". Constitution Daily. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: National Constitution Center. Retrieved March 17, 2020.\n- ^ Barrow, Bill (November 19, 2016). "Q&A: Electors almost always follow the vote in their state". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on November 20, 2016. Retrieved November 19, 2016.\n- ^ Williams, Pete (July 6, 2020). "Supreme Court rules \'faithless electors\' can\'t go rogue at Electoral College". NBC News. Retrieved July 6, 2020.\n- ^ Howe, Amy (July 6, 2020). "Opinion analysis: Court upholds \'faithless elector\' laws". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved July 6, 2020.\n- ^ Guzmán, Natasha (October 22, 2016). "How Are Electors Selected For The Electoral College? This Historic Election Process Decides The Winner". Bustle. Retrieved July 6, 2020.\n- ^ "The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted." Constitution of the United States: Amendments 11–27, National Archives and Records Administration.\n- ^ a b 3 U.S.C. § 15, Counting electoral votes in Congress.\n- ^ "EXPLAINER: How Congress will count Electoral College votes". AP NEWS. December 15, 2020. Retrieved December 19, 2020.\n- ^ David A. McKnight (1878). The Electoral System of the United States: A Critical and Historical Exposition of Its Fundamental Principles in the Constitution and the Acts and Proceedings of Congress Enforcing It. Wm. S. Hein Publishing. p. 313. ISBN 978-0-8377-2446-1.\n- ^ Blakemore, Erin (January 5, 2021). "The 1876 election was the most divisive in U.S. history. Here\'s how Congress responded". National Geographic. Archived from the original on January 6, 2021.\n- ^ Williams, Brenna. "11 times electoral vote count was interrupted". CNN. Retrieved June 28, 2022.\n- ^ "The House just rejected an objection to Pennsylvania\'s electoral vote". CNN. January 6, 2021. Retrieved January 7, 2021.\n- ^ "Objections To Four Swing States\' Electors Fall Flat After Senators Refuse To Participate; Hawley Forces Debate On Pennsylvania". forbes.com. January 7, 2020.\n- ^ "RL30804: The Electoral College: An Overview and Analysis of Reform Proposals, L. Paige Whitaker and Thomas H. Neale, January 16, 2001". Ncseonline.org. Archived from the original on June 28, 2011. Retrieved August 26, 2010.\n- ^ Longley, Lawrence D.; Peirce, Neal R. (1999). "The Electoral College Primer 2000". Yale University Press. New Haven, CT: 13.\n- ^ "Election evolves into \'perfect\' electoral storm". USA Today. December 12, 2000. Archived from the original on May 15, 2006. Retrieved June 8, 2016.\n- ^ "Senate Journal from 1837". Memory.loc.gov. Retrieved August 26, 2010.\n- ^ Rossiter 2003, p. 410.\n- ^ Chiafalo v. Washington, No. 19-465, 591 U.S. ___, slip op. at 16–17 (2020)\n- ^ Shelly, Jacob D. (July 10, 2020). Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Electoral College: States May Restrict Faithless Electors (Report). Congressional Research Service. p. 3. Retrieved July 10, 2023.\n- ^ a b Neale 2020b, p. 4.\n- ^ Senate Journal 42(3), pp. 334–337.\n- ^ Senate Journal 42(3), p. 346.\n- ^ Donald, David Herbert (1996). Lincoln. New York, New York: Simon and Schuster. pp. 273–279. ISBN 978-0-684-82535-9.\n- ^ Holzer, Harold (2008). Lincoln President-elect: Abraham Lincoln and the Great Secession Winter, 1860-1861. Simon & Schuster. p. 378. ISBN 978-0-7432-8947-4.\n- ^ Jeansonne, Glen (2012). The Life of Herbert Hoover: Fighting Quaker, 1928-1933. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 44–45. ISBN 978-1-137-34673-5. Retrieved May 20, 2016.\n- ^ "The Museum Exhibit Galleries, Gallery 5: The Logical Candidate, The President-Elect". West Branch, Iowa: Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and Museum. Archived from the original on March 6, 2016. Retrieved February 24, 2016.\n- ^ Continuity of Government Commission 2009, pp. 31–32.\n- ^ Picchi, Blaise (1998). The Five Weeks of Giuseppe Zangara : The Man Who Would Assassinate FDR. Chicago: Academy Chicago Publishers. pp. 19–20. ISBN 9780897334433. OCLC 38468505.\n- ^ Oliver, Willard; Marion, Nancy E. (2010). Killing the President: Assassinations, Attempts, and Rumored Attempts on U.S. Commanders-in-Chief: Assassinations, Attempts, and Rumored Attempts on U.S. Commanders-in-Chief. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9780313364754.\n- ^ Hunsicker, A. (2007). The Fine Art of Executive Protection: Handbook for the Executive Protection Officer. Universal-Publishers. ISBN 9781581129847.\n- ^ Russo, Gus; Molton, Stephen (2010). Brothers in Arms: The Kennedys, the Castros, and the Politics of Murder. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. ISBN 978-1-60819-247-2.\n- ^ Greene, Bob (October 24, 2010). "The man who did not kill JFK". CNN.\n- ^ "Dirty Bomb parts found in Slain man\'s home". February 10, 2009.\n- ^ Jeff Zeleny; Jim Rutenberg (December 5, 2009). "Threats Against Obama Spiked Early". The New York Times.\n- ^ Piazza, Jo; Meek, James Gordon; Kennedy, Helen (August 27, 2008). "Feds: Trio of would-be Obama assassins not much of "threat"". New York Daily News. Retrieved September 1, 2008.\n- ^ Date, Jack (October 27, 2008). "Feds thwart alleged Obama assassination plot". ABC News. Retrieved October 28, 2008.\n- ^ Herb, Kristen Holmes,Jeremy (November 23, 2020). "First on CNN: Key government agency acknowledges Biden\'s win and begins formal transition | CNN Politics". CNN. Retrieved July 29, 2024.\n{{cite web}}\n: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Winsor, Morgan; Pereira, Ivan; Mansell, William (January 7, 2021). "4 dead after US Capitol breached by pro-Trump mob during \'failed insurrection\'". ABC News.\n- ^ a b Neale 2020b, pp. 5–6.\n- ^ Rossiter 2003, p. 564.\n- ^ Amar, Akhil Reed (1995). "Presidents, Vice Presidents, and Death: Closing the Constitution\'s Succession Gap" (PDF). Arkansas Law Review. 48. University of Arkansas School of Law: 215–221. Retrieved July 3, 2023.\n- ^ Neale 2020b, pp. 2–3.\n- ^ a b Neale 2020b, pp. 3–4.\n- ^ Rossiter 2003, p. 551.\n- ^ Neale 2020a, pp. 6–7.\n- ^ Rossiter 2003, p. 567.\n- ^ Neale 2020a, pp. 3–4.\n- ^ Continuity of Government Commission 2009, pp. 25–26.\n- ^ Neale 2020a, p. 3.\n- ^ Continuity of Government Commission 2009, pp. 66–67.\n- ^ Neale 2020a, pp. 25–26.\n- ^ Continuity of Government Commission 2009, pp. 26–30.\n- ^ Neale 2020a, p. 4.\n- ^ Continuity of Government Commission 2009, pp. 32–33, 64–65.\n- ^ Neale 2020a, pp. 4–6.\n- ^ Continuity of Government Commission 2009, pp. 45–49.\n- ^ Continuity of Government Commission 2009, pp. 39, 47.\n- ^ Rossiter 2003, p. 560.\n- ^ Neale 2020a, pp. 1–7.\n- ^ "2020 Census Apportionment Results". Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau. April 26, 2021. Retrieved April 26, 2021. Each state\'s number of electoral votes is equal to its total congressional representation (its number of Representatives plus its two Senators).\n- ^ "Winners and losers from first release of 2020 census data". Associated Press. April 26, 2021.\n- ^ Moore, John L., ed. (1985). Congressional Quarterly\'s Guide to U.S. Elections (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, Inc. pp. 254–56.\n- ^ Bush v. Gore, (Justice Stevens dissenting) (quote in second paragraph).\n- ^ Moore, John L., ed. (1985). Congressional Quarterly\'s Guide to U.S. Elections (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, Inc. p. 255.\n- ^ a b c d e Kolodny, Robin (1996). "The Several Elections of 1824". Congress & the Presidency. 23 (2): 139–64. doi:10.1080/07343469609507834. ISSN 0734-3469.\n- ^ "Election 101" (PDF). Princeton Press. Princeton University Press. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 2, 2014. Retrieved November 22, 2014.\n- ^ Black, Eric (October 14, 2012). "Our Electoral College system is weird – and not in a good way". MinnPost. Retrieved November 22, 2014.\n- ^ a b c d Moore, John L., ed. (1985). Congressional Quarterly\'s Guide to U.S. Elections (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, Inc. p. 266.\n- ^ "Legislative Action?, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, November 30, 2000". Pbs.org. Archived from the original on January 24, 2001. Retrieved August 26, 2010.\n- ^ Moore, John L., ed. (1985). Congressional Quarterly\'s Guide to U.S. Elections (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, Inc. p. 254.\n- ^ a b c "Fiddling with the Rules". Franklin & Marshall College. March 9, 2005. Archived from the original on September 3, 2006. Retrieved August 26, 2010.\n- ^ Henderson, Nia-Malika; Haines, Errin (January 25, 2013). "Republicans in Virginia, other states seeking electoral college changes". washingtonpost.com. Retrieved January 24, 2013.\n- ^ "Election Reform" (PDF). Dos.state.pa.us. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 1, 2008. Retrieved August 26, 2010.\n- ^ McNulty, Timothy (December 23, 2012). "Pennsylvania looks to alter state\'s electoral vote system". Pittsburgh Post Gazette.\n- ^ Sabato, Larry. "A more perfect Constitution[permanent dead link ]" viewed November 22, 2014. (archived from the original [dead link ] on 2016-01-02).\n- ^ Levy, Robert A., Should we reform the Electoral College? Cato Institute, viewed November 22, 2014.\n- ^ "The Electoral College – Reform Options". Fairvote.org. Archived from the original on February 21, 2015. Retrieved August 14, 2014.\n- ^ Congressional Research Services Electoral College, p. 15, viewed November 22, 2014.\n- ^ "Gaming the Electoral College: Alternate Allocation Methods". www.270towin.com. Archived from the original on January 16, 2022. Retrieved July 31, 2022.\n- ^ "Distribution of Electoral Votes". National Archives. September 19, 2019. Retrieved November 1, 2024.\n- ^ Rembert, Elizabeth (April 3, 2024). "Nebraska and Maine split their electoral vote. Is it a better system than winner-take-all?". Nebraska Public Media.\n- ^ "Methods of Choosing Presidential Electors". Uselectionatlas.org. Retrieved August 26, 2010.\n- ^ Schwartz, Maralee (April 7, 1991). "Nebraska\'s Vote Change". The Washington Post.\n- ^ Skelley, Geoffrey (November 20, 2014). "What Goes Around Comes Around?". Sabato\'s Crystal Ball. Retrieved November 22, 2014.\n- ^ Egan, Paul (November 21, 2014). "Michigan split its electoral votes in 1892 election". Lansing State Journal. Retrieved November 22, 2014.\n- ^ Congressional Quarterly Books, "Presidential Elections: 1789–1996", ISBN 978-1-5680-2065-5, p. 10.\n- ^ Behrmann, Savannah (November 4, 2020). "Nebraska and Maine\'s district voting method could be crucial in this election. Here\'s why". USA Today.\n- ^ Cournoyer, Caroline (December 20, 2016). "In a First Since 1828, Maine Electors Split Their Vote". Governing.\n- ^ Tysver, Robynn (November 7, 2008). "Obama wins electoral vote in Nebraska". Omaha World Herald. Retrieved November 7, 2008.\n- ^ a b Molai, Nabil (October 28, 2008). "Republicans Push to Change Electoral Vote System". KPTM Fox 42. Archived from the original on May 16, 2012. Retrieved November 4, 2008.\n- ^ Ortiz, Jean (January 7, 2010). "Bill targets Neb. ability to split electoral votes". Associated Press. Retrieved September 8, 2011.\n- ^ Kleeb, Jane (March 10, 2011). "Fail: Sen. McCoy\'s Partisan Electoral College Bill". Bold Nebraska. Archived from the original on May 31, 2012. Retrieved August 9, 2011.\n- ^ "Split Electoral Votes in Maine and Nebraska". 270toWin. Retrieved November 1, 2024.\n- ^ Seelye, Katharine Q. (September 19, 2011). "Pennsylvania Republicans Weigh Electoral Vote Changes". The New York Times.\n- ^ Weigel, David (September 13, 2011). "Pennsylvania Ponders Bold Democrat-Screwing Electoral Plan". Slate.\n- ^ GOP Pennsylvania electoral vote plan might be out of steam (November 21, 2011). York Daily Record. (archived from the original on 2012-01-31)\n- ^ Gray, Kathleen (November 14, 2014). "Bill to change Michigan\'s electoral vote gets hearing". Detroit Free Press. Retrieved November 22, 2014.\n- ^ Jacobson, Louis (January 31, 2013). "The Ramifications of Changing the Electoral College". Governing Magazine. Archived from the original on November 29, 2014. Retrieved November 22, 2014.\n- ^ Wilson, Reid (December 17, 2012). "The GOP\'s Electoral College Scheme". National Journal. Archived from the original on January 8, 2013. Retrieved November 22, 2014.\n- ^ "FairVote". FairVote. Archived from the original on February 21, 2015. Retrieved August 14, 2014.\n- ^ a b Kiley, Jocelyn (September 25, 2024). "Majority of Americans continue to favor moving away from Electoral College". Pew Research Center.\n- ^ Bugh, Gary E. (2016). "Representation in Congressional Efforts to Amend the Presidential Election System". In Bugh, Gary (ed.). Electoral College Reform: Challenges and Possibilities. Routledge. pp. 5–18. ISBN 978-1-317-14527-1.\n- ^ Ziblatt, Daniel; Levitsky, Steven (September 5, 2023). "How American Democracy Fell So Far Behind". The Atlantic. Retrieved September 20, 2023.\n- ^ Speel, Robert (November 15, 2016). "These 3 Common Arguments For Preserving the Electoral College Are All Wrong". Time. Retrieved January 5, 2019.\n"Rural states get a slight boost from the 2 electoral votes awarded to states due to their 2 Senate seats\n- ^ FairVote.org. "Problems with the Electoral College – Fairvote". Archived from the original on August 14, 2016.\n- ^ a b Daniller, Andrew (March 13, 2020). "A majority of Americans continue to favor replacing Electoral College with a nationwide popular vote". Fact Tank: news in the numbers. Pew Research Center. Retrieved November 10, 2019.\n- ^ a b c Edwards III, George C. (2011). Why the Electoral College is Bad for America (Second ed.). New Haven and London: Yale University Press. pp. 1, 37, 61, 176–77, 193–94. ISBN 978-0-300-16649-1.\n- ^ Jonathan H. Adler. "Your candidate got more of the popular vote? Irrelevant". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 10, 2016.\n- ^ Ashe Schow. "Why the popular vote is a meaningless statistic". The Washington Examiner. Retrieved November 10, 2016.\n- ^ "Electoral College Mischief, The Wall Street Journal, September 8, 2004". Opinionjournal.com. Retrieved August 26, 2010.\n- ^ "Did JFK Lose the Popular Vote?". RealClearPolitics. October 22, 2012. Retrieved October 23, 2012.\n- ^ Pearson, Christopher; Richie, Rob; Johnson, Adam (November 3, 2005). "Who Picks the President?" (PDF). FairVote – The Center for Voting and Democracy. p. 7.\n- ^ "It\'s Time to End the Electoral College: Here\'s how". The Nation. November 7, 2012.\n- ^ a b c d Collin, Katy (November 17, 2016). "The electoral college badly distorts the vote. And it\'s going to get worse". Washington Post. Retrieved November 17, 2016.\n- ^ "Op-Chart: How Much Is Your Vote Worth? Op-Chart". November 2, 2008 – via The New York Times.\n- ^ Miroff, Bruce; Seidelman, Raymond; Swanstrom, Todd (2001). The Democratic Debate: An Introduction to American Politics (Third ed.). Houghton Mifflin Company. ISBN 0-618-05452-9.\n- ^ Banzhaf, John (1968). "One Man, 3.312 Votes: A Mathematical Analysis of the Electoral College". Villanova Law Review. 13: 306.\n- ^ Livingston, Mark (April 2003). "Banzhaf Power Index". Department of Computer Science. University of North Carolina.\n- ^ Gelman, Andrew; Katz, Jonathan; Tuerlinckx, Francis (2002). "The Mathematics and Statistics of Voting Power" (PDF). Statistical Science. 17 (4): 420–35. doi:10.1214/ss/1049993201.\n- ^ a b Nivola, Pietro (January 2005). "Thinking About Political Polarization". Brookings Policy Brief. 139 (139). Archived from the original on August 20, 2008.\n- ^ Koza, John; et al. (2006). "Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote" (PDF). p. xvii. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 13, 2006.\n- ^ a b Amar, Akhil; Amar, Vikram (September 9, 2004). "The Electoral College Votes Against Equality". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on April 15, 2010.\n- ^ Katrina vanden Heuvel (November 7, 2012). "It\'s Time to End the Electoral College". The Nation. Retrieved November 8, 2012.\nElectoral college defenders offer a range of arguments, from the openly anti-democratic (direct election equals mob rule), to the nostalgic (we\'ve always done it this way), to the opportunistic (your little state will get ignored! More vote-counting means more controversies! The Electoral College protects hurricane victims!). But none of those arguments overcome this one: One person, one vote.\n- ^ "How Jim Crow-Era Laws Suppressed the African American Vote for Generations". history.com. May 13, 2021.\n- ^ Gelman, Andrew; Kremp, Pierre-Antoine (November 22, 2016). "The Electoral College magnifies the power of white voters". Vox. Retrieved February 1, 2021.\n- ^ Hoffman, Matthew M. (1996). "The Illegitimate President: Minority Vote Dilution and the Electoral College". The Yale Law Journal. 105 (4): 935–1021. doi:10.2307/797244. JSTOR 797244.\n- ^ Torruella, Juan R. (1985), The Supreme Court and Puerto Rico: The Doctrine of Separate and Unequal, University of Puerto Rico Press, ISBN 0-8477-3031-X\n- ^ José D. Román. "Puerto Rico and a Constitutional Right to vote". University of Dayton. Retrieved October 2, 2007. (excerpted from: José D. Román, "Trying to Fit an Oval Shaped Island into a Square Constitution: Arguments for Puerto Rican Statehood", 29 Fordham Urban Law Journal 1681–1713, 1697–1713 (April 2002) (316 Footnotes Omitted)).\n- ^ "Guam Legislature Moves General Election Presidential Vote to the September Primary". Ballot-Access.org. July 10, 2008. Retrieved July 24, 2014.\n- ^ "In Guam, \'Non-Binding Straw Poll\' Gives Obama A Commanding Win". NPR. November 12, 2012. Retrieved July 24, 2014.\n- ^ Curry, Tom (May 28, 2008). "Nominating, but not voting for president". NBC News. Retrieved September 5, 2019.\n- ^ Helgesen, Elise (March 19, 2012). "Puerto Rico and Other Territories Vote in Primaries, But Not in General Election". Fair Vote. Retrieved September 7, 2019.\n- ^ Jerry Fresia (February 28, 2006). "Third Parties?". Zmag.org. Archived from the original on January 9, 2009. Retrieved August 26, 2010.\n- ^ a b Kimberling, William C. (May 1992). "Opinion: The Electoral College" (PDF). Federal Election Commission. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 12, 2001. Retrieved January 3, 2008.\n- ^ Sabato, Larry (2007). A More Perfect Constitution (First U.S. ed.). Walker Publishing Company. pp. 151–164. ISBN 978-0-8027-1621-7. Retrieved July 30, 2009.\n- ^ Williams, Norman R. (2012). "Why the National Popular Vote Compact is Unconstitutional". BYU Law Review. 2012 (5). J. Reuben Clark Law School: 1539–1570. Archived from the original on May 6, 2021. Retrieved October 14, 2020.\n- ^ Rossiter 2003, p. 411.\n- ^ Neale, Thomas H.; Nolan, Andrew (October 28, 2019). The National Popular Vote (NPV) Initiative: Direct Election of the President by Interstate Compact (PDF) (Report). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved November 8, 2020.\n- ^ Levitsky, Steven; Ziblatt, Daniel (2023). "Chapter 7". Tyranny of the Minority: why American democracy reached the breaking point (First ed.). New York: Crown. ISBN 978-0-593-44307-1.\n- ^ For a more detailed account of this proposal read The Politics of Electoral College Reform by Lawrence D. Longley and Alan G. Braun (1972).\n- ^ 1968 Electoral College Results, National Archives and Records Administration.\n- ^ "Text of Proposed Amendment on Voting". The New York Times. April 30, 1969. p. 21.\n- ^ "House Unit Votes To Drop Electors". The New York Times. April 30, 1969. p. 1.\n- ^ "Direct Election of President Is Gaining in the House". The New York Times. September 12, 1969. p. 12.\n- ^ "House Approves Direct Election of The President". The New York Times. September 19, 1969. p. 1.\n- ^ "Nixon Comes Out For Direct Vote On Presidency". The New York Times. October 1, 1969. p. 1.\n- ^ "A Survey Finds 30 Legislatures Favor Direct Vote For President". The New York Times. October 8, 1969. p. 1.\n- ^ Weaver, Warren (April 24, 1970). "Senate Unit Asks Popular Election of the President". The New York Times. p. 1.\n- ^ "Bayh Calls for Nixon\'s Support As Senate Gets Electoral Plan". The New York Times. August 15, 1970. p. 11.\n- ^ a b c Weaver, Warren (September 18, 1970). "Senate Refuses To Halt Debate On Direct Voting". The New York Times. p. 1.\n- ^ "Senate Debating Direct Election". The New York Times. September 9, 1970. p. 10.\n- ^ The Senate in 1975 reduced the required vote for cloture from two-thirds of those voting (67 votes) to three-fifths (60 votes). See United States Senate website.\n- ^ "Senate Puts Off Direct Vote Plan". The New York Times. September 30, 1970. p. 1.\n- ^ Jimmy Carter Letter to Congress, Jimmy Carter: "Election reform Message to the Congress", Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.\n- ^ a b "Carter Proposes End Of Electoral College In Presidential Votes", The New York Times, March 23, 1977, pp. 1, 18.\n- ^ "Carter v. The Electoral College", Chicago Tribune, March 24, 1977, Section 3, p. 2.\n- ^ "Letters". The New York Times. March 15, 1979. Retrieved August 18, 2017.\n- ^ Morton, Victor (January 3, 2019). "Rep. Steve Cohen introduces constitutional amendment to abolish Electoral College". The Washington Times. Archived from the original on July 7, 2019. Retrieved January 5, 2019.\n- ^ Morton, Victor (January 3, 2019). "Why Democrats Want to Abolish the Electoral College—and Republicans Want to Keep It". The Washington Times. Retrieved January 5, 2019.\n- ^ Cohen, Steve (January 3, 2019). "Text – H.J.Res. 7 – 116th Congress (2019–2020): Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct election of the president and vice president of the United States".\n- ^ Merkley, Jeff (March 28, 2019). "Text – S.J.Res. 16 – 116th Congress (2019–2020): A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct election of the president and vice President of the United States".\n- ^ Schatz, Brian (April 2, 2019). "Text – S.J.Res. 17 – 116th Congress (2019–2020): A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct election of the President and Vice President of the United States".\n- ^ a b Susan Sun Numamaker (July 9, 2020). "What Is National Popular Vote Bill/National Popular Vote Interstate Compact & Why Is It Important". Windemere Sun. Retrieved July 14, 2020.\n- ^ "Text of the compact" (PDF). National Popular Vote.\n- ^ Neale, Thomas H. Electoral College Reform Congressional Research Service pp. 21–22, viewed November 23, 2014.\n- ^ Fadem, Barry (July 14, 2020). "Supreme Court\'s "faithless electors" decision validates case for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact". Brookings Institution. Archived from the original on July 17, 2020. Retrieved August 4, 2020.\n- ^ Litt, David (July 7, 2020). "The Supreme Court Just Pointed Out the Absurdity of the Electoral College. It\'s Up to Us to End It". Time. Retrieved August 4, 2020.\nAfter all, the same constitutional principles that allow a state to bind its electors to the winner of the statewide popular vote should allow it to bind its electors to the winner of the nationwide popular vote. This means that if states that combine to hold a majority of electoral votes all agree to support the popular-vote winner, they can do an end-run around the Electoral College. America would still have its clumsy two-step process for presidential elections. But the people\'s choice and the electors\' choice would be guaranteed to match up every time.\n- ^ a b "Equal Votes". Equal Citizens. Retrieved December 31, 2020.\nWorks cited\n- Beeman, Richard (2010). Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution. Random House. ISBN 9780812976847.\n- Neale, Thomas H. (October 9, 2020). Presidential Elections: Vacancies in Major-Party Candidacies and the Position of President-Elect (Report). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved July 5, 2023.\n- Neale, Thomas H. (July 14, 2020). Presidential Succession: Perspectives and Contemporary Issues for Congress (Report). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved July 19, 2023.\n- Preserving Our Institutions: The Continuity of the Presidency (PDF) (Report). Continuity of Government Commission. June 2009. Retrieved May 18, 2023.\n- Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (PDF) (Report). U.S. Government Publishing Office. December 22, 2022. Retrieved July 7, 2023.\n- Report on the Electoral Count Act of 1887: Proposals for Reform (PDF) (Report). United States House Committee on House Administration. 2022. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 18, 2023. Retrieved May 18, 2023.\n- Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election, Volume I of II (PDF) (Report). United States Department of Justice. June 19, 2020. Retrieved July 1, 2023.\n- Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election, Volume II of II (PDF) (Report). United States Department of Justice. June 19, 2020. Retrieved July 1, 2023.\n- Report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 1: Russian Efforts Against Election Infrastructure with Additional Views (PDF) (Report). United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. July 25, 2019. Retrieved June 21, 2023.\n- Report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 2: Russia\'s Use of Social Media with Additional Views (PDF) (Report). United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. October 8, 2019. Retrieved June 23, 2023.\n- Report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 5: Counterintelligence Threats and Vulnerabilities (PDF) (Report). United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. August 18, 2020. Retrieved June 23, 2023.\n- Rossiter, Clinton, ed. (2003). The Federalist Papers. Signet Classics. ISBN 9780451528810.\n- Rybicki, Elizabeth; Whitaker, L. Paige (December 8, 2020). Counting Electoral Votes: An Overview of Procedures at the Joint Session, Including Objections by Members of Congress (Report). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved July 5, 2023.\n- "Third Session of the 42nd Congress". United States Senate Journal. 68. Library of Congress: 334–346. February 12, 1873. Retrieved July 1, 2023.\nFurther reading\n- Eric Foner, "The Corrupt Bargain" (review of Alexander Keyssar, Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?, Harvard, 2020, 544 pp., ISBN 978-0674660151; and Jesse Wegman, Let the People Pick the President: The Case for Abolishing the Electoral College, St Martin\'s Press, 2020, 304 pp., ISBN 978-1250221971), London Review of Books, vol. 42, no. 10 (May 21, 2020), pp. 3, 5–6. Foner concludes (p. 6): "Rooted in distrust of ordinary citizens and, like so many other features of American life, in the institution of slavery, the electoral college is a relic of a past the United States should have abandoned long ago."\n- Michael Kazin, "The Creaky Old System: Is the real threat to American democracy one of its own institutions?" (review of Alexander Keyssar, Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?, Harvard, 2020, 544 pp., ISBN 978-0674660151), The Nation, vol. 311, no. 7 (October 5/12, 2020), pp. 42–44. Kazin writes: "James Madison [...] sought to replace [the Electoral College] with a national popular vote [...]. [p. 43.] [W]e endure with the most ridiculous system [on earth] for producing our head of state and government [...]." (p. 44.)\n- Erikson, Robert S.; Sigman, Karl; Yao, Linan (2020). "Electoral College bias and the 2020 presidential election". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 117 (45): 27940–944. Bibcode:2020PNAS..11727940E. doi:10.1073/pnas.2013581117. PMC 7668185. PMID 33106408.\n- George C. Edwards III, Why the Electoral College is Bad for America, second ed., New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 2011, ISBN 978-0300166491.', - 'relevant': "United States Electoral College\n| This article is part of a series on the |\n| Politics of the United States |\n|---|\nIn the United States, the Electoral College is the group of presidential electors that is formed every four years during the presidential election for the sole purpose of voting for the president and vice president. This process is described in Article Two of the Constitution.[1] The number of electoral votes exercised by each state is equal to that state's congressional delegation which is the number of Senators (two) plus the number of Representatives for that state. Each state"}, - {'url': 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_man,_one_vote', - 'content': 'One man, one vote\n"One man, one vote"[a] or "one vote, one value" is a slogan used to advocate for the principle of equal representation in voting. This slogan is used by advocates of democracy and political equality, especially with regard to electoral reforms like universal suffrage, direct elections, and proportional representation.\nMetrics and definitions\n[edit]The violation of equal representation on a seat per vote basis in various electoral systems can be measured with the Loosemore–Hanby index, the Gallagher index, and other measures of disproportionality.[1][2][3]\nHistory\n[edit]The phrase surged in English-language usage around 1880,[4] thanks in part to British trade unionist George Howell, who used the phrase "one man, one vote" in political pamphlets.[5] During the mid-to-late 20th-century period of decolonisation and the struggles for national sovereignty, this phrase became widely used in developing countries where majority populations sought to gain political power in proportion to their numbers.[citation needed] The slogan was notably used by the anti-apartheid movement during the 1980s, which sought to end white minority rule in South Africa.[6][7][8]\nIn the United States, the "one person, one vote" principle was invoked in a series of cases by the Warren Court in the 1960s during the height of related civil rights activities.[9][10][11][12][b]\nBy the second half of the 20th century, many states had neglected to redistrict for decades, because their legislatures were dominated by rural interests. But during the 20th century, population had increased in urban, industrialized areas. In addition to applying the Equal Protection Clause of the constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion (5–4) led by Chief Justice Earl Warren in Reynolds v. Sims (1964) ruled that state legislatures, unlike the U.S. Congress, needed to have representation in both houses that was based on districts containing roughly equal populations, with redistricting as needed after the decennial censuses.[14][15] Some states had established an upper house based on an equal number of representatives to be elected from each county, modelled after the US Senate. Because of changes following industrialization and urbanization, most population growth had been in cities, and the bicameral state legislatures gave undue political power to rural counties. In the 1964 Wesberry v. Sanders decision, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that equality of voting—one person, one vote—means that "the weight and worth of the citizens\' votes as nearly as is practicable must be the same".[16] They ruled that states must draw federal congressional districts containing roughly equal represented populations.\nUnited Kingdom\n[edit]Historical background\n[edit]This phrase was traditionally used in the context of demands for suffrage reform. Historically the emphasis within the House of Commons was on representing areas: counties, boroughs and, later on, universities. The entitlement to vote for the Members of Parliament representing the constituencies varied widely, with different qualifications over time, such as owning property of a certain value, holding an apprenticeship, qualifying for paying the local-government rates, or holding a degree from the university in question. Those who qualified for the vote in more than one constituency were entitled to vote in each constituency, while many adults did not qualify for the vote at all. Plural voting was also present in local government, whereby the owners of business property qualified for votes in the relevant wards.[citation needed]\nReformers argued that Members of Parliament and other elected officials should represent citizens equally, and that each voter should be entitled to exercise the vote once in an election. Successive Reform Acts by 1950 had both extended the franchise eventually to almost all adult citizens (barring convicts, lunatics and members of the House of Lords), and also reduced and finally eliminated plural voting for Westminster elections. Plural voting for local-government elections outside the City of London was not abolished until the Representation of the People Act 1969.[17][18]\nNorthern Ireland\n[edit]When Northern Ireland was established in 1921, it adopted the same political system then in place for the Westminster Parliament and British local government. But the Parliament of Northern Ireland did not follow Westminster in changes to the franchise from 1945. As a result, into the 1960s, plural voting was still allowed not only for local government (as it was for local government in Great Britain), but also for the Parliament of Northern Ireland. This meant that in local council elections (as in Great Britain), ratepayers and their spouses, whether renting or owning the property, could vote, and company directors had an extra vote by virtue of their company\'s status. However, unlike the situation in Great Britain, non-ratepayers did not have a vote in local government elections. The franchise for elections to the Parliament of Northern Ireland had been extended in 1928 to all adult citizens who were not disqualified, at the same time as the franchise for elections to Westminster. But, university representation and the business vote continued for elections to the House of Commons of Northern Ireland until 1969. They were abolished in 1948 for elections to the UK House of Commons (including Westminster seats in Northern Ireland). Historians and political scholars have debated the extent to which the franchise for local government contributed to unionist electoral success in controlling councils in nationalist-majority areas.[19]\nBased on a number of inequities, the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association was founded in 1967. It had five primary demands, and added the demand that each citizen in Northern Ireland be afforded the same number of votes for local government elections (as stated above, this was not yet the case anywhere in the United Kingdom). The slogan "one man, one vote" became a rallying cry for this campaign.[citation needed] The Parliament of Northern Ireland voted to update the voting rules for elections to the Northern Ireland House of Commons, which were implemented for the 1969 Northern Ireland general election, and for local government elections, which was done by the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, passed on 25 November 1969.[citation needed]\nUnited States\n[edit]Historical background\n[edit]The United States Constitution requires a decennial census for the purpose of assuring fair apportionment of seats in the United States House of Representatives among the states, based on their population. Reapportionment has generally been conducted without incident with the exception of the reapportionment that should have followed the 1920 census, which was effectively skipped pending resolution by the Reapportionment Act of 1929. State legislatures, however, initially established election of congressional representatives from districts that were often based on traditional counties or parishes that had preceded founding of the new government. The question then arose as to whether the legislatures were required to ensure that House districts were roughly equal in population and to draw new districts to accommodate demographic changes.[12][10]\nSome U.S. states redrew their House districts every ten years to reflect changes in population patterns; many did not. Some never redrew them, except when it was mandated by reapportionment of Congress and a resulting change in the number of seats to which that state was entitled in the House of Representatives. In many states, both North and South, this inaction resulted in a skewing of influence for voters in some districts over those in others, generally with a bias toward rural districts. For example, if the 2nd congressional district eventually had a population of 1.5 million, but the 3rd had only 500,000, then, in effect – since each district elected the same number of representatives – a voter in the 3rd district had three times the voting power of a 2nd-district voter.\nAlabama\'s state legislature resisted redistricting from 1910 to 1972 (when forced by federal court order). As a result, rural residents retained a wildly disproportionate amount of power in a time when other areas of the state became urbanized and industrialized, attracting greater populations. Such urban areas were under-represented in the state legislature and underserved; their residents had difficulty getting needed funding for infrastructure and services. Such areas paid far more in taxes to the state than they received in benefits in relation to the population.[15]\nThe Constitution incorporates the result of the Great Compromise, which established representation for the U.S. Senate. Each state was equally represented in the Senate with two representatives, without regard to population. The Founding Fathers considered this principle of such importance[citation needed] that they included a clause in the Constitution to prohibit any state from being deprived of equal representation in the Senate without its permission; see Article V of the United States Constitution. For this reason, "one person, one vote" has never been implemented in the U.S. Senate, in terms of representation by states.\nWhen states established their legislatures, they often adopted a bicameral model based on colonial governments or the federal government. Many copied the Senate principle, establishing an upper house based on geography - for instance, a state senate with one representative drawn from each county. By the 20th century, this often resulted in state senators having widely varying amounts of political power, with ones from rural areas having votes equal in power to those of senators representing much greater urban populations.\nActivism in the Civil Rights Movement to restore the ability of African Americans in the South to register and vote highlighted other voting inequities across the country. In 1964–1965, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 were passed, in part to enforce the constitutional voting rights of African Americans.[20] Numerous court challenges were raised, including in Alabama, to correct the decades in which state legislative districts had not been redefined or reapportioned, resulting in lack of representation for many residents.\nCourt cases\n[edit]In Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946) the United States Supreme Court held in a 4–3 plurality decision that Article I, Section 4 left to the legislature of each state the authority to establish the time, place, and manner of holding elections for representatives.\nHowever, in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) the United States Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren overturned the previous decision in Colegrove holding that malapportionment claims under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment were not exempt from judicial review under Article IV, Section 4, as the equal protection issue in this case was separate from any political questions.[12][16] The "one person, one vote" doctrine, which requires electoral districts to be apportioned according to population, thus making each district roughly equal in population, was further affirmed by the Warren Court in the landmark cases that followed Baker, including Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963), which concerned the county unit system in Georgia; Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) which concerned state legislature districts; Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964), which concerned U.S. congressional districts; and Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474 (1968) which concerned local government districts.[16][21][22]\nThe Warren Court\'s decision was upheld in Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989).[23] Evenwel v. Abbott, 578 U.S. 2016, said states may use total population in drawing districts.[22]\nOther uses\n[edit]- The slogan "one man, one vote" has occasionally been misunderstood as requiring plurality voting; however, court cases in the United States have consistently ruled against this interpretation the admissibility of other rules.\n- The constitutionality of non-plurality systems has subsequently been upheld by several federal courts, against challenges.[24][25] In 2018, a federal court ruled on the constitutionality of Maine\'s use of ranked-choice voting, stating that "\'one person, one vote\' does not stand in opposition to ranked voting, so long as all electors are treated equally at the ballot."[26]\n- In 1975, a Michigan state court clarified that one-man, one-vote does not mandate plurality vote, and upheld Instant Runoff as permitted by the state constitution.[27]\n- By contrast, the Federal Constitutional Court in Germany ruled that the overhang mandates at the time did violate the principle of equal voting rights, as they assign some voters a negative voting weight.[28]\n- Training Wheels for Citizenship, a failed 2004 initiative in California, attempted to give minors between 14 and 17 years of age (who otherwise cannot vote) a fractional vote in state elections. Among the criticisms leveled at the proposed initiative was that it violated the "one man, one vote" principle.[29]\n- Courts have established that special-purpose districts must also follow the one person, one vote rule.[30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38]\n- Due to treaties signed by the United States in 1830 and 1835, two Native American tribes (the Cherokee and Choctaw) each hold the right to a non-voting delegate position in the House of Representatives.[39][40] As of 2019, only the Cherokee have attempted to exercise that right.[41][42] Because all tribal governments related to the two in question exist within present-day state boundaries, it has been suggested that such an arrangement could potentially violate the "one man, one vote" principle by granting a "super-vote"; a Cherokee or Choctaw voter would have two House representatives (state and tribal), whereas any other American would only have one.[43]\nAustralia\n[edit]In Australia, one vote, one value is a democratic principle, applied in electoral laws governing redistributions of electoral divisions of the House of Representatives. The principle calls for all electoral divisions to have the same number of enrolled voters (not residents or population), within a specified percentage of variance. The electoral laws of the federal House of Representatives, and of the state and territory parliaments, follow the principle, with a few exceptions. The principle does not apply to the Senate because, under the Australian constitution, each state is entitled to the same number of senators, irrespective of the population of the state.\nMalapportionment\n[edit]Currently, for the House of Representatives, the number of enrolled voters in each division in a state or territory can vary by up to 10% from the average quota for the state or territory, and the number of voters can vary by up to 3.5% from the average projected enrolment three-and-a-half years into the future.[44] The allowable quota variation of the number of electors in each division was reduced from 20% to 10% by the Commonwealth Electoral Act (No. 2) 1973, passed at the joint sitting of Parliament in 1974.[45] The change was instigated by the Whitlam Labor government.\nHowever, for various reasons, such as the constitutional requirement that Tasmania must have at least five lower house members, larger seats like Cowper (New South Wales) comprise almost double the electors of smaller seats like Solomon in the Northern Territory.\nHistorically, all states (other than Tasmania) have had some form of malapportionment, but electoral reform in recent decades has resulted in electoral legislation and policy frameworks based on the "one vote, one value" principle. However, in the Western Australian and Queensland Legislative Assemblies, seats covering areas greater than 100,000 square kilometres (38,600 sq mi) may have fewer electors than the general tolerance would otherwise allow.[46][47]\nThe following chart documents the years that the upper and lower houses of each Australian state parliament replaced malapportionment with the \'one vote, one value\' principle.\n| State | NSW | Qld | SA | Tas | Vic | WA |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| Upper House | 1978[48] | Abolished in 1922[49] | 1973[50] | 1995[51] | 1982[52] | 2021[53] |\n| Lower House | 1979[54] | 1991[55] | 1975[56] | 1906[57] | 1982[52] | 2005[58] |\nProposed constitutional amendment\n[edit]The Whitlam Labor government proposed to amend the Constitution in a referendum in 1974 to require the use of population to determine the size of electorates rather than alternative methods of distributing seats, such as geographical size. The bill was not passed by the Senate and instead the referendum was put to voters using the deadlock provision in Section 128.[59] The referendum was not carried, obtaining a majority in just one State and achieving 47.20% support, an overall minority of 407,398 votes.[60]\nIn 1988, the Hawke Labor government submitted a referendum proposal to enshrine the principle in the Australian Constitution.[61] The referendum question came about due to the widespread malapportionment and gerrymandering which was endemic during Joh Bjelke-Petersen\'s term as the Queensland Premier. The proposal was opposed by both the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia. The referendum proposal was not carried, obtaining a majority in no States and achieving just 37.6% support, an overall minority of 2,335,741.[60]\nSee also\n[edit]- Democracy Index\n- Democratization\n- Electoral College\n- Anonymity (social choice)\n- Proportional representation\n- Universal suffrage\nNotes\n[edit]- ^ Also "one person, one vote" or—in the context of primaries and leadership elections— "one member, one vote".\n- ^ Justice Douglas, Gray v. Sanders (1963): "The conception of political equality from the Declaration of Independence, to Lincoln\'s Gettysburg Address, to the Fifteenth, Seventeenth, and Nineteenth Amendments can mean only one thing—one person, one vote."[13]\nReferences\n[edit]- ^ December 2016, Canada\'s 2016 Special Committee On Electoral Reform, Recommendation 1\n- ^ Read the full electoral reform committee report, plus Liberal and NDP/Green opinions\n- ^ What is the Gallagher Index? The Gallagher Index measures how unfair a voting system is.\n- ^ "Google Books Ngram Viewer". books.google.com. Retrieved 16 December 2022.\n- ^ George Howell (1880). "One man, one vote". Manchester Selected Pamphlets. JSTOR 60239578\n- ^ Peter Duignan; Lewis H. Gann (1991). Hope for South Africa?. Hoover Institution Press. p. 166. ISBN 0817989528.\n- ^ Bond, Larry; Larkin, Patrick (June 1991). Vortex. United States: Little, Brown and Warner Books. p. 37. ISBN 0-446-51566-3. OCLC 23286496.\n- ^ Boam, Jeffrey (July 1989). Lethal Weapon 2. Warner Bros.\n- ^ Richard H. Fallon, Jr. (2013). The Dynamic Constitution. Cambridge University Press, 196.\n- ^ a b Douglas J. Smith (2014). On Democracy\'s Doorstep: The Inside Story of How the Supreme Court Brought "One Person, One Vote" to the United States. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.\n- ^ "One person, one vote", in David Andrew Schultz (2010). Encyclopedia of the United States Constitution. Infobase Publishing, 526.\n- ^ a b c Stephen Ansolabehere, James M. Snyder (2008). The End of Inequality: One Person, One Vote and the Transformation of American Politics. Norton.\n- ^ C. J. Warren, Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 558 (1964) (quoting Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963)), cited in "One-person, one-vote rule", Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School.\n- ^ "Reynolds v. Sims". Oyez. Retrieved 21 September 2019.\n- ^ a b Charlie B. Tyler, "County Government in the Palmetto State", University of South Carolina, 1998, p. 221\n- ^ a b c Goldman, Ari L. (21 November 1986). "ONE MAN, ONE VOTE: DECADES OF COURT DECISIONS". The New York Times.\n- ^ Halsey, Albert Henry (1988). British Social Trends since 1900. Springer. p. 298. ISBN 9781349194667.\n- ^ Peter Brooke (24 February 1999). "City of London (Ward Elections) Bill". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). United Kingdom: House of Commons. col. 452.\n- ^ John H. Whyte. "How much discrimination was there under the unionist regime, 1921-1968?". Conflict Archive on the Internet. Retrieved 30 August 2007.\n- ^ "We Shall Overcome -- The Players". www.nps.gov. Retrieved 5 October 2019.\n- ^ "Reynolds v. Sims". Oyez. Retrieved 17 September 2019.\n- ^ a b Anonymous (19 August 2010). "one-person, one-vote rule". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 17 September 2019.\n- ^ "The Supreme Court: One-Man, One-Vote, Locally". Time. 12 April 1968. Archived from the original on 2 September 2009. Retrieved 20 May 2010.\n- ^ Collins, Steve; Journal, Sun (13 December 2018). "Federal court rules against Bruce Poliquin\'s challenge of ranked-choice voting". Lewiston Sun Journal. Retrieved 19 December 2018.\n- ^ "Dudum v. Arntz, 640 F. 3d 1098 (2011)". United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Retrieved 1 April 2016.\n- ^ U.S. District Judge Lance Walker (13 December 2018). "Read the federal judge\'s decision on Poliquin\'s ranked-choice challenge". Bangor Daily News. p. 21. Retrieved 10 February 2019.\n- ^ Stephenson v Ann Arbor Board of Canvassers, fairvote.org, accessed 6 November 2013.\n- ^ "Provisions of the Federal Electoral Act from which the effect of negative voting weight emerges unconstitutional". Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court). 3 July 2008. Retrieved 19 May 2024.\n- ^ "Should 14-year-olds vote? OK, how about a quarter of a vote?", Daniel B. Wood, Christian Science Monitor, Mar. 12, 2004.\n- ^ Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474, 88 S. Ct. 1114, 20 L. Ed. 2d 45 (1968)\n- ^ Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355, 101 S. Ct. 1811, 68 L. Ed. 2d 150 (1981)\n- ^ Bjornestad v. Hulse, 229 Cal. App. 3d 1568, 281 Cal. Rptr. 548 (1991)\n- ^ Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688, 109 S. Ct. 1433, 103 L. Ed. 2d 717 (1989)\n- ^ Hadley v. Junior College District, 397 U.S. 50, 90 S. Ct. 791, 25 L. Ed. 2d 45 (1970)\n- ^ Hellebust v. Brownback, 824 F. Supp. 1511 (D. Kan. 1993)\n- ^ Kessler v. Grand Central District Management Association, 158 F.3d 92. (2d Cir. 1998)\n- ^ Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S. Ct. 136, 12 L. Ed. 2d 506 (1964)\n- ^ Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, 410 U.S. 719 (1973)\n- ^ Ahtone, Tristan (4 January 2017). "The Cherokee Nation Is Entitled to a Delegate in Congress. But Will They Finally Send One?". YES! Magazine. Bainbridge Island, Washington. Retrieved 4 January 2019.\n- ^ Pommersheim, Frank (2 September 2009). Broken Landscape: Indians, Indian Tribes, and the Constitution. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. p. 333. ISBN 978-0-19-970659-4. Retrieved 4 January 2019.\n- ^ "The Cherokee Nation wants a representative in Congress". www.msn.com.\n- ^ Krehbiel-Burton, Lenzy (23 August 2019). "Citing treaties, Cherokees call on Congress to seat delegate from tribe". Tulsa World. Tulsa, Oklahoma. Retrieved 24 August 2019.\n- ^ Rosser, Ezra (7 November 2005). "The Nature of Representation: The Cherokee Right to a Congressional Delegate". Boston University Public Interest Law Journal. 15 (91): 91–152. SSRN 842647.\n- ^ Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) s 73 Redistribution of State.\n- ^ Commonwealth Electoral Act (No. 2) 1973 (Cth) s 4 Re-distribution.\n- ^ Electoral Act 1907 (WA) s 16G Districts, how State to be divided into.\n- ^ Electoral Act 1992 (Qld) s 45 - Proposed electoral redistribution must be within numerical limits.\n- ^ Constitution and Parliamentary Electorates and Elections (Amendment) Act 1978 (NSW)\n- ^ Constitution Act Amendment Act of 1922 (Qld)\n- ^ Constitution and Electoral Acts Amendment Act 1973 (SA)\n- ^ Legislative Council Electoral Boundaries Act 1995 (Tas)\n- ^ a b Electoral Commission Act 1982 (Vic)\n- ^ Constitutional and Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Equality) Act 2021 (WA)\n- ^ Constitution (Amendment) Act 1979 (NSW)\n- ^ Electoral Districts Act 1991 (Qld). Allows additional nominal voters of 2% per km2 when a district is greater than 100,000 km2. The Electoral Act 1992 (Qld) introduced automatic redistributions.\n- ^ Constitution Act Amendment Act (No 5) 1975 (SA)\n- ^ An Act To Further Amend The Constitution Act 1906 (Tas). Subsequent amendments continue to be made at each Federal redistribution.\n- ^ Electoral Amendment and Repeal Act 2005 (WA). Allows additional nominal voters of 1.5% per km2 when a district is greater than 100,000 km2. This is capped at 20% less than the average enrollment.\n- ^ Richardson, Jack (31 October 2000). "Resolving Deadlocks in the Australian Parliament". Research Paper 9 2000-01. Parliamentary Library. Retrieved 20 October 2021.\n- ^ a b Handbook of the 44th Parliament (2014) "Part 5 - Referendums and Plebiscites - Referendum results". Parliamentary Library of Australia.\n- ^ Singleton, Gwynneth; Don Aitkin; Brian Jinks; John Warhurst (2012). Australian Political Institutions. Pearson Higher Education AU. p. 271. ISBN 978-1442559493. Retrieved 5 August 2015.', - 'relevant': 'One man, one vote\n"One man, one vote"[a] or "one vote, one value" is a slogan used to advocate for the principle of equal representation in voting. This slogan is used by advocates of democracy and political equality, especially with regard to electoral reforms like universal suffrage, direct elections, and proportional representation.\nMetrics and definitions\n[edit]The violation of equal representation on a seat per vote basis in various electoral systems can be measured with the Loosemore–Hanby index, the Gallagher index, and other measures of disproportionality.[1][2][3]\nHistory\n[edit]The ph'}, - {'url': 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause', - 'content': 'Equal Protection Clause\nThe Equal Protection Clause is part of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law.[1][2][3]\nA primary motivation for this clause was to validate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that all citizens would have the right to equal protection by law. As a whole, the Fourteenth Amendment marked a large shift in American constitutionalism, by applying substantially more constitutional restrictions against the states than had applied before the Civil War.\nThe meaning of the Equal Protection Clause has been the subject of much debate, and inspired the well-known phrase "Equal Justice Under Law". This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision that helped to dismantle racial segregation. The clause has also been the basis for Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriages, along with many other decisions rejecting discrimination against, and bigotry towards, people belonging to various groups.\nWhile the Equal Protection Clause itself applies only to state and local governments, the Supreme Court held in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment nonetheless requires equal protection under the laws of the federal government via reverse incorporation.\nText\n[edit]The Equal Protection Clause is located at the end of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment:\nAll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [emphasis added]\nBackground\n[edit]Though equality under the law is an American legal tradition arguably dating to the Declaration of Independence,[4] formal equality for many groups remained elusive. Before passage of the Reconstruction Amendments, which included the Equal Protection Clause, American law did not extend constitutional rights to black Americans.[5] Black people were considered inferior to white Americans, and subject to chattel slavery in the slave states until the Emancipation Proclamation and the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment.\nEven black Americans that were not enslaved lacked many crucial legal protections.[5] In the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, the Supreme Court rejected abolitionism and determined black men, whether free or in bondage, had no legal rights under the U.S. Constitution at the time.[6] Currently, a plurality of historians believe that this judicial decision set the United States on the path to the Civil War, which led to the ratifications of the Reconstruction Amendments.[7]\nBefore and during the Civil War, the Southern states prohibited speech of pro-Union citizens, anti-slavery advocates, and northerners in general, since the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states during such times. During the Civil War, many of the Southern states stripped the state citizenship of many whites and banished them from their state, effectively seizing their property. Shortly after the Union victory in the American Civil War, the Thirteenth Amendment was proposed by Congress and ratified by the states in 1865, abolishing slavery. Subsequently, many ex-Confederate states then adopted Black Codes following the war, with these laws severely restricting the rights of blacks to hold property, including real property (such as real estate), and many forms of personal property, and to form legally enforceable contracts. Such codes also established harsher criminal consequences for blacks than for whites.[8]\nBecause of the inequality imposed by Black Codes, a Republican-controlled Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Act provided that all persons born in the United States were citizens (contrary to the Supreme Court\'s 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford), and required that "citizens of every race and color ... [have] full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens."[9]\nPresident Andrew Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 amid concerns (among other things) that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to enact such a bill. Such doubts were one factor that led Congress to begin to draft and debate what would become the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[10][11] Additionally, Congress wanted to protect white Unionists who were under personal and legal attack in the former Confederacy.[12] The effort was led by the Radical Republicans of both houses of Congress, including John Bingham, Charles Sumner, and Thaddeus Stevens. It was the most influential of these men, John Bingham, who was the principal author and drafter of the Equal Protection Clause.\nThe Southern states were opposed to the Civil Rights Act, but in 1865 Congress, exercising its power under Article I, Section 5, Clause 1 of the Constitution, to "be the Judge of the ... Qualifications of its own Members", had excluded Southerners from Congress, declaring that their states, having rebelled against the Union, could therefore not elect members to Congress. It was this fact—the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted by a "rump" Congress—that permitted the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment by Congress and subsequently proposed to the states. The ratification of the amendment by the former Confederate states was imposed as a condition of their acceptance back into the Union.[13]\nRatification\n[edit]With the return to originalist interpretations of the Constitution, many wonder what was intended by the framers of the reconstruction amendments at the time of their ratification. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery but to what extent it protected other rights was unclear.[14] After the Thirteenth Amendment the South began to institute Black Codes which were restrictive laws seeking to keep black Americans in a position of inferiority. The Fourteenth amendment was ratified by nervous Republicans in response to the rise of Black Codes.[14] This ratification was irregular in many ways. First, there were multiple states that rejected the Fourteenth Amendment, but when their new governments were created due to reconstruction, these new governments accepted the amendment.[15] There were also two states, Ohio and New Jersey, that accepted the amendment and then later passed resolutions rescinding that acceptance. The nullification of the two states\' acceptance was considered illegitimate and both Ohio and New Jersey were included in those counted as ratifying the amendment.[15]\nMany historians have argued that Fourteenth Amendment was not originally intended to grant sweeping political and social rights to the citizens but instead to solidify the constitutionality of the 1866 Civil rights Act.[16] While it is widely agreed that this was a key reason for the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, many historians adopt a much wider view. It is a popular interpretation that the Fourteenth Amendment was always meant to ensure equal rights for all those in the United States.[17] This argument was used by Charles Sumner when he used the Fourteenth Amendment as the basis for his arguments to expand the protections afforded to black Americans.[18]\nAlthough the equal protection clause is one of the most cited ideas in legal theory, it received little attention during the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.[19] Instead the key tenet of the Fourteenth Amendment at the time of its ratification was the Privileges or Immunities Clause.[16] This clause sought to protect the privileges and immunities of all citizens which now included black men.[20] The scope of this clause was substantially narrowed following the Slaughterhouse Cases in which it was determined that a citizen\'s privileges and immunities were only ensured at the Federal level and that it was government overreach to impose this standard on the states.[17] Even in this halting decision the Court still acknowledged the context in which the Amendment was passed, stating that knowing the evils and injustice the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to combat is key in our legal understanding of its implications and purpose.[21] With the abridgment of the Privileges or Immunities clause, legal arguments aimed at protecting black American\'s rights became more complex and that is when the equal protection clause started to gain attention for the arguments it could enhance.[16]\nDuring the debate in Congress, more than one version of the clause was considered. Here is the first version: "The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to secure ... to all persons in the several states equal protection in the rights of life, liberty, and property."[22] Bingham said about this version: "It confers upon Congress power to see to it that the protection given by the laws of the States shall be equal in respect to life and liberty and property to all persons."[22] The main opponent of the first version was Congressman Robert S. Hale of New York, despite Bingham\'s public assurances that "under no possible interpretation can it ever be made to operate in the State of New York while she occupies her present proud position."[23]\nHale ended up voting for the final version, however. When Senator Jacob Howard introduced that final version, he said:[24]\nIt prohibits the hanging of a black man for a crime for which the white man is not to be hanged. It protects the black man in his fundamental rights as a citizen with the same shield which it throws over the white man. Ought not the time to be now passed when one measure of justice is to be meted out to a member of one caste while another and a different measure is meted out to the member of another caste, both castes being alike citizens of the United States, both bound to obey the same laws, to sustain the burdens of the same Government, and both equally responsible to justice and to God for the deeds done in the body?\nThe 39th United States Congress proposed the Fourteenth Amendment on June 13, 1866. A difference between the initial and final versions of the clause was that the final version spoke not just of "equal protection" but of "the equal protection of the laws". John Bingham said in January 1867: "no State may deny to any person the equal protection of the laws, including all the limitations for personal protection of every article and section of the Constitution ..."[25] By July 9, 1868, three-fourths of the states (28 of 37) ratified the amendment, and that is when the Equal Protection Clause became law.[26]\nEarly history following ratification\n[edit]Bingham said in a speech on March 31, 1871 that the clause meant no State could deny anyone "the equal protection of the Constitution of the United States ... [or] any of the rights which it guarantees to all men", nor deny to anyone "any right secured to him either by the laws and treaties of the United States or of such State."[27] At that time, the meaning of equality varied from one state to another.[28]\nFour of the original thirteen states never passed any laws barring interracial marriage, and the other states were divided on the issue in the Reconstruction era.[29] In 1872, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that the state\'s ban on mixed-race marriage violated the "cardinal principle" of the 1866 Civil Rights Act and of the Equal Protection Clause.[30] Almost a hundred years would pass before the U.S. Supreme Court followed that Alabama case (Burns v. State) in the case of Loving v. Virginia. In Burns, the Alabama Supreme Court said:[31]\nMarriage is a civil contract, and in that character alone is dealt with by the municipal law. The same right to make a contract as is enjoyed by white citizens, means the right to make any contract which a white citizen may make. The law intended to destroy the distinctions of race and color in respect to the rights secured by it.\nAs for public schooling, no states during this era of Reconstruction actually required separate schools for blacks.[32] However, some states (e.g. New York) gave local districts discretion to set up schools that were deemed separate but equal.[33] In contrast, Iowa and Massachusetts flatly prohibited segregated schools ever since the 1850s.[34]\nLikewise, some states were more favorable to women\'s legal status than others; New York, for example, had been giving women full property, parental, and widow\'s rights since 1860, but not the right to vote.[35] No state or territory allowed women\'s suffrage when the Equal Protection Clause took effect in 1868.[36] In contrast, at that time African American men had full voting rights in five states.[37]\nGilded Age interpretation and the Plessy decision\n[edit]In the United States, 1877 marked the end of Reconstruction and the start of the Gilded Age. The first truly landmark equal protection decision by the Supreme Court was Strauder v. West Virginia (1880). A black man convicted of murder by an all-white jury challenged a West Virginia statute excluding blacks from serving on juries. Exclusion of blacks from juries, the Court concluded, was a denial of equal protection to black defendants, since the jury had been "drawn from a panel from which the State has expressly excluded every man of [the defendant\'s] race." At the same time, the Court explicitly allowed sexism and other types of discrimination, saying that states "may confine the selection to males, to freeholders, to citizens, to persons within certain ages, or to persons having educational qualifications. We do not believe the Fourteenth Amendment was ever intended to prohibit this. ... Its aim was against discrimination because of race or color."[38]\nThe next important postwar case was the Civil Rights Cases (1883), in which the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was at issue. The Act provided that all persons should have "full and equal enjoyment of ... inns, public conveyances on land or water, theatres, and other places of public amusement." In its opinion, the Court explicated what has since become known as the "state action doctrine", according to which the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause apply only to acts done or otherwise "sanctioned in some way" by the state. Prohibiting blacks from attending plays or staying in inns was "simply a private wrong". Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented alone, saying, "I cannot resist the conclusion that the substance and spirit of the recent amendments of the Constitution have been sacrificed by a subtle and ingenious verbal criticism." Harlan went on to argue that because (1) "public conveyances on land and water" use the public highways, and (2) innkeepers engage in what is "a quasi-public employment", and (3) "places of public amusement" are licensed under the laws of the states, excluding blacks from using these services was an act sanctioned by the state.\nA few years later, Justice Stanley Matthews wrote the Court\'s opinion in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886).[39] In it the word "person" from the Fourteenth Amendment\'s section has been given the broadest possible meaning by the U.S. Supreme Court:[40]\nThese provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.\nThus, the clause would not be limited to discrimination against African Americans, but would extend to other races, colors, and nationalities such as (in this case) legal aliens in the United States who are Chinese citizens.\nIn its most contentious Gilded Age interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause, Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court upheld a Louisiana Jim Crow law that required the segregation of blacks and whites on railroads and mandated separate railway cars for members of the two races.[41] The Court, speaking through Justice Henry B. Brown, ruled that the Equal Protection Clause had been intended to defend equality in civil rights, not equality in social arrangements. All that was therefore required of the law was reasonableness, and Louisiana\'s railway law amply met that requirement, being based on "the established usages, customs and traditions of the people." Justice Harlan again dissented. "Every one knows," he wrote,\nthat the statute in question had its origin in the purpose, not so much to exclude white persons from railroad cars occupied by blacks, as to exclude colored people from coaches occupied by or assigned to white persons ... [I]n view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.\nSuch "arbitrary separation" by race, Harlan concluded, was "a badge of servitude wholly inconsistent with the civil freedom and the equality before the law established by the Constitution."[42] Harlan\'s philosophy of constitutional colorblindness would eventually become more widely accepted, especially after World War II.\nRights of Corporations\n[edit]In the decades after ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the vast majority of Supreme Court cases interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment dealt with the rights of corporations, not with the rights of African Americans. In the period 1868–1912 (from ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the first known published count by a scholar), the Supreme Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment in 312 cases dealing with the rights of corporations but in only 28 cases dealing with the rights of African Americans. Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment was used primarily by corporations to attack laws that regulated corporations, not to protect the formerly enslaved people from racial discrimination.[43] Granting rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to business corporations was introduced into Supreme Court jurisprudence through a series of sleights of hands. Roscoe Conkling, a skillful lawyer and former powerful politicians who had served as a member of the United States Congressional Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which had drafted the Fourteenth Amendment, was the lawyer who argued an important case known as San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific Railroad before the Supreme Court in 1882. In this case, the issue was whether corporations are "persons" within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[44] Conkling argued that corporations were included in the meaning of the term person and thus entitled to such rights. He told the Court that he, as a member of the Committee that drafted this amendment to the Constitutional, knew that this is what the Committee had intended. Legal historians in the 20th Century examined the history of the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment and found that Conkling had fabricated the notion that the Committee had intended the term "person" of the Fourteenth Amendment to encompass corporations.[45] This San Mateo case was settled by the parties without the Supreme Court issuing an opinion however the Court\'s misunderstanding of the intention of the Amendment\'s drafters that had been created by Conkling\'s likely deliberate deception was never corrected at the time.\nA second fraud occurred a few years later in the case of Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad, which left a written legacy of corporate rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. J. C. Bancroft Davis, an attorney and the Reporter of Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, drafted the "syllabus" (summary) of Supreme Court decisions and the "headnotes" that summarized key points of law held by the Court. These were published before each case as part of the official court publication communicating the law of the land as held by the Supreme Court. A headnote that Davis as court reporter published immediately preceding the court opinion in Santa Clara case stated:\n"The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment…, which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."\nDavis added before the opinion of the Court:\n"MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE said: \'The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question of whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.\'"\nIn fact, the Supreme Court decided the case on narrower grounds and had specifically avoided this Constitutional issue.[46][47]\nThe Supreme Court holding\n[edit]Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field seized on this deceptive and incorrect published summary by the court reporter Davis in Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad and cited that case as precedent in the 1889 case Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company v. Beckwith in support of the proposition that corporations are entitled to equal protection of the law within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Writing the opinion for the Court in Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company v. Beckwith, Justice Field reasoned that a corporation is an association of its human shareholders and thus has rights under the Fourteenth Amendment just as the members of the association.[48]\nIn this Supreme Court case Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company v. Beckwith, Justice Field, writing for the Court, thus took this point as established Constitutional law. In the decades that followed, the Supreme Court often continued to cite and to rely on Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad as established precedent that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed equal protection of the law and due process rights for corporations, even though in the Santa Clara case the Supreme Court held or stated no such thing.[49] In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the clause was used to strike down numerous statutes applying to corporations. Since the New Deal, however, such invalidations have been rare.[50]\nBetween Plessy and Brown\n[edit]In Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada (1938), Lloyd Gaines was a black student at Lincoln University of Missouri, one of the historically black colleges in Missouri. He applied for admission to the law school at the all-white University of Missouri, since Lincoln did not have a law school, but was denied admission due solely to his race. The Supreme Court, applying the separate-but-equal principle of Plessy, held that a State offering a legal education to whites but not to blacks violated the Equal Protection Clause.\nIn Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), the Court showed increased willingness to find racial discrimination illegal. The Shelley case concerned a privately made contract that prohibited "people of the Negro or Mongolian race" from living on a particular piece of land. Seeming to go against the spirit, if not the exact letter, of The Civil Rights Cases, the Court found that, although a discriminatory private contract could not violate the Equal Protection Clause, the courts\' enforcement of such a contract could; after all, the Supreme Court reasoned, courts were part of the state.\nThe companion cases Sweatt v. Painter and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, both decided in 1950, paved the way for a series of school integration cases. In McLaurin, the University of Oklahoma had admitted McLaurin, an African-American, but had restricted his activities there: he had to sit apart from the rest of the students in the classrooms and library, and could eat in the cafeteria only at a designated table. A unanimous Court, through Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson, said that Oklahoma had deprived McLaurin of the equal protection of the laws:\nThere is a vast difference—a Constitutional difference—between restrictions imposed by the state which prohibit the intellectual commingling of students, and the refusal of individuals to commingle where the state presents no such bar.\nThe present situation, Vinson said, was the former. In Sweatt, the Court considered the constitutionality of Texas\'s state system of law schools, which educated blacks and whites at separate institutions. The Court (again through Chief Justice Vinson, and again with no dissenters) invalidated the school system—not because it separated students, but rather because the separate facilities were not equal. They lacked "substantial equality in the educational opportunities" offered to their students.\nAll of these cases, as well as the upcoming Brown case, were litigated by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. It was Charles Hamilton Houston, a Harvard Law School graduate and law professor at Howard University, who in the 1930s first began to challenge racial discrimination in the federal courts. Thurgood Marshall, a former student of Houston\'s and the future Solicitor General and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, joined him. Both men were extraordinarily skilled appellate advocates, but part of their shrewdness lay in their careful choice of which cases to litigate, selecting the best legal proving grounds for their cause.[52]\nBrown and its consequences\n[edit]In 1954 the contextualization of the equal protection clause would change forever. The Supreme Court itself recognized the gravity of the Brown v Board decision acknowledging that a split decision would be a threat to the role of the Supreme Court and even to the country.[53] When Earl Warren became Chief Justice in 1953, Brown had already come before the Court. While Vinson was still Chief Justice, there had been a preliminary vote on the case at a conference of all nine justices. At that time, the Court had split, with a majority of the justices voting that school segregation did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Warren, however, through persuasion and good-natured cajoling—he had been an extremely successful Republican politician before joining the Court—was able to convince all eight associate justices to join his opinion declaring school segregation unconstitutional.[54] In that opinion, Warren wrote:\nTo separate [children in grade and high schools] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone ... We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.\nWarren discouraged other justices, such as Robert H. Jackson, from publishing any concurring opinion; Jackson\'s draft, which emerged much later (in 1988), included this statement: "Constitutions are easier amended than social customs, and even the North never fully conformed its racial practices to its professions".[55][56] The Court set the case for re-argument on the question of how to implement the decision. In Brown II, decided in 1954, it was concluded that since the problems identified in the previous opinion were local, the solutions needed to be so as well. Thus the court devolved authority to local school boards and to the trial courts that had originally heard the cases. (Brown was actually a consolidation of four different cases from four different states.) The trial courts and localities were told to desegregate with "all deliberate speed".\nPartly because of that enigmatic phrase, but mostly because of self-declared "massive resistance" in the South to the desegregation decision, integration did not begin in any significant way until the mid-1960s and then only to a small degree. In fact, much of the integration in the 1960s happened in response not to Brown but to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court intervened a handful of times in the late 1950s and early 1960s, but its next major desegregation decision was not until Green v. School Board of New Kent County (1968), in which Justice William J. Brennan, writing for a unanimous Court, rejected a "freedom-of-choice" school plan as inadequate. This was a significant decision; freedom-of-choice plans had been very common responses to Brown. Under these plans, parents could choose to send their children to either a formerly white or a formerly black school. Whites almost never opted to attend black-identified schools, however, and blacks rarely attended white-identified schools.\nIn response to Green, many Southern districts replaced freedom-of-choice with geographically based schooling plans; because residential segregation was widespread, little integration was accomplished. In 1971, the Court in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education approved busing as a remedy to segregation; three years later, though, in the case of Milliken v. Bradley (1974), it set aside a lower court order that had required the busing of students between districts, instead of merely within a district. Milliken basically ended the Supreme Court\'s major involvement in school desegregation; however, up through the 1990s many federal trial courts remained involved in school desegregation cases, many of which had begun in the 1950s and 1960s.[57]\nThe curtailment of busing in Milliken v. Bradley is one of several reasons that have been cited to explain why equalized educational opportunity in the United States has fallen short of completion. In the view of various liberal scholars, the election of Richard Nixon in 1968 meant that the executive branch was no longer behind the Court\'s constitutional commitments.[58] Also, the Court itself decided in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973) that the Equal Protection Clause allows—but does not require—a state to provide equal educational funding to all students within the state.[59] Moreover, the Court\'s decision in Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) allowed families to opt out of public schools, despite "inequality in economic resources that made the option of private schools available to some and not to others", as Martha Minow has put it.[60]\nAmerican public school systems, especially in large metropolitan areas, to a large extent are still de facto segregated. Whether due to Brown, or due to Congressional action, or due to societal change, the percentage of black students attending majority-black school districts decreased somewhat until the early 1980s, at which point that percentage began to increase. By the late 1990s, the percentage of black students in mostly minority school districts had returned to about what it was in the late 1960s.[61] In Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007), the Court held that, if a school system became racially imbalanced due to social factors other than governmental racism, then the state is not as free to integrate schools as if the state had been at fault for the racial imbalance. This is especially evident in the charter school system where parents of students can pick which schools their children attend based on the amenities provided by that school and the needs of the child. It seems that race is a factor in the choice of charter school.[62]\nApplication to federal government\n[edit]By its terms, the clause restrains only state governments. However, the Fifth Amendment\'s due process guarantee, beginning with Bolling v. Sharpe (1954), has been interpreted as imposing some of the same restrictions on the federal government: "Though the Fifth Amendment does not contain an equal protection clause, as does the Fourteenth Amendment which applies only to the States, the concepts of equal protection and due process are not mutually exclusive."[63] In Lawrence v. Texas (2003) the Supreme Court added: "Equality of treatment and the due process right to demand respect for conduct protected by the substantive guarantee of liberty are linked in important respects, and a decision on the latter point advances both interests"[64] Some scholars have argued that the Court\'s decision in Bolling should have been reached on other grounds. For example, Michael W. McConnell has written that Congress never "required that the schools of the District of Columbia be segregated."[65] According to that rationale, the segregation of schools in Washington D.C. was unauthorized and therefore illegal.\nThe federal government has at times shared its power to discriminate against noncitizens with states through cooperative federalism. It has done so in the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 and the Children\'s Health Insurance Program.[66]\nTiered scrutiny\n[edit]Despite the undoubted importance of Brown, much of modern equal protection jurisprudence originated in other cases, though not everyone agrees about which other cases. Many scholars assert that the opinion of Justice Harlan Stone in United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938)[67] contained a footnote that was a critical turning point for equal protection jurisprudence,[68] but that assertion is disputed.[69]\nWhatever its precise origins, the basic idea of the modern approach is that more judicial scrutiny is triggered by purported discrimination that involves "fundamental rights" (such as the right to procreation), and similarly more judicial scrutiny is also triggered if the purported victim of discrimination has been targeted because he or she belongs to a "suspect classification" (such as a single racial group). This modern doctrine was pioneered in Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942), which involved depriving certain criminals of the fundamental right to procreate:[70]\nWhen the law lays an unequal hand on those who have committed intrinsically the same quality of offense and sterilizes one and not the other, it has made as invidious a discrimination as if it had selected a particular race or nationality for oppressive treatment.\nUntil 1976, the Supreme Court usually ended up dealing with discrimination by using one of two possible levels of scrutiny: what has come to be called "strict scrutiny" (when a suspect class or fundamental right is involved), or instead the more lenient "rational basis review". Strict scrutiny means that a challenged statute must be "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling" government interest, and must not have a "less restrictive" alternative. In contrast, rational basis scrutiny merely requires that a challenged statute be "reasonably related" to a "legitimate" government interest.\nHowever, in the 1976 case of Craig v. Boren, the Court added another tier of scrutiny, called "intermediate scrutiny", regarding gender discrimination. The Court may have added other tiers too, such as "enhanced rational basis" scrutiny,[71] and "exceedingly persuasive basis" scrutiny.[72]\nAll of this is known as "tiered" scrutiny, and it has had many critics, including Justice Thurgood Marshall who argued for a "spectrum of standards in reviewing discrimination", instead of discrete tiers.[73] Justice John Paul Stevens argued for only one level of scrutiny, given that "there is only one Equal Protection Clause".[73] The whole tiered strategy developed by the Court is meant to reconcile the principle of equal protection with the reality that most laws necessarily discriminate in some way.[74]\nChoosing the standard of scrutiny can determine the outcome of a case, and the strict scrutiny standard is often described as "strict in theory and fatal in fact".[75] In order to select the correct level of scrutiny, Justice Antonin Scalia urged the Court to identify rights as "fundamental" or identify classes as "suspect" by analyzing what was understood when the Equal Protection Clause was adopted, instead of based upon more subjective factors.[76]\nDiscriminatory intent and disparate impact\n[edit]Because inequalities can be caused either intentionally or unintentionally, the Supreme Court has decided that the Equal Protection Clause itself does not forbid governmental policies that unintentionally lead to racial disparities, though Congress may have some power under other clauses of the Constitution to address unintentional disparate impacts. This subject was addressed in the seminal case of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp. (1977). In that case, the plaintiff, a housing developer, sued a city in the suburbs of Chicago that had refused to re-zone a plot of land on which the plaintiff intended to build low-income, racially integrated housing. On the face, there was no clear evidence of racially discriminatory intent on the part of Arlington Heights\'s planning commission. The result was racially disparate, however, since the refusal supposedly prevented mostly African-Americans and Hispanics from moving in. Justice Lewis Powell, writing for the Court, stated, "Proof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose is required to show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause." Disparate impact merely has an evidentiary value; absent a "stark" pattern, "impact is not determinative."[77]\nThe result in Arlington Heights was similar to that in Washington v. Davis (1976), and has been defended on the basis that the Equal Protection Clause was not designed to guarantee equal outcomes, but rather equal opportunities; if a legislature wants to correct unintentional but racially disparate effects, it may be able to do so through further legislation.[78] It is possible for a discriminating state to hide its true intention, and one possible solution is for disparate impact to be considered as stronger evidence of discriminatory intent.[79] This debate, though, is currently academic, since the Supreme Court has not changed its basic approach as outlined in Arlington Heights.\nFor an example of how this rule limits the Court\'s powers under the Equal Protection Clause, see McClesky v. Kemp (1987). In that case a black man was convicted of murdering a white police officer and sentenced to death in the state of Georgia. A study found that killers of whites were more likely to be sentenced to death than were killers of blacks.[80] The Court found that the defense had failed to prove that such data demonstrated the requisite discriminatory intent by the Georgia legislature and executive branch.\nThe "Stop and Frisk" policy in New York allows officers to stop anyone who they feel looks suspicious. Data from police stops shows that even when controlling for variability, people who are black and those of Hispanic descent were stopped more frequently than white people, with these statistics dating back to the late 1990s. A term that has been created to describe the disproportionate number of police stops of black people is "Driving While Black." This term is used to describe the stopping of innocent black people who are not committing any crime.\nIn addition to concerns that a discriminating statute can hide its true intention, there have also been concerns that facially neutral evaluative and statistical devices that are permitted by decision-makers can be subject to racial bias and unfair appraisals of ability.\'[81] As the equal protection doctrine heavily relies on the ability of neutral evaluative tools to engage in neutral selection procedures, racial biases indirectly permitted under the doctrine can have grave ramifications and result in \'uneven conditions.\' \'[81][82] These issues can be especially prominent in areas of public benefits, employment, and college admissions, etc.\'[81]\nVoting rights\n[edit]The Supreme Court ruled in Nixon v. Herndon (1927) that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited denial of the vote based on race. The first modern application of the Equal Protection Clause to voting law came in Baker v. Carr (1962), where the Court ruled that the districts that sent representatives to the Tennessee state legislature were so malapportioned (with some legislators representing ten times the number of residents as others) that they violated the Equal Protection Clause.\nIt may seem counterintuitive that the Equal Protection Clause should provide for equal voting rights; after all, it would seem to make the Fifteenth Amendment and the Nineteenth Amendment redundant. Indeed, it was on this argument, as well as on the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, that Justice John M. Harlan (the grandson of the earlier Justice Harlan) relied on in his dissent from Reynolds. Harlan quoted the congressional debates of 1866 to show that the framers did not intend for the Equal Protection Clause to extend to voting rights, and in reference to the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments, he said:\nIf constitutional amendment was the only means by which all men and, later, women, could be guaranteed the right to vote at all, even for federal officers, how can it be that the far less obvious right to a particular kind of apportionment of state legislatures ... can be conferred by judicial construction of the Fourteenth Amendment? [Emphasis in the original.]\nHarlan also relied on the fact that Section Two of the Fourteenth Amendment "expressly recognizes the States\' power to deny \'or in any way\' abridge the right of their inhabitants to vote for \'the members of the [state] Legislature.\'"[83] Section Two of the Fourteenth Amendment provides a specific federal response to such actions by a state: reduction of a state\'s representation in Congress. However, the Supreme Court has instead responded that voting is a "fundamental right" on the same plane as marriage (Loving v. Virginia); for any discrimination in fundamental rights to be constitutional, the Court requires the legislation to pass strict scrutiny. Under this theory, equal protection jurisprudence has been applied to voting rights.\nA recent use of equal protection doctrine came in Bush v. Gore (2000). At issue was the controversial recount in Florida in the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election. There, the Supreme Court held that the different standards of counting ballots across Florida violated the equal protection clause. The Supreme Court used four of its rulings from 1960s voting rights cases (one of which was Reynolds v. Sims) to support its ruling in Bush v. Gore. It was not this holding that proved especially controversial among commentators, and indeed, the proposition gained seven out of nine votes; Justices Souter and Breyer joined the majority of five—but only for the finding that there was an Equal Protection violation. Much more controversial was the remedy that the Court chose, namely, the cessation of a statewide recount.[84]\nSex, disability, and romantic orientation\n[edit]Originally, the Fourteenth Amendment did not forbid sex discrimination to the same extent as other forms of discrimination. On the one hand, Section Two of the amendment specifically discouraged states from interfering with the voting rights of "males", which made the amendment anathema to many women when it was proposed in 1866.[85] On the other hand, as feminists like Victoria Woodhull pointed out, the word "person" in the Equal Protection Clause was apparently chosen deliberately, instead of a masculine term that could have easily been used instead.[86]\nIn 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Reed v. Reed, extending the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect women from sex discrimination, in situations where there is no rational basis for the discrimination.[citation needed] That level of scrutiny was boosted to an intermediate level in Craig v. Boren (1976).[87]\nThe Supreme Court has been disinclined to extend full "suspect classification" status (thus making a law that categorizes on that basis subject to greater judicial scrutiny) for groups other than racial minorities and religious groups. In City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. (1985), the Court refused to make the developmentally disabled a suspect class. Many commentators have noted, however—and Justice Thurgood Marshall so notes in his partial concurrence—that the Court did appear to examine the City of Cleburne\'s denial of a permit to a group home for intellectually disabled people with a significantly higher degree of scrutiny than is typically associated with the rational-basis test.[88]\nThe Court\'s decision in Romer v. Evans (1996) struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment aimed at denying homosexuals "minority status, quota preferences, protected status or [a] claim of discrimination." The Court rejected as "implausible" the dissent\'s argument that the amendment would not deprive homosexuals of general protections provided to everyone else but rather would merely prevent "special treatment of homosexuals."[89] Much as in City of Cleburne, the Romer decision seemed to employ a markedly higher level of scrutiny than the nominally applied rational-basis test.[90]\nIn Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Court struck down a Texas statute prohibiting homosexual sodomy on substantive due process grounds. In Justice Sandra Day O\'Connor\'s opinion concurring in the judgment, however, she argued that by prohibiting only homosexual sodomy, and not heterosexual sodomy as well, Texas\'s statute did not meet rational-basis review under the Equal Protection Clause; her opinion prominently cited City of Cleburne, and also relied in part on Romer. Notably, O\'Connor\'s opinion did not claim to apply a higher level of scrutiny than mere rational basis, and the Court has not extended suspect-class status to sexual orientation.\nWhile the courts have applied rational-basis scrutiny to classifications based on sexual orientation, it has been argued that discrimination based on sex should be interpreted to include discrimination based on sexual orientation, in which case intermediate scrutiny could apply to gay rights cases.[91] Other scholars disagree, arguing that "homophobia" is distinct from sexism, in a sociological sense, and so treating it as such would be an unacceptable judicial shortcut.[92]\nIn 2013, the Court struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, in United States v. Windsor. No state statute was in question, and therefore the Equal Protection Clause did not apply. The Court did employ similar principles, however, in combination with federalism principles. The Court did not purport to use any level of scrutiny more demanding than rational basis review, according to law professor Erwin Chemerinsky.[93] The four dissenting justices argued that the authors of the statute were rational.[94]\nIn 2015, the Supreme Court held in Obergefell v. Hodges that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and required all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions.\nAffirmative action\n[edit]Affirmative action is the consideration of race, gender, or other factors, to benefit an underrepresented group or to address past injustices done to that group. Individuals who belong to the group are preferred over those who do not belong to the group, for example in educational admissions, hiring, promotions, awarding of contracts, and the like.[95] Such action may be used as a "tie-breaker" if all other factors are inconclusive, or may be achieved through quotas, which allot a certain number of benefits to each group.\nDuring Reconstruction, Congress enacted programs primarily to assist newly freed slaves who had personally been denied many advantages earlier in their lives, based on their former slave status, not necessarily their race or ethnicity. Such legislation was enacted by many of the same people who framed the Equal Protection Clause, though that clause did not apply to such federal legislation, and instead only applied to state legislation.[96] However, now the Equal Protection Clause does apply to private universities and possibly other private businesses (particularly those who accept federal funds), in accordance with Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023).\nSeveral important affirmative action cases to reach the Supreme Court have concerned government contractors—for instance, Adarand Constructors v. Peña (1995) and City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1989). But the most famous cases have dealt with affirmative action as practiced by public universities: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), and two companion cases decided by the Supreme Court in 2003, Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger.\nIn Bakke, the Court held that racial quotas are unconstitutional, but that educational institutions could legally use race as one of many factors to consider in their admissions process. In Grutter and Gratz, the Court upheld both Bakke as a precedent and the admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School. In dicta, however, Justice O\'Connor, writing for the Court, said she expected that in 25 years, racial preferences would no longer be necessary. In Gratz, the Court invalidated Michigan\'s undergraduate admissions policy, on the grounds that unlike the law school\'s policy, which treated race as one of many factors in an admissions process that looked to the individual applicant, the undergraduate policy used a point system that was excessively mechanistic.\nIn these affirmative action cases, the Supreme Court has employed, or has said it employed, strict scrutiny, since the affirmative action policies challenged by the plaintiffs categorized by race. The policy in Grutter, and a Harvard College admissions policy praised by Justice Powell\'s opinion in Bakke, passed muster because the Court deemed that they were narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest in diversity. On one side, critics have argued—including Justice Clarence Thomas in his dissent to Grutter—that the scrutiny the Court has applied in some cases is much less searching than true strict scrutiny, and that the Court has acted not as a principled legal institution but as a biased political one.[97] On the other side, it is argued that the purpose of the Equal Protection Clause is to prevent the socio-political subordination of some groups by others, not to prevent classification; since this is so, non-invidious classifications, such as those used by affirmative action programs, should not be subjected to heightened scrutiny.[98]\nIn Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), and its companion case Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina (2023), the Supreme Court held that race and ethnicity cannot be used in admissions decisions. In other words, preferential treatment based on race or ethnicity violates The Equal Protection Clause. Although "nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant\'s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise," Chief Justice Roberts made it clear that "universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today." Moreover, "what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly." These opinions effectively ended affirmative action in schools. Although the scope and reach of these opinions are unknown, it is not uncommon for Supreme Court cases\' rationale to be applied to similar or analogous facts or circumstances.[citation needed]\nSee also\n[edit]- Economic egalitarianism\n- Egalitarianism\n- Equal consideration of interests\n- Equal opportunity\n- Equal Rights Amendment\n- Equality before the law\n- Equality feminism\n- Equality of autonomy\n- Equality of outcome\n- Equality of sacrifice\n- Racial equality\n- Social equality\n- Uniform Parental Rights Enforcement and Protection Act\n- McDonald v. Board of Election Commissioners of Chicago\nReferences\n[edit]- ^ Failinger, Marie (2009). "Equal protection of the laws". In Schultz, David Andrew (ed.). The Encyclopedia of American Law. Infobase. pp. 152–53. ISBN 978-1-4381-0991-6. Archived from the original on July 24, 2020.\nThe equal protection clause guarantees the right of "similarly situated" people to be treated the same way by the law.\n- ^ "Fair Treatment by the Government: Equal Protection". GeorgiaLegalAid.org. Carl Vinson Institute of Government at University of Georgia. July 30, 2004. Archived from the original on March 20, 2020. Retrieved July 24, 2020.\nThe basic intent of equal protection is to make sure that people are treated as equally as possible under our legal system. For example, it is to see that everyone who gets a speeding ticket will face the samEpocedures [sic!]. A further intent is to ensure that all Americans are provided with equal opportunities in education, employment, and other areas. [...] The U.S. Constitution makes a similar provision in the Fourteenth Amendment. It says that no state shall make or enforce any law that will "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law." These provisions require the government to treat persons equally and impartially.\n- ^ "Equal Protection". Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School. Archived from the original on June 22, 2020. Retrieved July 24, 2020.\nEqual Protection refers to the idea that a governmental body may not deny people equal protection of its governing laws. The governing body state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.\n- ^ Antieau, Chester James (1952). "Equal Protection outside the Clause". California Law Review. 40 (3): 362–377. doi:10.2307/3477928. JSTOR 3477928. Archived from the original on 2019-10-13. Retrieved 2019-07-08.\n- ^ a b "Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2018-11-10.\n- ^ "Dred Scott, 150 Years Ago". The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (55): 19. 2007. JSTOR 25073625.\n- ^ Swisher, Carl Brent (1957). "Dred Scott One Hundred Years After". The Journal of Politics. 19 (2): 167–183. doi:10.2307/2127194. JSTOR 2127194. S2CID 154345582.\n- ^ For details on the rationale for, and ratification of, the Fourteenth Amendment, see generally Foner, Eric (1988). Reconstruction: America\'s Unfinished Revolution, 1863—1877. New York: Harper & Row. ISBN 978-0-06-091453-0., as well as Brest, Paul; et al. (2000). Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking. Gaithersburg: Aspen Law & Business. pp. 241–242. ISBN 978-0-7355-1250-4.\n- ^ See Brest et al. (2000), pp. 242–46.\n- ^ Rosen, Jeffrey. The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America, p. 79 (MacMillan 2007).\n- ^ Newman, Roger. The Constitution and its Amendments, Vol. 4, p. 8 (Macmillan 1999).\n- ^ Hardy, David. "Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment As Reflected in the Print Media of 1866-68", Whittier Law Review, Vol. 30, p. 695 (2008-2009).\n- ^ See Foner (1988), passim. See also Ackerman, Bruce A. (2000). We the People, Volume 2: Transformations. Cambridge: Belknap Press. pp. 99–252. ISBN 978-0-674-00397-2.\n- ^ a b Zuckert, Michael P. (1992). "Completing the Constitution: The Fourteenth Amendment and Constitutional Rights". Publius. 22 (2): 69–91. doi:10.2307/3330348. JSTOR 3330348.\n- ^ a b "Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2018-11-30.\n- ^ a b c Perry, Michael J. (1979). "Modern Equal Protection: A Conceptualization and Appraisal". Columbia Law Review. 79 (6): 1023–1084. doi:10.2307/1121988. JSTOR 1121988.\n- ^ a b Boyd, William M. (1955). "The Second Emancipation". Phylon. 16 (1): 77–86. doi:10.2307/272626. JSTOR 272626.\n- ^ Sumner, Charles, and Daniel Murray Pamphlet Collection. . Washington: S. & R. O. Polkinhorn, Printers, 1874. Pdf. https://www.loc.gov/item/12005313/ .\n- ^ Frank, John P.; Munro, Robert F. (1950). "The Original Understanding of "Equal Protection of the Laws"". Columbia Law Review. 50 (2): 131–169. doi:10.2307/1118709. JSTOR 1118709.\n- ^ "Constitution of the United States - We the People". launchknowledge.com. 10 September 2020.\n- ^ "Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2018-11-10.\n- ^ a b Kelly, Alfred. "Clio and the Court: An Illicit Love Affair[permanent dead link ]", The Supreme Court Review at p. 148 (1965) reprinted in The Supreme Court in and of the Stream of Power (Kermit Hall ed., Psychology Press 2000).\n- ^ Bickel, Alexander. "The Original Understanding and the Segregation Decision", Harvard Law Review, Vol. 69, pp. 35-37 (1955). Bingham was speaking on February 27, 1866. See transcript.\n- ^ Curtis, Michael. "Resurrecting the Privileges or Immunities Clause and Revising the Slaughter-House Cases Without Exhuming Lochner: Individual Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment", Boston College Law Review, Vol. 38 (1997).\n- ^ Glidden, William. Congress and the Fourteenth Amendment: Enforcing Liberty and Equality in the States, p. 79 (Lexington Books 2013).\n- ^ Mount, Steve (January 2007). "Ratification of Constitutional Amendments". Retrieved February 24, 2007.\n- ^ Flack, Horace. The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, p. 232 (Johns Hopkins Press, 1908). For Bingham\'s full speech, see Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 42d Congress, 1st Sess., p. 83 (March 31, 1871).\n- ^ requires citation\n- ^ Wallenstein, Peter. Tell the Court I Love My Wife: Race, Marriage, and Law--An American History, p. 253 (Palgrave Macmillan, Jan 17, 2004). The four of the original thirteen states are New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. Id.\n- ^ Pascoe, Peggy. What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America, p. 58 (Oxford U. Press 2009).\n- ^ Calabresi, Steven and Matthews, Andrea. "Originalism and Loving v. Virginia", Brigham Young University Law Review (2012).\n- ^ Foner, Eric. Reconstruction: America\'s Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877, pp. 321–322 (HarperCollins 2002).\n- ^ Bickel, Alexander. "The Original Understanding and the Segregation Decision", Harvard Law Review, Vol. 69, pp. 35–37 (1955).\n- ^ Finkelman, Paul. "Rehearsal for Reconstruction: Antebellum Origins of the Fourteenth Amendment", in The Facts of Reconstruction: Essays in Honor of John Hope Franklin, p. 19 (Eric Anderson and Alfred A. Moss, eds., LSU Press, 1991).\n- ^ Woloch, Nancy. Women and the American Experience, p. 185 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984).\n- ^ Wayne, Stephen. Is This Any Way to Run a Democratic Election?, p. 27 (CQ PRESS 2013).\n- ^ McInerney, Daniel. A Traveller\'s History of the USA, p. 212 (Interlink Books, 2001).\n- ^ Kerber, Linda. No Constitutional Right to Be Ladies: Women and the Obligations of Citizenship, p. 133 (Macmillan, 1999).\n- ^ Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886).\n- ^ "Annotation 18 - Fourteenth Amendment: Section 1 – Rights Guaranteed: Equal Protection of the Laws: Scope and application state action". FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Law & Legal Information by FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business. Retrieved 23 November 2013.\n- ^ For a summary of the social, political and historical background to Plessy, see Woodward, C. Vann (2001). The Strange Career of Jim Crow. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 6 and pp. 69–70. ISBN 978-0-19-514690-5.\n- ^ For a skeptical evaluation of Harlan, see Chin, Gabriel J. (1996). "The Plessy Myth: Justice Harlan and the Chinese Cases". Iowa Law Review. 82: 151. ISSN 0021-0552. SSRN 1121505.\n- ^ Adam Winkler, "We the Corporations, How American Businesses Won Their Corporate Rights" (New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2018) p. xv\n- ^ However, the legal concept of corporate personhood predates the Fourteenth Amendment. See Providence Bank v. Billings, 29 U.S. 514 (1830), in which Chief Justice Marshall wrote: "The great object of an incorporation is to bestow the character and properties of individuality on a collective and changing body of men." Nevertheless, the concept of corporate personhood remains controversial. See Mayer, Carl J. (1990). "Personalizing the Impersonal: Corporations and the Bill of Rights". Hastings Law Journal. 41: 577. ISSN 0017-8322. Archived from the original on 2007-02-06. Retrieved 2007-02-24.\n- ^ Adam Winkler, "We the Corporations, How American Businesses Won Their Corporate Rights" (New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2018) pp. 128-136\n- ^ Adam Winkler, "We the Corporations, How American Businesses Won Their Corporate Rights" (New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2018) pp. 150-152\n- ^ Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886). John C. Bancroft was a former railway company president. In the summary of the case Bancroft wrote that the Court declared that it did not need to hear argument on whether the Equal Protection Clause protected corporations, because "we are all of the opinion that it does." Id. at 396. Chief Justice Morrison Waite announced from the bench that the Court would not hear argument on the question whether the equal protection clause applied to corporations: "We are all of the opinion that it does." The background and developments from this utterance are treated in H. Graham, Everyman\'s Constitution--Historical Essays on the Fourteenth Amendment, the Conspiracy Theory, and American Constitutionalism (1968), chs. 9, 10, and pp. 566-84. Justice Hugo Black, in Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 303 U.S. 77, 85 (1938), and Justice William O. Douglas, in Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Glander, 337 U.S. 562, 576 (1949), have disagreed that corporations are persons for equal protection purposes.\n- ^ Adam Winkler, "We the Corporations, How American Businesses Won Their Corporate Rights" (New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2018) pp. 154-156. Justice Field was a friend of railroad magnate Leland Stanford, owner of Southern Pacific Railroad, the corporation that had filed these lawsuits, and, as a Supreme Court justice and federal appellate judge for years, had a pro-corporationist agenda. (Adam Winkler, "We the Corporations, How American Businesses Won Their Corporate Rights" (New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2018) pp. 140-143.) Justice Field must have known that in the Santa Clara case the Supreme Court explicitly declined to address the Constitutional issue because, in a companion case to Santa Clara, Justice Field had urged the Court to address precisely this issue by endorsing such corporate rights on Fourteenth Amendment grounds, and he harshly criticized his fellow justices for failing to do so. (Adam Winkler, "We the Corporations, How American Businesses Won Their Corporate Rights" (New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2018) pp. 156-157)\n- ^ Adam Winkler, "We the Corporations, How American Businesses Won Their Corporate Rights" (New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2018) pp. 156-157\n- ^ See Currie, David P. (1987). "The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The New Deal, 1931–1940". University of Chicago Law Review (Submitted manuscript). 54 (2): 504–555. doi:10.2307/1599798. JSTOR 1599798.\n- ^ Feldman, Noah. Scorpions: The Battles and Triumphs of FDR\'s Great Supreme Court Justices, p. 145 (Hachette Digital 2010).\n- ^ See generally Morris, Aldon D. (1986). Origin of the Civil Rights Movements: Black Communities Organizing for Change. New York: Free Press. ISBN 978-0-02-922130-3.\n- ^ Karlan, Pamela S. (2009). "What Can Brown® do for You?: Neutral Principles and the Struggle over the Equal Protection Clause". Duke Law Journal. 58 (6): 1049–1069. JSTOR 20684748.\n- ^ For an exhaustive history of the Brown case from start to finish, see Kluger, Richard (1977). Simple Justice. New York: Vintage. ISBN 978-0-394-72255-9.\n- ^ Shimsky, MaryJane. "Hesitating Between Two Worlds": The Civil Rights Odyssey of Robert H. Jackson, p. 468 (ProQuest, 2007).\n- ^ I Dissent: Great Opposing Opinions in Landmark Supreme Court Cases, pp. 133–151 (Mark Tushnet, ed. Beacon Press, 2008).\n- ^ For a comprehensive history of school desegregation from Brown through Milliken (one on which this article relies for its assertions), see Brest et al. (2000), pp. 768–794.\n- ^ For the history of the American political branches\' engagement with the Supreme Court\'s commitment to desegregation (and vice versa), see Powe, Lucas A. Jr. (2001). The Warren Court and American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. ISBN 978-0-674-00683-6., and Kotz, Nick (2004). Judgment Days: Lyndon Baines Johnson, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Laws That Changed America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 978-0-618-08825-6. For more on the debate summarized in the text, see, e.g., Rosenberg, Gerald N. (1993). The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change?. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-72703-5., and Klarman, Michael J. (1994). "Brown, Racial Change, and the Civil Rights Movement". Virginia Law Review. 80 (1): 7–150. doi:10.2307/1073592. JSTOR 1073592.\n- ^ Reynolds, Troy. "Education Finance Reform Litigation and Separation of Powers: Kentucky Makes Its Contribution," Kentucky Law Journal, Vol. 80 (1991): 309, 310.\n- ^ Minow, Martha. "Confronting the Seduction of Choice: Law, Education and American Pluralism", Yale Law Journal, Vol. 120, p. 814, 819-820 (2011)(Pierce "entrenched the pattern of a two-tiered system of schooling, which sanctions private opt-outs from publicly run schools").\n- ^ For data and analysis, see Orfield (July 2001). "Schools More Separate" (PDF). Harvard University Civil Rights Project. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-06-28. Retrieved 2008-07-16.\n- ^ Jacobs, Nicholas (8 August 2011). "Racial, Economic, and Linguistic Segregation: Analyzing Market Supports in the District of Columbia\'s Public Charter Schools". Education and Urban Society. 45 (1): 120–141. doi:10.1177/0013124511407317. S2CID 144814662. Retrieved 28 October 2013.\n- ^ "FindLaw | Cases and Codes". Caselaw.lp.findlaw.com. 1954-05-17. Retrieved 2012-08-13.\n- ^ Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 598 (2003), at page 2482\n- ^ Balkin, J. M.; Bruce A. Ackerman (2001). "Part II". What Brown v. Board of Education should have said : the nation\'s top legal experts rewrite America\'s landmark civil rights decision. et al. New York University Press. p. 168.\n- ^ Ayers, Ava (2020). "Discriminatory Cooperative Federalism". Villanova Law Review. 65 (1).\n- ^ 304 U.S. 144, 152 n.4 (1938). For a theory of judicial review based on Stone\'s footnote, see Ely, John Hart (1981). Democracy and Distrust. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-19637-6.\n- ^ Goldstein, Leslie. "Between the Tiers: The New(est) Equal Protection and Bush v. Gore Archived 2016-03-04 at the Wayback Machine", University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 4, p. 372 (2002) .\n- ^ Farber, Daniel and Frickey, Philip. "Is Carolene Products Dead--Reflections on Affirmative Action and the Dynamics of Civil Rights Legislation", California Law Review, Vol. 79, p. 685 (1991). Farber and Frickey point out that "only Chief Justice Hughes, Justice Brandeis, and Justice Roberts joined Justice Stone\'s footnote", and in any event "It is simply a myth ... that the process theory of footnote four in Carolene Products is, or ever has been, the primary justification for invalidating laws embodying prejudice against racial minorities."\n- ^ Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942). Sometimes the "suspect" classification strand of the modern doctrine is attributed to Korematsu v. United States (1944), but Korematsu did not involve the Fourteenth Amendment, and moreover it came later than the Skinner opinion (which clearly stated that both deprivation of fundamental rights as well as oppression of a particular race or nationality were invidious).\n- ^ See City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. (1985)\n- ^ See United States v. Virginia (1996).\n- ^ a b Fleming, James. "\'There is Only One Equal Protection Clause\': An Appreciation of Justice Stevens\'s Equal Protection Jurisprudence", Fordham Law Review, Vol. 74, p. 2301, 2306 (2006).\n- ^ See Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631 (1996): "the equal protection of the laws must coexist with the practical necessity that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, with resulting disadvantage to various groups or persons."\n- ^ Curry, James et al. Constitutional Government: The American Experience, p. 282 (Kendall Hunt 2003) (attributing the phrase to Gerald Gunther).\n- ^ Domino, John. Civil Rights & Liberties in the 21st Century, pp. 337-338 (Pearson 2009).\n- ^ Kroll, Joshua (2017). "Accountable Algorithms (Ricci v. DeStefano: The Tensions Between Equal Protection, Disparate Treatment, and Disparate Impact)". University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 165: 692.\n- ^ Herzog, Don (March 22, 2005). "Constitutional Rights: Two". Left2Right. Note that the Court has put significant limits on the congressional power of enforcement. See City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett (2001), and United States v. Morrison (2000). The Court has also interpreted federal statutory law as limiting the power of states to correct disparate effects. See Ricci v. DeStefano (2009).\n- ^ See Krieger, Linda Hamilton (1995). "The Content of Our Categories: A Cognitive Bias Approach to Discrimination and Equal Protection Opportunity". Stanford Law Review. 47 (6): 1161–1248. doi:10.2307/1229191. hdl:10125/66110. JSTOR 1229191., and Lawrence, Charles R. III (1987). "Reckoning with Unconscious Racism". Stanford Law Review. 39 (2): 317–388. doi:10.2307/1228797. hdl:10125/65975. JSTOR 1228797.\n- ^ Baldus, David C.; Pulaski, Charles; Woodworth, George (1983). "Comparative Review of Death Sentences: An Empirical Study of the Georgia Experience". Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Submitted manuscript). 74 (3): 661–753. doi:10.2307/1143133. JSTOR 1143133.\n- ^ a b c Feingold, Jonathon (2019). "Equal Protection Design Defects". Temple Law Review. 91.\n- ^ Barocas, Solon (2016). "Big Data\'s Disparate Impact". California Law Review. 104 (3): 671–732. JSTOR 24758720.\n- ^ Van Alstyne, William. "The Fourteenth Amendment, the Right to Vote, and the Understanding of the Thirty-Ninth Congress", Supreme Court Review, p. 33 (1965).\n- ^ For criticisms as well as several defenses of the Court\'s decision, see Bush v. Gore: The Question of Legitimacy, edited by Ackerman, Bruce A. (2002). Bush v. Gore: the question of legitimacy. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-09379-7. Another much-cited collection of essays is Sunstein, Cass; Epstein, Richard (2001). The Vote: Bush, Gore, and the Supreme Court. Chicago: Chicago University Press. ISBN 978-0-226-21307-1.\n- ^ Cullen-Dupont, Kathryn. Encyclopedia of Women\'s History in America, pp. 91-92 (Infobase Publishing, Jan 1, 2009).\n- ^ Hymowitz, Carol and Weissman, Michaele. A History of Women in America, p. 128 (Random House Digital, 2011).\n- ^ Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976).\n- ^ See Pettinga, Gayle Lynn (1987). "Rational Basis with Bite: Intermediate Scrutiny by Any Other Name". Indiana Law Journal. 62: 779. ISSN 0019-6665.; Wadhwani, Neelum J. (2006). "Rational Reviews, Irrational Results". Texas Law Review. 84: 801, 809–811. ISSN 0040-4411.\n- ^ Kuligowski, Monte. "Romer v. Evans: Judicial Judgment or Emotive Utterance?," Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development, Vol. 12 (1996).\n- ^ Joslin, Courtney (1997). "Equal Protection and Anti-Gay Legislation". Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review. 32: 225, 240. ISSN 0017-8039.\nThe Romer Court applied a more \'active,\' Cleburne-like rational basis standard ...\n; Farrell, Robert C. (1999). "Successful Rational Basis Claims in the Supreme Court from the 1971 Term Through Romer v. Evans". Indiana Law Review. 32: 357. ISSN 0019-6665. - ^ See Koppelman, Andrew (1994). "Why Discrimination against Lesbians and Gay Men is Sex Discrimination". New York University Law Review. 69: 197. ISSN 0028-7881.; see also Fricke v. Lynch, 491 F.Supp. 381, 388, fn. 6 (1980), vacated 627 F.2d 1088 [case decided on First Amendment free-speech grounds, but "This case can also be profitably analyzed under the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth amendment. In preventing Aaron Fricke from attending the senior reception, the school has afforded disparate treatment to a certain class of students those wishing to attend the reception with companions of the same sex."]\n- ^ Gerstmann, Evan. Same Sex Marriage and the Constitution, p. 55 (Cambridge University Press, 2004).\n- ^ Chemerinsky, Erwin. "Justice Kennedy\'s World Archived 2013-07-09 at the Wayback Machine", The National Law Journal (July 1, 2013): "There is another similarity between his opinion in Windsor and his earlier ones in Romer and Lawrence: the Supreme Court invalidated the law without using heightened scrutiny for sexual-orientation discrimination ... A law based on animus fails to meet even rational-basis review so there was no need to adopt a higher level of scrutiny."\n- ^ United States v. Windsor Archived 2015-04-27 at the Wayback Machine, No. 12-307, 2013 BL 169620, 118 FEP Cases 1417 (U.S. June 26, 2013).\n- ^ "Affirmative Action". Stanford University. Retrieved April 6, 2012.\n- ^ See Schnapper, Eric (1985). "Affirmative Action and the Legislative History of the Fourteenth Amendment" (PDF). Virginia Law Review. 71 (5): 753–798. doi:10.2307/1073012. JSTOR 1073012.\n- ^ See Schuck, Peter H. (September 5, 2003). "Reflections on Grutter". Jurist. Archived from the original on 2005-09-09.\n- ^ See Siegel, Reva B. (2004). "Equality Talk: Antisubordination and Anticlassification Values in Constitutional Struggles over Brown". Harvard Law Review (Submitted manuscript). 117 (5): 1470–1547. doi:10.2307/4093259. JSTOR 4093259.; Carter, Stephen L. (1988). "When Victims Happen to Be Black". Yale Law Journal. 97 (3): 420–447. doi:10.2307/796412. JSTOR 796412.\nExternal links\n[edit]- Original Meaning of Equal Protection of the Laws Archived 2011-07-09 at the Wayback Machine, Federalist Blog\n- Equal Protection: An Overview, Cornell Law School\n- Equal Protection, Heritage Guide to the Constitution\n- Equal Protection (U.S. law), Encyclopædia Britannica\n- Naderi, Siavash. "The Not So Definite Article", Brown Political Review (November 16, 2012).', - 'relevant': 'Equal Protection Clause\nThe Equal Protection Clause is part of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law.[1][2][3]\nA primary motivation for this clause was to validate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that all citizens would have the right to equal protection by law. As a whole'}] + [ + { + "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson", + "content": 'Andrew Jackson\nAndrew Jackson | |\n|---|---|\n| 7th President of the United States | |\n| In office March 4, 1829 – March 4, 1837 | |\n| Vice President |\n|\n| Preceded by | John Quincy Adams |\n| Succeeded by | Martin Van Buren |\n| United States Senator from Tennessee | |\n| In office March 4, 1823 – October 14, 1825 | |\n| Preceded by | John Williams |\n| Succeeded by | Hugh Lawson White |\n| In office September 26, 1797 – April 1, 1798 | |\n| Preceded by | William Cocke |\n| Succeeded by | Daniel Smith |\n| Federal Military Commissioner of Florida | |\n| In office March 10, 1821 – December 31, 1821 | |\n| Appointed by | James Monroe |\n| Preceded by |\n|\n| Succeeded by | William Pope Duval (as Territorial Governor) |\n| Justice of the Tennessee Superior Court | |\n| In office June 1798 – June 1804 | |\n| Appointed by | John Sevier |\n| Preceded by | Howell Tatum |\n| Succeeded by | John Overton |\n| Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Tennessee\'s at-large district | |\n| In office December 4, 1796 – September 26, 1797 | |\n| Preceded by | James White (Delegate from the Southwest Territory) |\n| Succeeded by | William C. C. Claiborne |\n| Personal details | |\n| Born | Waxhaw Settlement between North Carolina and South Carolina, British America | March 15, 1767\n| Died | June 8, 1845 Nashville, Tennessee, U.S. | (aged 78)\n| Resting place | The Hermitage |\n| Political party | Democratic (1828–1845) |\n| Other political affiliations |\n|\n| Spouse | |\n| Children | Andrew Jackson Jr., Lyncoya Jackson |\n| Occupation |\n|\n| Awards | |\n| Signature | |\n| Military service | |\n| Allegiance | United States |\n| Branch/service | United States Army |\n| Rank |\n|\n| Unit | South Carolina Militia (1780–81) Tennessee Militia (1792–1821) United States Army (1814-1821) |\n| Battles/wars | |\nAndrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) was an American politician and lawyer who served as the 7th president of the United States, from 1829 to 1837. Before his presidency, he rose to fame as a general in the U.S. Army and served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. Sometimes praised as an advocate for working Americans and for preserving the union of states, his political philosophy became the basis for the Democratic Party. Jackson has been criticized for his racist policies, particularly regarding Native Americans.\nJackson was born in the colonial Carolinas before the American Revolutionary War. He became a frontier lawyer and married Rachel Donelson Robards. He briefly served in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, representing Tennessee. After resigning, he served as a justice on the Tennessee Superior Court from 1798 until 1804. Jackson purchased a property later known as the Hermitage, becoming a wealthy planter who owned hundreds of African American slaves during his lifetime. In 1801, he was appointed colonel of the Tennessee militia and was elected its commander. He led troops during the Creek War of 1813–1814, winning the Battle of Horseshoe Bend and negotiating the Treaty of Fort Jackson that required the indigenous Creek population to surrender vast tracts of present-day Alabama and Georgia. In the concurrent war against the British, Jackson\'s victory at the Battle of New Orleans in 1815 made him a national hero. He later commanded U.S. forces in the First Seminole War, which led to the annexation of Florida from Spain. Jackson briefly served as Florida\'s first territorial governor before returning to the Senate. He ran for president in 1824. He won a plurality of the popular and electoral vote, but no candidate won the electoral majority. With the help of Henry Clay, the House of Representatives elected John Quincy Adams as president. Jackson\'s supporters alleged that there was a "corrupt bargain" between Adams and Clay and began creating a new political coalition that became the Democratic Party in the 1830s.\nJackson ran again in 1828, defeating Adams in a landslide despite issues such as his slave trading and his "irregular" marriage. In 1830, he signed the Indian Removal Act. This act, which has been described as ethnic cleansing, displaced tens of thousands of Native Americans from their ancestral homelands east of the Mississippi and resulted in thousands of deaths. Jackson faced a challenge to the integrity of the federal union when South Carolina threatened to nullify a high protective tariff set by the federal government. He threatened the use of military force to enforce the tariff, but the crisis was defused when it was amended. In 1832, he vetoed a bill by Congress to reauthorize the Second Bank of the United States, arguing that it was a corrupt institution. After a lengthy struggle, the Bank was dismantled. In 1835, Jackson became the only president to pay off the national debt.\nAfter leaving office, Jackson supported the presidencies of Martin Van Buren and James K. Polk, as well as the annexation of Texas. Jackson\'s legacy remains controversial, and opinions on his legacy are frequently polarized. Supporters characterize him as a defender of democracy and the U.S. Constitution, while critics point to his reputation as a demagogue who ignored the law when it suited him. Scholarly rankings of U.S. presidents historically rated Jackson\'s presidency as above average. Since the late 20th century, his reputation declined, and in the 21st century his placement in rankings of presidents fell.\nEarly life and education\nAndrew Jackson was born on March 15, 1767, in the Waxhaws region of the Carolinas. His parents were Scots-Irish colonists Andrew Jackson and Elizabeth Hutchinson, Presbyterians who had emigrated from Ulster, Ireland, in 1765.[1] Jackson\'s father was born in Carrickfergus, County Antrim, around 1738,[2] and his ancestors had crossed into Northern Ireland from Scotland after the Battle of the Boyne in 1690.[3] Jackson had two older brothers who came with his parents from Ireland, Hugh (born 1763) and Robert (born 1764).[4][3] Elizabeth had a strong hatred of the British that she passed on to her sons.[5]\nJackson\'s exact birthplace is unclear. Jackson\'s father died at the age of 29 in February 1767, three weeks before his son Andrew was born.[4] Afterwards, Elizabeth and her three sons moved in with her sister and brother-in-law, Jane and James Crawford.[6] Jackson later stated that he was born on the Crawford plantation,[7] which is in Lancaster County, South Carolina, but second-hand evidence suggests that he might have been born at another uncle\'s home in North Carolina.[6]\nWhen Jackson was young, Elizabeth thought he might become a minister and paid to have him schooled by a local clergyman.[8] He learned to read, write, and work with numbers, and was exposed to Greek and Latin,[9] but he was too strong-willed and hot-tempered for the ministry.[6]\nRevolutionary War\nJackson and his older brothers, Hugh and Robert, served on the Patriot side against British forces during the American Revolutionary War. Hugh served under Colonel William Richardson Davie, dying from heat exhaustion after the Battle of Stono Ferry in June 1779.[10] After anti-British sentiment intensified in the Southern Colonies following the Battle of Waxhaws in May 1780, Elizabeth encouraged Andrew and Robert to participate in militia drills.[11] They served as couriers,[12] and were present at the Battle of Hanging Rock in August 1780.[13]\nAndrew and Robert were captured in April 1781 when the British occupied the home of a Crawford relative. A British officer demanded to have his boots polished. Andrew refused, and the officer slashed him with a sword, leaving him with scars on his left hand and head. Robert also refused and was struck a blow on the head.[14] The brothers were taken to a prisoner-of-war camp in Camden, South Carolina, where they became malnourished and contracted smallpox.[15] In late spring, the brothers were released to their mother in a prisoner exchange.[16] Robert died two days after arriving home, but Elizabeth was able to nurse Andrew back to health.[17] Once he recovered, Elizabeth volunteered to nurse American prisoners of war housed in British prison ships in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina.[18] She contracted cholera and died soon afterwards.[19] The war made Jackson an orphan at age 14[20] and increased his hatred for the values he associated with Britain, in particular aristocracy and political privilege.[21]\nEarly career\nLegal career and marriage\nAfter the American Revolutionary War, Jackson worked as a saddler,[22] briefly returned to school, and taught reading and writing to children.[23] In 1784, he left the Waxhaws region for Salisbury, North Carolina, where he studied law under attorney Spruce Macay.[24] He completed his training under John Stokes,[25] and was admitted to the North Carolina bar in September 1787.[26] Shortly thereafter, his friend John McNairy helped him get appointed as a prosecuting attorney in the Western District of North Carolina,[27] which would later become the state of Tennessee. While traveling to assume his new position, Jackson stopped in Jonesborough. While there, he bought his first slave, a woman who was around his age.[28] He also fought his first duel, accusing another lawyer, Waightstill Avery, of impugning his character. The duel ended with both men firing in the air.[29]\nJackson began his new career in the frontier town of Nashville in 1788 and quickly moved up in social status.[30] He became a protégé of William Blount, one of the most powerful men in the territory.[31] Jackson was appointed attorney general of the Mero District in 1791 and judge-advocate for the militia the following year.[32] He also got involved in land speculation,[33] eventually forming a partnership with fellow lawyer John Overton.[34] Their partnership mainly dealt with claims made under a "land grab" act of 1783 that opened Cherokee and Chickasaw territory to North Carolina\'s white residents.[35] Jackson also became a slave trader,[36] transporting enslaved people for the interregional slave market between Nashville and the Natchez District of Spanish West Florida via the Mississippi River and the Natchez Trace.[37]\nWhile boarding at the home of Rachel Stockly Donelson, the widow of John Donelson, Jackson became acquainted with their daughter, Rachel Donelson Robards. The younger Rachel was in an unhappy marriage with Captain Lewis Robards, and the two were separated by 1789.[38] After the separation, Jackson and Rachel became romantically involved,[39] living together as husband and wife.[40] Robards petitioned for divorce, which was granted in 1793 on the basis of Rachel\'s infidelity.[41] The couple legally married in January 1794.[42] In 1796, they acquired their first plantation, Hunter\'s Hill,[43] on 640 acres (260 ha) of land near Nashville.[44]\nEarly public career\nJackson became a member of the Democratic-Republican Party, the dominant party in Tennessee.[31] He was elected as a delegate to the Tennessee constitutional convention in 1796.[45] When Tennessee achieved statehood that year, he was elected to be its U.S. representative. In Congress, Jackson argued against the Jay Treaty, criticized George Washington for allegedly removing Democratic-Republicans from public office, and joined several other Democratic-Republican congressmen in voting against a resolution of thanks for Washington.[46] He advocated for the right of Tennesseans to militarily oppose Native American interests.[47] The state legislature elected him to be a U.S. senator in 1797, but he resigned after serving only six months.[48]\nIn early 1798, Governor John Sevier appointed Jackson to be a judge of the Tennessee Superior Court.[49] In 1802, he also became major general, or commander, of the Tennessee militia, a position that was determined by a vote of the militia\'s officers. The vote was tied between Jackson and Sevier, a popular Revolutionary War veteran and former governor, but the governor, Archibald Roane, broke the tie in Jackson\'s favor. Jackson later accused Sevier of fraud and bribery.[50] Sevier responded by impugning Rachel\'s honor, resulting in a shootout on a public street.[51] Soon afterwards, they met to duel, but parted without having fired at each other.[52]\nPlanting career and slavery\nJackson resigned his judgeship in 1804.[53] He had almost gone bankrupt when the land and mercantile speculations he had made on the basis of promissory notes fell apart in the wake of an earlier financial panic.[54] He had to sell Hunter\'s Hill, as well as 25,000 acres (10,000 ha) of land he bought for speculation and bought a smaller 420-acre (170 ha) plantation near Nashville that he would call the Hermitage.[55] He focused on recovering from his losses by becoming a successful planter and merchant.[55] The Hermitage grew to 1,000 acres (400 ha),[56] making it one of the largest cotton-growing plantations in the state.[53]\nLike most planters in the Southern United States, Jackson used slave labor. In 1804, Jackson had nine African American slaves; by 1820, he had over 100; and by his death in 1845, he had over 150.[57] Over his lifetime, he owned a total of 300 slaves.[58] Jackson subscribed to the paternalistic idea of slavery, which claimed that slave ownership was morally acceptable as long as slaves were treated with humanity and their basic needs were cared for.[59] In practice, slaves were treated as a form of wealth whose productivity needed to be protected.[60] Jackson directed harsh punishment for slaves who disobeyed or ran away.[61] For example, in an 1804 advertisement to recover a runaway slave, he offered "ten dollars extra, for every hundred lashes any person will give him" up to three hundred lashes—a number that would likely have been deadly.[61][62] Over time, his accumulation of wealth in both slaves and land placed him among the elite families of Tennessee.[63]\nDuel with Dickinson and adventure with Burr\nIn May 1806, Jackson fought a duel with Charles Dickinson. Their dispute started over payments for a forfeited horse race, escalating for six months until they agreed to the duel.[64] Dickinson fired first. The bullet hit Jackson in the chest, but shattered against his breastbone.[65] He returned fire and killed Dickinson. The killing tarnished Jackson\'s reputation.[66]\nLater that year, Jackson became involved in former vice president Aaron Burr\'s plan to conquer Spanish Florida and drive the Spanish from Texas. Burr, who was touring what was then the Western United States after mortally wounding Alexander Hamilton in a duel, stayed with the Jacksons at the Hermitage in 1805.[67] He eventually persuaded Jackson to join his adventure. In October 1806, Jackson wrote James Winchester that the United States "can conquer not only [Florida], but all Spanish North America".[68] He informed the Tennessee militia that it should be ready to march at a moment\'s notice "when the government and constituted authority of our country require it",[69] and agreed to provide boats and provisions for the expedition.[67] Jackson sent a letter to President Thomas Jefferson telling him that Tennessee was ready to defend the nation\'s honor.[70]\nJackson also expressed uncertainty about the enterprise. He warned the Governor of Louisiana William Claiborne and Tennessee Senator Daniel Smith that some of the people involved in the adventure might be intending to break away from the United States.[71] In December, Jefferson ordered Burr to be arrested for treason.[67] Jackson, safe from arrest because of his extensive paper trail, organized the militia to capture the conspirators.[72] He testified before a grand jury in 1807, implying that it was Burr\'s associate James Wilkinson who was guilty of treason, not Burr. Burr was acquitted of the charges.[73]\nMilitary career\nMilitary campaigns of Andrew Jackson | |\n|---|---|\nWar of 1812\nCreek War\nOn June 18, 1812, the United States declared war on the United Kingdom, launching the War of 1812.[74] Though the war was primarily caused by maritime issues,[75] it provided white American settlers on the southern frontier the opportunity to overcome Native American resistance to settlement, undermine British support of the Native American tribes,[76] and pry Florida from the Spanish Empire.[77]\nJackson immediately offered to raise volunteers for the war, but he was not called to duty until after the United States military was repeatedly defeated in the American Northwest. After these defeats, in January 1813, Jackson enlisted over 2,000 volunteers,[78] who were ordered to head to New Orleans to defend against a British attack.[79][80][81][82] When his forces arrived at Natchez, they were ordered to halt by General Wilkinson, the commander at New Orleans and the man Jackson accused of treason after the Burr adventure. A little later, Jackson received a letter from the Secretary of War, John Armstrong, stating that his volunteers were not needed,[83] and that they were to hand over any supplies to Wilkinson and disband.[84] Jackson refused to disband his troops; instead, he led them on the difficult march back to Nashville, earning the nickname "Hickory" (later "Old Hickory") for his toughness.[85]\nAfter returning to Nashville, Jackson and one of his colonels, John Coffee, got into a street brawl over honor with the brothers Jesse and Thomas Hart Benton. Nobody was killed, but Jackson received a gunshot in the shoulder that nearly killed him.[86]\nJackson had not fully recovered from his wounds when Governor Willie Blount called out the militia in September 1813 following the August Fort Mims Massacre.[87] The Red Sticks, a Creek Confederacy faction that had allied with Tecumseh, a Shawnee chief who was fighting with the British against the United States, killed about 250 militia men and civilians at Fort Mims in retaliation for an ambush by American militia at Burnt Corn Creek.[88]\nJackson\'s objective was to destroy the Red Sticks.[89] He headed south from Fayetteville, Tennessee, in October with 2,500 militia, establishing Fort Strother as his supply base.[90] He sent his cavalry under General Coffee ahead of the main force, destroying Red Stick villages and capturing supplies.[91][92] Coffee defeated a band of Red Sticks at the Battle of Tallushatchee on November 3, and Jackson defeated another band later that month at the Battle of Talladega.[93]\nBy January 1814, the expiration of enlistments and desertion had reduced Jackson\'s force by about 1,000 volunteers,[94] but he continued the offensive.[95] The Red Sticks counterattacked at the Battles of Emuckfaw and Enotachopo Creek. Jackson repelled them but was forced to withdraw to Fort Strother.[96] Jackson\'s army was reinforced by further recruitment and the addition of a regular army unit, the 39th U.S. Infantry Regiment. The combined force of 3,000 men—including Cherokee, Choctaw, and Creek allies—attacked a Red Stick fort at Horseshoe Bend on the Tallapoosa River, which was manned by about 1,000 men.[97] The Red Sticks were overwhelmed and massacred.[98] Almost all their warriors were killed, and nearly 300 women and children were taken prisoner and distributed to Jackson\'s Native American allies.[98] The victory broke the power of the Red Sticks.[99] Jackson continued his scorched-earth campaign of burning villages, destroying supplies,[99] and starving Red Stick women and children.[100] The campaign ended when William Weatherford, the Red Stick leader, surrendered,[101] although some Red Sticks fled to East Florida.[102]\nOn June 8, Jackson was appointed a brigadier general in the United States Army, and 10 days later was made a brevet major general with command of the Seventh Military District, which included Tennessee, Louisiana, the Mississippi Territory, and the Muscogee Creek Confederacy.[103] With President James Madison\'s approval, Jackson imposed the Treaty of Fort Jackson. The treaty required all Creek, including those who had remained allies, to surrender 23,000,000 acres (9,300,000 ha) of land to the United States.[104]\nJackson then turned his attention to the British and Spanish. He moved his forces to Mobile, Alabama, in August, accused the Spanish governor of West Florida, Mateo González Manrique, of arming the Red Sticks, and threatened to attack. The governor responded by inviting the British to land at Pensacola to defend it, which violated Spanish neutrality.[105] The British attempted to capture Mobile, but their invasion fleet was repulsed at Fort Bowyer.[106] Jackson then invaded Florida, defeating the Spanish and British forces at the Battle of Pensacola on November 7.[107] Afterwards, the Spanish surrendered, and the British withdrew. Weeks later, Jackson learned that the British were planning an attack on New Orleans, which was the gateway to the Lower Mississippi River and control of the American West.[108] He evacuated Pensacola, strengthened the garrison at Mobile,[109] and led his troops to New Orleans.[110]\nBattle of New Orleans\nJackson arrived in New Orleans on December 1, 1814.[111] There he instituted martial law because he worried about the loyalty of the city\'s Creole and Spanish inhabitants. He augmented his force by forming an alliance with Jean Lafitte\'s smugglers and raising units of free African Americans and Creek,[112] paying non-white volunteers the same salary as whites.[113] This gave Jackson a force of about 5,000 men when the British arrived.[114]\nThe British arrived in New Orleans in mid-December.[115] Admiral Alexander Cochrane was the overall commander of the operation;[116] General Edward Pakenham commanded the army of 10,000 soldiers, many of whom had served in the Napoleonic Wars.[117] As the British advanced up the east bank of the Mississippi River, Jackson constructed a fortified position to block them.[118] The climactic battle took place on January 8 when the British launched a frontal assault. Their troops made easy targets for the Americans protected by their parapets, and the attack ended in disaster.[119] The British suffered over 2,000 casualties (including Pakenham) to the Americans\' 60.[120]\nThe British decamped from New Orleans at the end of January, but they still remained a threat.[121] Jackson refused to lift martial law and kept the militia under arms. He approved the execution of six militiamen for desertion.[122] Some Creoles registered as French citizens with the French consul and demanded to be discharged from the militia due to their foreign nationality. Jackson then ordered all French citizens to leave the city within three days,[123] and had a member of the Louisiana legislature, Louis Louaillier, arrested when he wrote a newspaper article criticizing Jackson\'s continuation of martial law. U.S. District Court Judge Dominic A. Hall signed a writ of habeas corpus for Louaillier\'s release. Jackson had Hall arrested too. A military court ordered Louaillier\'s release, but Jackson kept him in prison and evicted Hall from the city.[124] Although Jackson lifted martial law when he received official word that the Treaty of Ghent, which ended the war with the British, had been signed,[125] his previous behavior tainted his reputation in New Orleans.[126]\nJackson\'s victory made him a national hero,[127] and on February 27, 1815, he was given the Thanks of Congress and awarded a Congressional Gold Medal.[128] Though the Treaty of Ghent had been signed in December 1814 before the Battle of New Orleans was fought,[129] Jackson\'s victory assured that the United States control of the region between Mobile and New Orleans would not be effectively contested by European powers. This control allowed the American government to ignore one of the articles in the treaty, which would have returned the Creek lands taken in the Treaty of Fort Jackson.[130]\nFirst Seminole War\nFollowing the war, Jackson remained in command of troops in the southern half of the United States and was permitted to make his headquarters at the Hermitage.[131] Appointed as Indian commissioner plenipotentiary, Jackson continued to displace the Native Americans in areas under his command.[132] Despite resistance from Secretary of the Treasury William Crawford, he negotiated and signed five treaties between 1816 and 1820 in which the Creek, Choctaw, Cherokee and Chickasaw ceded tens of millions of acres of land to the United States. These included the Treaty of Turkeytown, Treaty of Tuscaloosa, and the Treaty of Doak\'s Stand.[133][134]\nJackson soon became embroiled in conflict in Florida. The former British post at Prospect Bluff, which became known to Americans as "the Negro fort", remained occupied by more than a thousand former soldiers of the British Royal and Colonial Marines, escaped slaves, and various indigenous peoples.[135] It had become a magnet for escapees[135] and was seen as a threat to the property rights of American enslavers,[136] even a potential source of insurrection by enslaved people.[137] Jackson ordered Colonel Duncan Clinch to capture the fort in July 1816. He destroyed it and killed many of the garrison. Some survivors were enslaved while others fled into the wilderness of Florida.[138]\nWhite American settlers were in constant conflict with Native American people collectively known as the Seminoles, who straddled the border between the U.S. and Florida.[139] In December 1817, Secretary of War John C. Calhoun initiated the First Seminole War by ordering Jackson to lead a campaign "with full power to conduct the war as he may think best".[140] Jackson believed the best way to do this was to seize Florida from Spain once and for all. Before departing, Jackson wrote to President James Monroe, "Let it be signified to me through any channel ... that the possession of the Floridas would be desirable to the United States, and in sixty days it will be accomplished."[141]\nJackson invaded Florida, captured the Spanish fort of St. Marks, and occupied Pensacola. Seminole and Spanish resistance was effectively ended by May 1818. He also captured two British subjects, Robert Ambrister and Alexander Arbuthnot, who had been working with the Seminoles. After a brief trial, Jackson executed both of them, causing an international incident with the British. Jackson\'s actions polarized Monroe\'s cabinet. The occupied territories were returned to Spain.[142] Calhoun wanted him censured for violating the Constitution, since the United States had not declared war on Spain. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams defended him as he thought Jackson\'s occupation of Pensacola would lead Spain to sell Florida, which Spain did in the Adams–Onís Treaty of 1819.[143] In February 1819, a congressional investigation exonerated Jackson,[144] and his victory was instrumental in convincing the Seminoles to sign the Treaty of Moultrie Creek in 1823, which surrendered much of their land in Florida.[145]\nPresidential aspirations\nElection of 1824\nThe Panic of 1819, the United States\' first prolonged financial depression, caused Congress to reduce the military\'s size and abolish Jackson\'s generalship.[147] In compensation, Monroe made him the first territorial governor of Florida in 1821.[148] He served as the governor for two months, returning to the Hermitage in ill health.[149] During his convalescence, Jackson, who had been a Freemason since at least 1798, became the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Tennessee for 1822–1823.[150] Around this time, he also completed negotiations for Tennessee to purchase Chickasaw lands. This became known as the Jackson Purchase. Jackson, Overton, and another colleague had speculated in some of the land and used their portion to form the town of Memphis.[151]\nIn 1822, Jackson agreed to run in the 1824 presidential election, and he was nominated by the Tennessee legislature in July.[152] At the time, the Federalist Party had collapsed, and there were four major contenders for the Democratic-Republican Party nomination: William Crawford, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun. Jackson was intended to be a stalking horse candidate to prevent Tennessee\'s electoral votes from going to Crawford, who was seen as a Washington insider. Jackson unexpectedly garnered popular support outside of Tennessee and became a serious candidate.[147] He benefited from the expansion of suffrage among white males that followed the conclusion of the War of 1812.[153][154] He was a popular war hero whose reputation suggested he had the decisiveness and independence to bring reform to Washington.[155] He also was promoted as an outsider who stood for all the people, blaming banks for the country\'s depression.[156]\nDuring his presidential candidacy, Jackson reluctantly ran for one of Tennessee\'s U.S. Senate seats. Jackson\'s political managers William Berkeley Lewis and John Eaton convinced him that he needed to defeat incumbent John Williams, who opposed him. The legislature elected Jackson in October 1823.[157][158] He was attentive to his senatorial duties. He was appointed chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs but avoided debate or initiating legislation.[159] He used his time in the Senate to form alliances and make peace with old adversaries.[160] Eaton continued to campaign for Jackson\'s presidency, updating his biography and writing a series of widely circulated pseudonymous letters that portrayed Jackson as a champion of republican liberty.[161]\nDemocratic-Republican presidential nominees had historically been chosen by informal congressional nominating caucuses. In 1824, most of the Democratic-Republicans in Congress boycotted the caucus,[162] and the power to choose nominees was shifting to state nominating committees and legislatures.[163] Jackson was nominated by a Pennsylvania convention, making him not merely a regional candidate but the leading national contender.[164] When Jackson won the Pennsylvania nomination, Calhoun dropped out of the presidential race.[165] Afterwards, Jackson won the nomination in six other states and had a strong second-place finish in three others.[166]\nIn the presidential election, Jackson won a 42-percent plurality of the popular vote. More importantly, he won a plurality of electoral votes, receiving 99 votes from states in the South, West, and Mid-Atlantic. He was the only candidate to win states outside of his regional base: Adams dominated New England, Crawford won Virginia and Georgia, and Clay took three western states. Because no candidate had a majority of 131 electoral votes, the House of Representatives held a contingent election under the terms of the Twelfth Amendment. The amendment specifies that only the top three electoral vote-winners are eligible to be elected by the House, so Clay was eliminated from contention.[167] Clay, who was also Speaker of the House and presided over the election\'s resolution, saw a Jackson presidency as a disaster for the country.[168] Clay threw his support behind Adams, who won the contingent election on the first ballot. Adams appointed Clay as his Secretary of State, leading supporters of Jackson to accuse Clay and Adams of having struck a "corrupt bargain".[169] After the Congressional session concluded, Jackson resigned his Senate seat and returned to Tennessee.[170]\nElection of 1828 and death of Rachel Jackson\nAfter the election, Jackson\'s supporters formed a new party to undermine Adams and ensure he served only one term. Adams\'s presidency went poorly, and Adams\'s behavior undermined it. He was perceived as an intellectual elite who ignored the needs of the populace. He was unable to accomplish anything because Congress blocked his proposals.[171] In his First Annual Message to Congress, Adams stated that "we are palsied by the will of our constituents", which was interpreted as his being against representative democracy.[172] Jackson responded by championing the needs of ordinary citizens and declaring that "the voice of the people ... must be heard".[173]\nJackson was nominated for president by the Tennessee legislature in October 1825, more than three years before the 1828 election.[174] He gained powerful supporters in both the South and North, including Calhoun, who became Jackson\'s vice-presidential running mate, and New York Senator Martin Van Buren.[175] Meanwhile, Adams\'s support from the Southern states was eroded when he signed a tax on European imports, the Tariff of 1828, which was called the "Tariff of Abominations" by opponents, into law.[173] Jackson\'s victory in the presidential race was overwhelming. He won 56 percent of the popular vote and 68 percent of the electoral vote. The election ended the one-party system that had formed during the Era of Good Feelings as Jackson\'s supporters coalesced into the Democratic Party and the various groups who did not support him eventually formed the Whig Party.[176]\nThe political campaign was dominated by the personal abuse that partisans flung at both candidates.[177] Jackson was accused of being the son of an English prostitute and a mulatto,[178][179] and he was accurately labeled a slave trader who trafficked in human flesh.[180] A series of pamphlets known as the Coffin Handbills[181] accused him of having murdered 18 white men, including the soldiers he had executed for desertion and alleging that he stabbed a man in the back with his cane.[182][183] They stated that he had intentionally massacred Native American women and children at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, ate the bodies of Native Americans he killed in battle,[184][185] and threatened to cut off the ears of congressmen who questioned his behavior during the First Seminole War.[186]\nJackson and Rachel were accused of adultery for living together before her divorce was finalized,[187] and Rachel heard about the accusation.[188] She had been under stress throughout the election, and just as Jackson was preparing to head to Washington for his inauguration, she fell ill.[189] She did not live to see her husband become president, dying of a stroke or heart attack a few days later.[188] Jackson believed that the abuse from Adams\' supporters had hastened her death, stating at her funeral: "May God Almighty forgive her murderers, as I know she forgave them. I never can."[190]\nPresidency (1829–1837)\nInauguration\nJackson arrived in Washington, D.C., on February 11, and began forming his cabinet.[191] He chose Van Buren as Secretary of State, John Eaton as Secretary of War, Samuel D. Ingham as Secretary of Treasury, John Branch as Secretary of Navy, John M. Berrien as Attorney General, and William T. Barry as Postmaster General.[192] Jackson was inaugurated on March 4, 1829; Adams, who was embittered by his defeat, refused to attend.[193] Jackson was the first president-elect to take the oath of office on the East Portico of the U.S. Capitol.[194] In his inaugural address, he promised to protect the sovereignty of the states, respect the limits of the presidency, reform the government by removing disloyal or incompetent appointees, and observe a fair policy toward Native Americans.[195] Jackson invited the public to the White House, which was promptly overrun by well-wishers who caused minor damage to its furnishings. The spectacle earned him the nickname "King Mob".[196]\nReforms and rotation in office\nJackson believed that Adams\'s administration had been corrupt and he initiated investigations into all executive departments.[197] These investigations revealed that $280,000 (equivalent to $8,000,000 in 2023) was stolen from the Treasury. They also resulted in a reduction in costs to the Department of the Navy, saving $1 million (equivalent to $28,600,000 in 2023).[198] Jackson asked Congress to tighten laws on embezzlement and tax evasion, and he pushed for an improved government accounting system.[199]\nJackson implemented a principle he called "rotation in office". The previous custom had been for the president to leave the existing appointees in office, replacing them through attrition. Jackson enforced the Tenure of Office Act, an 1820 law that limited office tenure, authorized the president to remove current office holders, and appoint new ones.[200] During his first year in office, he removed about 10% of all federal employees[200] and replaced them with loyal Democrats.[201] Jackson argued that rotation in office reduced corruption[202] by making officeholders responsible to the popular will,[203] but it functioned as political patronage and became known as the spoils system.[204][202]\nPetticoat affair\nJackson spent much of his time during his first two and a half years in office dealing with what came to be known as the "Petticoat affair" or "Eaton affair".[205][206] The affair focused on Secretary of War Eaton\'s wife, Margaret. She had a reputation for being promiscuous, and like Rachel Jackson, she was accused of adultery. She and Eaton had been close before her first husband John Timberlake died, and they married nine months after his death.[207] With the exception of Barry\'s wife Catherine,[208] the cabinet members\' wives followed the lead of Vice-president Calhoun\'s wife Floride and refused to socialize with the Eatons.[209] Though Jackson defended Margaret, her presence split the cabinet, which had been so ineffective that he rarely called it into session,[192] and the ongoing disagreement led to its dissolution.[210]\nIn early 1831, Jackson demanded the resignations of all the cabinet members except Barry,[211] who would resign in 1835 when a Congressional investigation revealed his mismanagement of the Post Office.[212] Jackson tried to compensate Van Buren by appointing him the Minister to Great Britain, but Calhoun blocked the nomination with a tie-breaking vote against it.[211] Van Buren—along with newspaper editors Amos Kendall[213] and Francis Preston Blair[214]—would become regular participants in Jackson\'s Kitchen Cabinet, an unofficial, varying group of advisors that Jackson turned to for decision making even after he had formed a new official cabinet.[215]\nIndian Removal Act\nJackson\'s presidency marked the beginning of a national policy of Native American removal.[211] Before Jackson took office, the relationship between the southern states and the Native American tribes who lived within their boundaries was strained. The states felt that they had full jurisdiction over their territories; the native tribes saw themselves as autonomous nations that had a right to the land they lived on.[217] Significant portions of the five major tribes in the area then known as the Southwest—the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminoles— began to adopt white culture, including education, agricultural techniques, a road system, and rudimentary manufacturing.[218] In the case of the tensions between the state of Georgia and the Cherokee, Adams had tried to address the issue encouraging Cherokee emigration west of the Mississippi through financial incentives, but most refused.[219]\nIn the first days of Jackson\'s presidency, some southern states passed legislation extending state jurisdiction to Native American lands.[220] Jackson supported the states\' right to do so.[221][222] His position was later made clear in the 1832 Supreme Court test case of this legislation, Worcester v. Georgia. Georgia had arrested a group of missionaries for entering Cherokee territory without a permit; the Cherokee declared these arrests illegal. The court under Chief Justice John Marshall decided in favor of the Cherokee: imposition of Georgia law on the Cherokee was unconstitutional.[223] Horace Greeley alleges that when Jackson heard the ruling, he said, "Well, John Marshall has made his decision, but now let him enforce it."[224] Although the quote may be apocryphal, Jackson made it clear he would not use the federal government to enforce the ruling.[225][226][227]\nJackson used the power of the federal government to enforce the separation of Indigenous tribes and whites.[228] In May 1830, Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act, which Congress had narrowly passed.[229] It gave the president the right to negotiate treaties to buy tribal lands in the eastern part of the United States in exchange for lands set aside for Native Americans west of the Mississippi,[230] as well as broad discretion on how to use the federal funds allocated to the negotiations.[231] The law was supposed to be a voluntary relocation program, but it was not implemented as one. Jackson\'s administration often achieved agreement to relocate through bribes, fraud and intimidation,[232] and the leaders who signed the treaties often did not represent the entire tribe.[233] The relocations could be a source of misery too: the Choctaw relocation was rife with corruption, theft, and mismanagement that brought great suffering to that people.[234]\nIn 1830, Jackson personally negotiated with the Chickasaw, who quickly agreed to move.[235] In the same year, Choctaw leaders signed the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek; the majority did not want the treaty but complied with its terms.[236] In 1832, Seminole leaders signed the Treaty of Payne\'s Landing, which stipulated that the Seminoles would move west and become part of the Muscogee Creek Confederacy if they found the new land suitable.[237] Most Seminoles refused to move, leading to the Second Seminole War in 1835 that lasted six years.[233] Members of the Muscogee Creek Confederacy ceded their land to the state of Alabama in the Treaty of Cusseta of 1832. Their private ownership of the land was to be protected, but the federal government did not enforce this. The government did encourage voluntary removal until the Creek War of 1836, after which almost all Creek were removed to Oklahoma territory.[238] In 1836, Cherokee leaders ceded their land to the government by the Treaty of New Echota.[239] Their removal, known as the Trail of Tears, was enforced by Jackson\'s successor, Van Buren.[240]\nJackson also applied the removal policy in the Northwest. He was not successful in removing the Iroquois Confederacy in New York, but when some members of the Meskwaki (Fox) and the Sauk triggered the Black Hawk War by trying to cross back to the east side of the Mississippi, the peace treaties ratified after their defeat reduced their lands further.[241]\nDuring his administration, he made about 70 treaties with American Indian tribes. He had removed almost all the Native Americans east of the Mississippi and south of Lake Michigan, about 70,000 people, from the United States;[242] though it was done at the cost of thousands of Native American lives lost because of the unsanitary conditions and epidemics arising from their dislocation, as well as their resistance to expulsion.[243] Jackson\'s implementation of the Indian Removal Act contributed to his popularity with his constituency. He added over 170,000 square miles of land to the public domain, which primarily benefited the United States\' agricultural interests. The act also benefited small farmers, as Jackson allowed them to purchase moderate plots at low prices and offered squatters on land formerly belonging to Native Americans the option to purchase it before it was offered for sale to others.[244]\nNullification crisis\nJackson had to confront another challenge that had been building up since the beginning of his first term. The Tariff of 1828, which had been passed in the last year of Adams\' administration, set a protective tariff at a very high rate to prevent the manufacturing industries in the Northern states from having to compete with lower-priced imports from Britain.[245] The tariff reduced the income of southern cotton planters: it propped up consumer prices, but not the price of cotton, which had severely declined in the previous decade.[246] Immediately after the tariff\'s passage, the South Carolina Exposition and Protest was sent to the U.S. Senate.[247] This document, which had been anonymously written by John C. Calhoun, asserted that the constitution was a compact of individual states[248] and when the federal government went beyond its delegated duties, such as enacting a protective tariff, a state had a right to declare this action unconstitutional and make the act null and void within the borders of that state.[249]\nJackson suspected Calhoun of writing the Exposition and Protest and opposed his interpretation. Jackson argued that Congress had full authority to enact tariffs and that a dissenting state was denying the will of the majority.[250] He also needed the tariff, which generated 90% of the federal revenue,[251] to achieve another of his presidential goals, eliminating the national debt.[252] The issue developed into a personal rivalry between the two men. For example, during a celebration of Thomas Jefferson\'s birthday on April 13, 1830, the attendees gave after-dinner toasts. Jackson toasted: "Our federal Union: It must be preserved!" – a clear challenge to nullification. Calhoun, whose toast immediately followed, rebutted: "The Union: Next to our Liberty, the most dear!"[253]\nAs a compromise, Jackson supported the Tariff of 1832, which reduced the duties from the Tariff of 1828 by almost half. The bill was signed on July 9, but failed to satisfy extremists on either side.[254] On November 24, South Carolina had passed the Ordinance of Nullification,[255] declaring both tariffs null and void and threatening to secede from the United States if the federal government tried to use force to collect the duties.[256][257] In response, Jackson sent warships to Charleston harbor, and threatened to hang any man who worked to support nullification or secession.[258] On December 10, he issued a proclamation against the "nullifiers",[259] condemning nullification as contrary to the Constitution\'s letter and spirit, rejecting the right of secession, and declaring that South Carolina stood on "the brink of insurrection and treason".[260] On December 28, Calhoun, who had been elected to the U.S. Senate, resigned as vice president.[261]\nJackson asked Congress to pass a "Force Bill" authorizing the military to enforce the tariff. It was attacked by Calhoun as despotism.[262] Meanwhile, Calhoun and Clay began to work on a new compromise tariff. Jackson saw it as an effective way to end the confrontation but insisted on the passage of the Force Bill before he signed.[263] On March 2, he signed into law the Force Bill and the Tariff of 1833. The South Carolina Convention then met and rescinded its nullification ordinance but nullified the Force Bill in a final act of defiance.[264] Two months later, Jackson reflected on South Carolina\'s nullification: "the tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question".[265]\nBank War and Election of 1832\nBank veto\nA few weeks after his inauguration, Jackson started looking into how he could replace the Second Bank of the United States.[266] The Bank had been chartered by President Madison in 1816 to restore the United States economy after the War of 1812. Monroe had appointed Nicholas Biddle as the Bank\'s executive.[267] The Bank was a repository for the country\'s public monies which also serviced the national debt; it was formed as a for-profit entity that looked after the concerns of its shareholders.[268] In 1828, the country was prosperous[269] and the currency was stable,[270] but Jackson saw the Bank as a fourth branch of government run by an elite,[266] what he called the "money power" that sought to control the labor and earnings of the "real people", who depend on their own efforts to succeed: the planters, farmers, mechanics, and laborers.[271] Additionally, Jackson\'s own near bankruptcy in 1804 due to credit-fuelled land speculation had biased him against paper money and toward a policy favorable to hard money.[272]\nIn his First Annual Address in December 1829, Jackson openly challenged the Bank by questioning its constitutionality and the soundness of its money.[273] Jackson\'s supporters further alleged that it gave preferential loans to speculators and merchants over artisans and farmers, that it used its money to bribe congressmen and the press, and that it had ties with foreign creditors. Biddle responded to Jackson\'s challenge in early 1830 by using the Bank\'s vast financial holding to ensure the Bank\'s reputation, and his supporters argued that the Bank was the key to prosperity and stable commerce. By the time of the 1832 election, Biddle had spent over $250,000 (equivalent to $7,630,000 in 2023) in printing pamphlets, lobbying for pro-Bank legislation, hiring agents and giving loans to editors and congressmen.[274]\nOn the surface, Jackson\'s and Biddle\'s positions did not appear irreconcilable. Jackson seemed open to keeping the Bank if it could include some degree of Federal oversight, limit its real estate holdings, and have its property subject to taxation by the states.[275] Many of Jackson\'s cabinet members thought a compromise was possible. In 1831, Treasury Secretary Louis McLane told Biddle that Jackson was open to chartering a modified version of the Bank, but Biddle did not consult Jackson directly. Privately, Jackson expressed opposition to the Bank;[276] publicly, he announced that he would leave the decision concerning the Bank in the hands of the people.[277] Biddle was finally convinced to take open action by Henry Clay, who had decided to run for president against Jackson in the 1832 election. Biddle would agree to seek renewal of the charter two years earlier than scheduled. Clay argued that Jackson was in a bind. If he vetoed the charter, he would lose the votes of his pro-Bank constituents in Pennsylvania; but if he signed the charter, he would lose his anti-Bank constituents. After the recharter bill was passed, Jackson vetoed it on July 10, 1832, arguing that the country should not surrender the will of the majority to the desires of the wealthy.[278]\nElection of 1832\nThe 1832 presidential election demonstrated the rapid development of political parties during Jackson\'s presidency. The Democratic Party\'s first national convention, held in Baltimore, nominated Jackson\'s choice for vice president, Martin Van Buren. The National Republican Party, which had held its first convention in Baltimore earlier in December 1831, nominated Clay, now a senator from Kentucky, and John Sergeant of Pennsylvania.[279] An Anti-Masonic Party, with a platform built around opposition to Freemasonry,[280] supported neither Jackson nor Clay, who both were Masons. The party nominated William Wirt of Maryland and Amos Ellmaker of Pennsylvania.[281]\nIn addition to the votes Jackson would lose because of the bank veto, Clay hoped that Jackson\'s Indian Removal Act would alienate voters in the East; but Jackson\'s losses were offset by the Act\'s popularity in the West and Southwest. Clay had also expected that Jackson would lose votes because of his stand on internal improvements.[282] Jackson had vetoed the Maysville Road bill, which funded an upgrade of a section of the National Road in Clay\'s state of Kentucky; Jackson had argued it was unconstitutional to fund internal improvements using national funds for local projects.[283]\nClay\'s strategy failed. Jackson was able to mobilize the Democratic Party\'s strong political networks.[284] The Northeast supported Jackson because he was in favor of maintaining a stiff tariff; the West supported him because the Indian Removal Act reduced the number of Native Americans in the region and made available more public land.[285] Except for South Carolina, which passed the Ordinance of Nullification during the election month and refused to support any party by giving its votes to the future Governor of Virginia John B. Floyd,[286] the South supported Jackson for implementing the Indian Removal Act, as well as for his willingness to compromise by signing the Tariff of 1832.[287] Jackson won the election by a landslide, receiving 55 percent of the popular vote and 219 electoral votes.[284]\nRemoval of deposits and censure\nJackson saw his victory as a mandate to continue his war on the Bank\'s control over the national economy.[288] In 1833, Jackson signed an executive order ending the deposit of Treasury receipts in the bank.[289] When Secretary of the Treasury McLane refused to execute the order, Jackson replaced him with William J. Duane, who also refused. Jackson then appointed Roger B. Taney as acting secretary, who implemented Jackson\'s policy.[290] With the loss of federal deposits, the Bank had to contract its credit.[291] Biddle used this contraction to create an economic downturn in an attempt to get Jackson to compromise. Biddle wrote, "Nothing but the evidence of suffering abroad will produce any effect in Congress."[292] The attempt did not succeed: the economy recovered and Biddle was blamed for the recession.[293]\nJackson\'s actions led those who disagreed with him to form the Whig Party. They claimed to oppose Jackson\'s expansion of executive power, calling him "King Andrew the First", and naming their party after the English Whigs who opposed the British monarchy in the 17th century.[294] In March 1834, the Senate censured Jackson for inappropriately taking authority for the Treasury Department when it was the responsibility of Congress and refused to confirm Taney\'s appointment as secretary of the treasury.[295] In April, however, the House declared that the bank should not be rechartered. By July 1836, the Bank no longer held any federal deposits.[296]\nJackson had Federal funds deposited into state banks friendly to the administration\'s policies, which critics called pet banks.[297] The number of these state banks more than doubled during Jackson\'s administration,[290] and investment patterns changed. The Bank, which had been the federal government\'s fiscal agent, invested heavily in trade and financed interregional and international trade. State banks were more responsive to state governments and invested heavily in land development, land speculation, and state public works projects.[298] In spite of the efforts of Taney\'s successor, Levi Woodbury, to control them, the pet banks expanded their loans, helping to create a speculative boom in the final years of Jackson\'s administration.[299]\nIn January 1835, Jackson paid off the national debt, the only time in U.S. history that it had been accomplished.[300][301] It was paid down through tariff revenues,[284] carefully managing federal funding of internal improvements like roads and canals,[302] and the sale of public lands.[303] Between 1834 and 1836, the government had an unprecedented spike in land sales:[304] At its peak in 1836, the profits from land sales were eight to twelve times higher than a typical year.[305] During Jackson\'s presidency, 63 million acres of public land—about the size of the state of Oklahoma—was sold.[306] After Jackson\'s term expired in 1837, a Democrat-majority Senate expunged Jackson\'s censure.[307][308]\nPanic of 1837\nDespite the economic boom following Jackson\'s victory in the Bank War, land speculation in the west caused the Panic of 1837.[309] Jackson\'s transfer of federal monies to state banks in 1833 caused western banks to relax their lending standards;[310] the Indian Removal Act made large amounts of former Native American lands available for purchase and speculation.[311] Two of Jackson\'s acts in 1836 contributed to the Panic of 1837. One was the Specie Circular, which mandated western lands only be purchased by money backed by specie. The act was intended to stabilize the economy by reducing speculation on credit, but it caused a drain of gold and silver from the Eastern banks to the Western banks to address the needs of financing land transactions.[312] The other was the Deposit and Distribution Act, which transferred federal monies from eastern to western state banks. Together, they left Eastern banks unable to pay specie to the British when they recalled their loans to address their economic problems in international trade.[313] The panic drove the U.S. economy into a depression that lasted until 1841.[309]\nPhysical assault and assassination attempt\nJackson was the first president to be subjected to both a physical assault and an assassination attempt.[314] On May 6, 1833, Robert B. Randolph struck Jackson in the face with his hand because Jackson had ordered Randolph\'s dismissal from the navy for embezzlement. Jackson declined to press charges.[315] While Jackson was leaving the United States Capitol on January 30, 1835, Richard Lawrence, an unemployed house painter from England, aimed a pistol at him, which misfired. Lawrence pulled out a second pistol, which also misfired. Jackson attacked Lawrence with his cane until others intervened to restrain Lawrence, who was later found not guilty by reason of insanity and institutionalized.[316][317]\nSlavery\nDuring Jackson\'s presidency, slavery remained a minor political issue.[318] Though federal troops were used to crush Nat Turner\'s slave rebellion in 1831,[319] Jackson ordered them withdrawn immediately afterwards despite the petition of local citizens for them to remain for protection.[320] Jackson considered the issue too divisive to the nation and to the delicate alliances of the Democratic Party.[321]\nJackson\'s view was challenged when the American Anti-Slavery Society agitated for abolition[322] by sending anti-slavery tracts through the postal system into the South in 1835.[321] Jackson condemned these agitators as "monsters"[323] who should atone with their lives[324] because they were attempting to destroy the Union by encouraging sectionalism.[325] The act provoked riots in Charleston, and pro-slavery Southerners demanded that the postal service ban distribution of the materials. To address the issue, Jackson authorized that the tracts could be sent only to subscribers, whose names could be made publicly accountable.[326] That December, Jackson called on Congress to prohibit the circulation through the South of "incendiary publications intended to instigate the slaves to insurrection".[327]\nForeign affairs\nThe Jackson administration successfully negotiated a trade agreement with Siam, the first Asian country to form a trade agreement with the U.S. The administration also made trade agreements with Great Britain, Spain, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire.[329]\nIn his First Annual Message to Congress, Jackson addressed the issues of spoliation claims, demands of compensation for the capture of American ships and sailors by foreign nations during the Napoleonic Wars.[330] Using a combination of bluster and tact, he successfully settled these claims with Denmark, Portugal, and Spain,[329] but he had difficulty collecting spoliation claims from France, which was unwilling to pay an indemnity agreed to in an earlier treaty. Jackson asked Congress in 1834 to authorize reprisals against French property if the country failed to make payment, as well as to arm for defense.[330] In response, France put its Caribbean fleet on a wartime footing.[331] Both sides wanted to avoid a conflict, but the French wanted an apology for Jackson\'s belligerence. In his 1835 Annual Message to the Congress, Jackson asserted that he refused to apologize, but stated that he did not intend to "menace or insult the Government of France".[332] The French were assuaged and agreed to pay $5,000,000 (equivalent to $147,677,400 in 2023) to settle the claims.[333]\nSince the early 1820s, large numbers of Americans had been immigrating into Texas, a territory of the newly independent nation of Mexico.[334] As early as 1824, Jackson had supported acquiring the region for the United States.[335] In 1829, he attempted to purchase it, but Mexico did not want to sell. By 1830, there were twice as many settlers from the United States as from Mexico, leading to tensions with the Mexican government that started the Texas Revolution. During the conflict, Jackson covertly allowed the settlers to obtain weapons and money from the United States.[336] They defeated the Mexican military in April 1836 and declared the region an independent country, the Republic of Texas. The new Republic asked Jackson to recognize and annex it. Although Jackson wanted to do so, he was hesitant because he was unsure it could maintain independence from Mexico.[329] He also was concerned because Texas had legalized slavery, which was an issue that could divide the Democrats during the 1836 election. Jackson recognized the Republic of Texas on the last full day of his presidency, March 3, 1837.[337]\nJudiciary\nJackson appointed six justices to the Supreme Court.[338] Most were undistinguished. Jackson nominated Roger B. Taney in January 1835 to the Court in reward for his services, but the nomination failed to win Senate approval.[339]\nWhen Chief Justice Marshall died in 1835, Jackson again nominated Taney for Chief Justice; he was confirmed by the new Senate,[340] serving as Chief Justice until 1864.[341] He was regarded with respect during his career on the bench, but he is most remembered for his widely condemned decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford.[342] On the last day of his presidency, Jackson signed the Judiciary Act of 1837,[343] which created two new Supreme Court seats and reorganized the federal circuit courts.[344]\nStates admitted to the Union\nTwo new states were admitted into the Union during Jackson\'s presidency: Arkansas (June 15, 1836) and Michigan (January 26, 1837). Both states increased Democratic power in Congress and helped Van Buren win the presidency in 1836, as new states tended to support the party that had done the most to admit them.[345]\nLater life and death (1837–1845)\nJackson\'s presidency ended on March 4, 1837. Jackson left Washington, D.C., three days later, retiring to the Hermitage in Nashville, where he remained influential in national and state politics.[346] To reduce the inflation caused by the Panic of 1837, Jackson supported an Independent Treasury system that would restrict the government from printing paper money and require it to hold its money in silver and gold.[347]\nDuring the 1840 presidential election,[348] Jackson campaigned for Van Buren in Tennessee, but Van Buren had become unpopular during the continuing depression. The Whig Party nominee, William Henry Harrison, won the election using a campaign style similar to that of the Democrats: Van Buren was depicted as an uncaring aristocrat, while Harrison\'s war record was glorified, and he was portrayed as a man of the people.[349] Harrison won the 1840 election and the Whigs captured majorities in both houses of Congress,[350] but Harrison died a month into his term, and was replaced by his vice president, former Democrat John Tyler. Jackson was encouraged because Tyler was not bound to party loyalties and praised him when he vetoed two Whig-sponsored bills to establish a new national bank in 1841.[351]\nJackson lobbied for the annexation of Texas. He was concerned that the British could use it as a base to threaten the United States[352] and insisted that it was part of the Louisiana Purchase.[353] Tyler signed a treaty of annexation in April 1844, but it became associated with the expansion of slavery and was not ratified. Van Buren, who had been Jackson\'s preferred candidate for the Democratic Party in the 1844 presidential election, had opposed annexation. Disappointed by Van Buren, Jackson convinced fellow Tennessean James K. Polk, who was then set to be Van Buren\'s running mate, to run as the Democratic Party\'s presidential nominee instead. Polk defeated Van Buren for the nomination and won the general election against Jackson\'s old enemy, Henry Clay. Meanwhile, the Senate passed a bill to annex Texas, and it was signed on March 1, 1845.[354]\nJackson died of dropsy, tuberculosis, and heart failure[355] at 78 years of age on June 8, 1845. His deathbed was surrounded by family, friends, and slaves, and he was recorded to have said, "Do not cry; I hope to meet you all in Heaven—yes, all in Heaven, white and black."[356] He was buried in the same tomb as his wife Rachel.[357]\nPersonal life\nFamily\nJackson and Rachel had no children together but adopted Andrew Jackson Jr., the son of Rachel\'s brother Severn Donelson. The Jacksons acted as guardians for Samuel Donelson\'s children: John Samuel, Daniel Smith Donelson, and Andrew Jackson Donelson. They were also guardians for A. J. Hutchings, Rachel\'s orphaned grandnephew, and the orphaned children of a friend, Edward Butler—Caroline, Eliza, Edward, and Anthony—who lived with the Jacksons after their father died.[358] There were also three Indigenous members of Jackson\'s household: Lyncoya,[359] Theodore,[360] and Charley.[361]\nFor the only time in U.S. history, two women acted simultaneously as unofficial first lady for the widower Jackson. Rachel\'s niece Emily Donelson was married to Andrew Jackson Donelson (who acted as Jackson\'s private secretary) and served as hostess at the White House. The president and Emily became estranged for over a year during the Petticoat affair, but they eventually reconciled and she resumed her duties as White House hostess. Sarah Yorke Jackson, the wife of Andrew Jackson Jr., became co-hostess of the White House in 1834, and took over all hostess duties after Emily died from tuberculosis in 1836.[362]\nTemperament\nJackson had a reputation for being short-tempered and violent,[363] which terrified his opponents.[364] He was able to use his temper strategically to accomplish what he wanted.[365] He could keep it in check when necessary: his behavior was friendly and urbane when he went to Washington as senator during the campaign leading up to the 1824 election. According to Van Buren, he remained calm in times of difficulty and made his decisions deliberatively.[366]\nHe had the tendency to take things personally. If someone crossed him, he would often become obsessed with crushing them.[367] For example, on the last day of his presidency, Jackson declared he had only two regrets: that he had not shot Henry Clay or hanged John C. Calhoun.[368] He also had a strong sense of loyalty. He considered threats to his friends as threats to himself, but he demanded unquestioning loyalty in return.[369]\nJackson was self-confident,[370] without projecting a sense of self-importance.[371] This self-confidence gave him the ability to persevere in the face of adversity.[372] Once he decided on a plan of action, he would adhere to it.[373] His reputation for being both quick-tempered and confident worked to his advantage;[374] it misled opponents to see him as simple and direct, leading them to often understimate his political shrewdness.[375]\nReligious faith\nIn 1838, Jackson became an official member of the First Presbyterian Church in Nashville.[376] Both his mother and his wife had been devout Presbyterians all their lives, but Jackson stated that he had postponed officially entering the church until after his retirement to avoid accusations that he had done so for political reasons.[377]\nLegacy\nJackson\'s legacy is controversial and polarizing.[378][379][380] His contemporary, Alexis de Tocqueville, depicted him as the spokesperson of the majority and their passions.[381] He has been variously described as a frontiersman personifying the independence of the American West,[382] a slave-owning member of the Southern gentry,[383] and a populist who promoted faith in the wisdom of the ordinary citizen.[384] He has been represented as a statesman who substantially advanced the spirit of democracy,[385] and upheld the foundations of American constitutionalism,[386] as well as an autocratic demagogue who crushed political opposition and trampled the law.[387]\nIn the 1920s, Jackson\'s rise to power became associated with the idea of the "common man".[388] This idea defined the age as a populist rejection of social elites and a vindication of every person\'s value independent of class and status.[389] Jackson was seen as its personification,[390] an individual free of societal constraints who can achieve great things.[391] In 1945, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.\'s influential Age of Jackson redefined Jackson\'s legacy through the lens of Franklin D. Roosevelt\'s New Deal,[392] describing the common man as a member of the working class struggling against exploitation by business concerns.[393]\nIn the 21st century, Jackson\'s Indian Removal Act has been described as ethnic cleansing,[394] the use of force, terror and violence to make an area ethnically homogeneous.[395] To achieve the goal of separating Native Americans from the whites,[396] coercive force such as threats and bribes were used to effect removal[397] and unauthorized military force was used when there was resistance,[232] as in the case of the Second Seminole War.[398] The act has been discussed in the context of genocide,[399] and its role in the long-term destruction of Native American societies and their cultures continues to be debated.[400]\nJackson\'s legacy has been variously used by later presidents. Abraham Lincoln referenced Jackson\'s ideas when negotiating the challenges to the Union that he faced during 1861, including Jackson\'s understanding of the constitution during the nullification crisis and the president\'s right to interpret the constitution.[401] Franklin D. Roosevelt used Jackson to redefine the Democratic Party, describing him as a defender of the exploited and downtrodden and as a fighter for social justice and human rights.[402][403] The members of the Progressive Party of 1948 to 1955 saw themselves as the heirs to Jackson.[404] Donald Trump used Jackson\'s legacy to present himself as the president of the common man,[405] praising Jackson for saving the country from a rising aristocracy and protecting American workers with a tariff.[406] In 2016, President Barack Obama\'s administration announced it was removing Jackson\'s portrait from the $20 bill and replacing it with one of Harriet Tubman.[407] Though the plan was put on hold during Trump\'s presidency, President Joe Biden\'s administration resumed it in 2021.[408]\nJackson was historically rated highly as a president, but his reputation began to decline in the 1960s.[409][410] His contradictory legacy is shown in scholarly rankings. A 2014 survey of political scientists rated Jackson as the ninth-highest rated president but the third-most polarizing. He was also ranked the third-most overrated president.[411] In a C-SPAN poll of historians, Jackson was ranked the 13th in 2009, 18th in 2017, and 22nd in 2021.[412]\nWritings\n- Feller, Daniel; Coens, Thomas; Moss, Laura-Eve; Moser, Harold D.; Alexander, Erik B.; Smith, Sam B.; Owsley, Harriet C.; Hoth, David R; Hoemann, George H.; McPherson, Sharon; Clift, J. Clint; Wells, Wyatt C., eds. (1980–2019). The Papers of Andrew Jackson. University of Tennessee. (11 volumes to date; 17 volumes projected). Ongoing project to print all of Jackson\'s papers.\n- Bassett, John S., ed. (1926–1935). Correspondence of Andrew Jackson. Carnegie Institution. (7 volumes; 2 available online).\n- Richardson, James D., ed. (1897). "Andrew Jackson". Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents. Vol. III. Bureau of National Literature and Art. pp. 996–1359. Reprints Jackson\'s major messages and reports.\nSee also\n- List of presidents of the United States\n- List of presidents of the United States by previous experience\n- List of presidents of the United States who owned slaves\nNotes\n- ^ Vice President Calhoun resigned from office. As this was prior to the adoption of the Twenty-fifth Amendment in 1967, a vacancy in the office of vice president was not filled until the next ensuing election and inauguration.\nReferences\n- ^ Brands 2005, pp. 11–15.\n- ^ Gullan 2004, pp. xii, 308.\n- ^ a b Remini 1977, p. 2.\n- ^ a b Nowlan 2012, p. 257.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, p. 11.\n- ^ a b c Brands 2005, p. 16.\n- ^ Remini 1977, pp. 4–5.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 16.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 6.\n- ^ Booraem 2001, p. 47.\n- ^ Remini 1977, pp. 15.\n- ^ Brands 2005, p. 24.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 17.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, p. 12; Remini 1977, p. 21.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 15.\n- ^ Booraem 2001, p. 104.\n- ^ Remini 1977, pp. 23–24.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 17.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 24.\n- ^ Brands 2005, pp. 30–31.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 9.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 27.\n- ^ Booraem 2001, pp. 133, 136.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 29.\n- ^ Brands 2005, p. 37.\n- ^ Case, Steven (2009). "Andrew Jackson". State Library of North Carolina. Archived from the original on June 18, 2017. Retrieved July 20, 2017.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 34.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 37.\n- ^ Booraem 2001, pp. 190–191.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 18.\n- ^ a b Wilentz 2005, p. 19.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 53.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 87.\n- ^ Clifton 1952, p. 24.\n- ^ Durham 1990, pp. 218–219.\n- ^ Cheathem 2011, p. 327.\n- ^ Remini 1991, p. 35.\n- ^ Owsley 1977, pp. 481–482.\n- ^ Brands 2005, p. 63.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, pp. 22–23.\n- ^ Howe 2007, p. 277; Remini 1977, p. 62.\n- ^ Brands 2005, p. 65.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 68.\n- ^ Brands 2005, p. 73.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, pp. 18–19.\n- ^ Remini 1977, pp. 92–94.\n- ^ Brands 2005, pp. 79–81.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 112.\n- ^ Ely 1981, pp. 144–145.\n- ^ Brands 2005, pp. 104–105.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, p. 25.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 123.\n- ^ a b Wilentz 2005, p. 21.\n- ^ Howe 2007, p. 375; Sellers 1954, pp. 76–77.\n- ^ a b Remini 1977, pp. 131–132.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 379.\n- ^ "Andrew Jackson\'s Enslaved Laborers". The Hermitage. Archived from the original on September 12, 2014. Retrieved April 13, 2017.\n- ^ "Enslaved Families: Understanding the Enslaved Families at the Hermitage". thehermitage.com. Archived from the original on June 18, 2022. Retrieved August 23, 2022.\n- ^ Warshauer 2006, p. 224.\n- ^ Cheathem 2011, p. 328–329.\n- ^ a b Feller, Daniel; Mullin, Marsha (August 1, 2019). "The Enslaved Household of President Andrew Jackson". White House Historical Association.\n- ^ Brown, DeNeen L. (May 1, 2017). "Hunting down runaway slaves: The cruel ads of Andrew Jackson and \'the master class\'". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 11, 2017.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, p. 35.\n- ^ Moser & Macpherson 1984, pp. 78–79.\n- ^ Brands 2005, p. 138.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 143.\n- ^ a b c Meacham 2008, p. 27.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 149.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 148.\n- ^ Brands 2005, p. 120.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 151.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 153.\n- ^ Brands 2005, p. 127–128.\n- ^ Hickey 1989, p. 46.\n- ^ Hickey 1989, p. 72.\n- ^ Brands 2005, p. 175.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 166.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 173.\n- ^ Brands 2005, p. 179.\n- ^ "General orders .... Andrew Jackson. Major-General 2d Division, Tennessee. November 24, 1812". Jackson Papers, LOC. Retrieved June 27, 2017.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, pp. 23–25.\n- ^ Jackson, Andrew (January 10, 1813). "Journal of trip down the Mississippi River, January 1813 to March 1813". Jackson Papers, LOC. Retrieved July 3, 2017.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, pp. 22–23.\n- ^ Brands 2005, p. 184.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, p. 23.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 23.\n- ^ Owsley 1981, pp. 61–62.\n- ^ Davis 2002, pp. 631–632; Owsley 1981, pp. 38–39.\n- ^ Owsley 1981, p. 40.\n- ^ Remini 1977, pp. 192–193.\n- ^ Brands 2005, p. 197.\n- ^ Owsley 1981, pp. 63–64.\n- ^ Remini 1977, pp. 196–197.\n- ^ Owsley 1981, pp. 72–73.\n- ^ Kanon 1999, p. 4.\n- ^ Owsley 1981, pp. 75–76.\n- ^ Owsley 1981, p. 79.\n- ^ a b Kanon 1999, p. 4–10.\n- ^ a b Owsley 1981, p. 81.\n- ^ Brands 2005, p. 220.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, pp. 27.\n- ^ Owsley 1981, p. 87.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 222.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 26.\n- ^ Remini 1977, pp. 236–237.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 238.\n- ^ Owsley 1981, pp. 116–117.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 28.\n- ^ Owsley 1981, p. 118.\n- ^ Remini 1977, pp. 244–245.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 247.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 29.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 254.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 274.\n- ^ Owsley 1981, p. 138.\n- ^ Owsley 1981, pp. 134, 136.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, pp. 29–30.\n- ^ Remini 1977, pp. 268–269.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, pp. 31–32.\n- ^ "Battle of New Orleans Facts & Summary". American Battlefield Trust. Archived from the original on July 8, 2018.\n- ^ Owsley 1981, p. 169.\n- ^ Tregle 1981, p. 337.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 309.\n- ^ Tregle 1981, pp. 377–378.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 312.\n- ^ Tregle 1981, p. 378–379.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, pp. 29–33.\n- ^ "Andrew Jackson". Biographical Directory of the U.S. Congress. Archived from the original on December 18, 2013. Retrieved April 13, 2017.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, p. 32.\n- ^ Owsley 1981, pp. 178–179.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 321.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 322, 325–326.\n- ^ Clark & Guice 1996, pp. 233–243.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 36.\n- ^ a b Wright 1968, p. 569.\n- ^ Porter 1951, pp. 261–262.\n- ^ Missall & Missall 2004, p. 26.\n- ^ Missall & Missall 2004, pp. 28–30.\n- ^ Missall & Missall 2004, pp. 32–33.\n- ^ Mahon 1998, p. 64.\n- ^ Ogg 1919, p. 66.\n- ^ Mahon 1998, pp. 65–67.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, pp. 38–39.\n- ^ Heidler 1993, p. 518.\n- ^ Mahon 1962, pp. 350–354.\n- ^ "Andrew Jackson (1767–1845)" (PDF). U.S. Government Publication Office. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 13, 2019.\n- ^ a b Wilentz 2005, p. 40.\n- ^ Brands 2005, pp. 356–357.\n- ^ Remini 1981, p. 2.\n- ^ Burstein 2003, p. 39.\n- ^ Semmer, Blythe. "Jackson Purchase, Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture". Tennessee Historical Society. Archived from the original on August 7, 2016. Retrieved April 12, 2017.\n- ^ Remini 1981, pp. 48–49.\n- ^ Schlesinger 1945, pp. 36–38.\n- ^ Howe 2007, pp. 489–492.\n- ^ Phillips 1976, p. 501.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, pp. 41–42, 45–46.\n- ^ Remini 1981, pp. 51–52.\n- ^ Brands 2005, pp. 376–377.\n- ^ Remini 1981, p. 67.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, p. 38.\n- ^ Remini 1981, pp. 75–77.\n- ^ Morgan 1969, p. 195.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 45.\n- ^ Phillips 1976, p. 490.\n- ^ Niven 1988, p. 101.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 46.\n- ^ Remini 1981, pp. 81–83.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 47.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, pp. 45–48.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 49.\n- ^ Unger 2012, pp. 245–248.\n- ^ Remini 1981, p. 110.\n- ^ a b Unger 2012, p. 246.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, pp. 50–51.\n- ^ Niven 1988, p. 126.\n- ^ Koenig 1964, pp. 197–198.\n- ^ Koenig 1964, p. 197.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 134.\n- ^ Marszalek 1997, p. 16.\n- ^ Cheathem 2014, §3.\n- ^ Boller 2004, p. 45–46.\n- ^ Howell 2010, pp. 294–295.\n- ^ Binns 1828.\n- ^ Taliaferro 1828.\n- ^ "The Tsunami of Slime Circa 1828". New York News & Politics. June 15, 2012. Archived from the original on March 23, 2016. Retrieved June 1, 2017.\n- ^ Howell 2010, pp. 295–297.\n- ^ Howe 2007, pp. 277–278.\n- ^ a b Unger 2012, p. 256.\n- ^ Brands 2005, pp. 404–405.\n- ^ Boller 2004, p. 46.\n- ^ Remini 1981, p. 150.\n- ^ a b Latner 2002, p. 105.\n- ^ Unger 2012, p. 256–257.\n- ^ "Inaugurals of Presidents of the United States: Some Precedents and Notable Events". Library of Congress. Archived from the original on July 1, 2016. Retrieved April 18, 2017.\n- ^ Jackson 1829.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 55.\n- ^ Gilman 1995, p. 64–65.\n- ^ Remini 1981, pp. 186–187.\n- ^ Ellis 1974, p. 56.\n- ^ a b Howe 2007, pp. 332–333.\n- ^ Sabato & O\'Connor 2002, p. 278.\n- ^ a b Friedrich 1937, p. 14.\n- ^ Ellis 1974, p. 51.\n- ^ Ellis 1974, p. 61.\n- ^ Wood 1997, p. 238.\n- ^ Marszalek 1997, p. vii.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, pp. 66–67.\n- ^ Howe 2007, pp. 336.\n- ^ Marszalek 1997, pp. 53–55.\n- ^ Wood 1997, pp. 239–241.\n- ^ a b c Latner 2002, p. 108.\n- ^ Remini 1984, pp. 240–243.\n- ^ Cole 1997, p. 24.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, p. 165.\n- ^ Latner 1978, pp. 380–385.\n- ^ Clark & Guice 1996, pp. 233–243; Mahon 1962, pp. 350–354.\n- ^ Parsons 1973, pp. 353–358.\n- ^ Wallace 1993, pp. 58–62.\n- ^ McLoughlin 1986, pp. 611–612.\n- ^ Satz 1974, p. 12.\n- ^ Cave 2003, p. 1332.\n- ^ Rogin 1975, pp. 212–213.\n- ^ Remini 1981, p. 276.\n- ^ Greeley 1864, p. 106.\n- ^ Berutti 1992, pp. 305–306.\n- ^ Miles 1992, pp. 527–528.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 141.\n- ^ Parsons 1973, p. 360.\n- ^ Latner 2002, p. 109.\n- ^ Wallace 1993, p. 66.\n- ^ Davis 2010, pp. 54–55.\n- ^ a b Cave 2003, p. 1337.\n- ^ a b Latner 2002, p. 110.\n- ^ Remini 1981, p. 273.\n- ^ Remini 1981, p. 271.\n- ^ Howe 2007, p. 353.\n- ^ Missall & Missall 2004, pp. 83–85.\n- ^ Haveman 2009, pp. 1–5, 129.\n- ^ Howe 2007, p. 415.\n- ^ Brands 2005, p. 536.\n- ^ Howe 2007, p. 418–419.\n- ^ Rogin 1975, p. 206.\n- ^ Ostler 2019, pp. 256, 263, 273–274, 280.\n- ^ Whapples 2014, pp. 546–548.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, pp. 63–64.\n- ^ Freehling 1966, p. 6.\n- ^ Brogdon 2011, pp. 245–273.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 64.\n- ^ Ellis 1989, p. 7–8.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, pp. 64–65.\n- ^ Temin 1969, p. 29.\n- ^ Lane 2014, pp. 121–122.\n- ^ Brands 2005, pp. 445–446.\n- ^ Remini 1981, pp. 358–360.\n- ^ Bergeron 1976, p. 263.\n- ^ Freehling 1966, pp. 1–2.\n- ^ Ordinance of Nullification 1832.\n- ^ Howe 2007, pp. 404–406.\n- ^ Remini 1984, p. 22.\n- ^ Jackson 1832.\n- ^ Feerick 1965, pp. 85–86.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, pp. 239–240.\n- ^ Ericson 1995, p. 253, fn14.\n- ^ Remini 1984, p. 42.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, p. 247.\n- ^ a b Wilentz 2005, p. 74.\n- ^ Latner 2002, pp. 111.\n- ^ Campbell 2016, pp. 273, 277.\n- ^ Howe 2007, pp. 375–376.\n- ^ Hammond 1957, p. 374.\n- ^ Meyers 1960, p. 20–24.\n- ^ Sellers 1954, p. 61–84.\n- ^ Perkins 1987, pp. 532–533.\n- ^ Campbell 2016, pp. 274–278.\n- ^ Perkins 1987, pp. 534–535.\n- ^ Campbell 2016, pp. 285.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, pp. 285.\n- ^ Baptist 2016, p. 260.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, p. 218.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, p. 420.\n- ^ Latner 2002, pp. 112–113.\n- ^ Gammon 1922, pp. 55–56.\n- ^ Jackson 1966, pp. 261–268.\n- ^ a b c Latner 2002, p. 113.\n- ^ Van Deusen 1963, p. 54.\n- ^ Ericson 1995, p. 259.\n- ^ Ratcliffe 2000, p. 10–14.\n- ^ Ellis 1974, p. 63.\n- ^ Knodell 2006, p. 542.\n- ^ a b Schmidt 1955, p. 328.\n- ^ Gatell 1967, p. 26.\n- ^ Schlesinger 1945, p. 103.\n- ^ Howe 2007, pp. 391–392.\n- ^ Ellis 1974, p. 62.\n- ^ Ellis 1974, p. 54.\n- ^ Knodell 2006, p. 566.\n- ^ Gatell 1964, pp. 35–37.\n- ^ Knodell 2006, pp. 562–563.\n- ^ Howe 2007, p. 393.\n- ^ Smith, Robert (April 15, 2011). "When the U.S. paid off the entire national debt (and why it didn\'t last)". Planet Money. NPR. Retrieved January 15, 2014.\n- ^ "Our History". Bureau of the Public Debt. November 18, 2013. Archived from the original on March 6, 2016. Retrieved February 21, 2016.\n- ^ Howe 2007, pp. 358–360.\n- ^ Howe 2007, p. 395.\n- ^ Rousseau 2002, pp. 460–461.\n- ^ Timberlake 1965, p. 412.\n- ^ Schmidt 1955, p. 325.\n- ^ Remini 1984, p. 377.\n- ^ US Senate 1837.\n- ^ a b Olson 2002, p. 190.\n- ^ Rousseau 2002, pp. 459–460.\n- ^ Parins & Littlefield 2011, p. xiv.\n- ^ McGrane 1965, pp. 60–62.\n- ^ Rousseau 2002, p. 48.\n- ^ Nester 2013, p. 2.\n- ^ Remini 1984, p. 60–61.\n- ^ Jackson 1967.\n- ^ Grinspan, Jon. "Trying to Assassinate Andrew Jackson". American Heritage Project. Archived from the original on October 24, 2008. Retrieved November 11, 2008.\n- ^ McFaul 1975, p. 25.\n- ^ Aptheker 1943, p. 300.\n- ^ Breen 2015, p. 105–106.\n- ^ a b Latner 2002, p. 117.\n- ^ Henig 1969, p. 43.\n- ^ Henig 1969, p. 43–44.\n- ^ Remini 1984, p. 260.\n- ^ Brands 2005, p. 554.\n- ^ Remini 1984, pp. 258–260.\n- ^ Remini 1984, p. 261.\n- ^ "$20 Note: Issued 1914–1990" (PDF). U.S. Currency Education Program. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 4, 2020.\n- ^ a b c Latner 2002, p. 120.\n- ^ a b Thomas 1976, p. 51.\n- ^ Howe 2007, p. 263.\n- ^ Thomas 1976, p. 63.\n- ^ Remini 1984, p. 288.\n- ^ Howe 2007, pp. 658–659.\n- ^ Stenberg 1934, p. 229.\n- ^ Howe 2007, pp. 659–669.\n- ^ Howe 2007, pp. 670–671.\n- ^ Jacobson, John Gregory (2004). Jackson\'s judges: Six appointments who shaped a nation (PhD dissertation). University of Nebraska–Lincoln. ISBN 978-0-496-13089-4. ProQuest 305160669. Archived from the original on March 30, 2016. Retrieved July 18, 2017.\n- ^ Remini 1984, p. 266.\n- ^ Remini 1984, pp. 266–268.\n- ^ Schwartz 1993, pp. 73–74.\n- ^ Brown, DeNeen L. (August 18, 2017). "Removing a slavery defender\'s statue: Roger B. Taney wrote one of Supreme Court\'s worst rulings". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 10, 2018. Retrieved December 29, 2017.\n- ^ Nettels 1925, pp. 225–226.\n- ^ Hall 1992, p. 475.\n- ^ Remini 1984, pp. 375–376.\n- ^ Latner 2002, p. 121.\n- ^ Lansford & Woods 2008, p. 1046.\n- ^ Remini 1984, pp. 462–470.\n- ^ Brands 2005, p. 475.\n- ^ Remini 1984, p. 470.\n- ^ Remini 1984, pp. 475–476.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, pp. 161–163.\n- ^ Remini 1984, p. 492.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, pp. 162–163.\n- ^ Marx, Rudolph. "The Health Of The President: Andrew Jackson". healthguidance.org. Archived from the original on December 22, 2017. Retrieved December 18, 2017.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, p. 345.\n- ^ Remini 1984, p. 526.\n- ^ Remini 1977, pp. 160–161.\n- ^ Remini 1977, p. 194.\n- ^ Moser & Macpherson 1984, p. 444, fn 5.\n- ^ Moser et al. 1991, p. 60, fn 3.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, pp. 109, 315.\n- ^ Somit 1948, p. 295.\n- ^ Brands 2005, p. 297.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, p. 37; Remini 1977, p. 7; Wilentz 2005, p. 3.\n- ^ Somit 1948, p. 302.\n- ^ Somit 1948, p. 297–300.\n- ^ Borneman 2008, p. 36.\n- ^ Somit 1948, p. 306.\n- ^ Meacham 2008, p. 19.\n- ^ Somit 1948, pp. 299–300.\n- ^ Remini 1977, pp. 178–179.\n- ^ Somit 1948, p. 312.\n- ^ Brown 2022, p. 191.\n- ^ Somit 1948, p. 304.\n- ^ Wilentz 2005, p. 160.\n- ^ Remini 1984, p. 444.\n- ^ Adams 2013, pp. 1–2.\n- ^ Feller, Daniel (February 24, 2012). "Andrew Jackson\'s Shifting Legacy". The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. Archived from the original on November 3, 2014.\n- ^ Sellers 1958, p. 615.\n- ^ Tocqueville 1840, pp. 392–394.\n- ^ Turner 1920, p. 252–254.\n- ^ Cheathem 2014a, Introduction, §9.\n- ^ Watson 2017, p. 218.\n- ^ Remini 1990, p. 6.\n- ^ Brogdon 2011, p. 273.\n- ^ Nester 2013, p. 2–3.\n- ^ Adams 2013, p. 8; Ward 1962, p. 82.\n- ^ Ward 1962, pp. 82–83.\n- ^ Murphy 2013, p. 261.\n- ^ Fish 1927, p. 337-338.\n- ^ Adams 2013, pp. 3–4.\n- ^ Cheathem 2013, p. 5; Cole 1986, p. 151.\n- ^ Anderson 2016, p. 416; Carson 2008, pp. 9–10; Garrison 2002, pp. 2–3; Howe 2007, p. 423; Kakel 2011, p. 158; Lynn 2019, p. 78.\n- ^ "Ethnic Cleansing". United Nations: Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect. Archived from the original on February 28, 2019.\n- ^ Perdue 2012, p. 6; Remini 1990, pp. 56–59.\n- ^ Cave 2003, p. 1337; Howe 2007, p. 348.\n- ^ Missall & Missall 2004, p. xv–xvii.\n- ^ Cave 2017, p. 192; Gilo-Whitaker 2019, pp. 35–36; Kalaitzidis & Streich 2011, p. 33.\n- ^ Ostler 2019, pp. 365-366; Perdue 2012, p. 3.\n- ^ Willentz, Sean (February 24, 2012). "Abraham Lincoln and Jacksonian Democracy". The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. Archived from the original on May 11, 2015.\n- ^ Brands 2008, p. 449–450.\n- ^ "Franklin Roosevelt: Jackson Day Dinner Address, Washington D.C., January 8 1936". The American Presidency Project. Archived from the original on June 29, 2019.\n- ^ "Progressive Party Platform of 1948 | The American Presidency Project". www.presidency.ucsb.edu.\n- ^ Brown 2022, p. 367.\n- ^ "Remarks by the President on the 250th anniversary of the Birth of Andrew Jackson". whitehouse.gov. March 15, 2017. Archived from the original on December 19, 2017.\n- ^ Thompson & Barchiesi 2018, p. 1.\n- ^ Crutsinger, Martin (January 25, 2021). "Effort to put Tubman on $20 bill restarted under Biden". AP News. Archived from the original on January 25, 2021.\n- ^ Brands, H. W. (2017). "Andrew Jackson at 250: President\'s Legacy isn\'t Pretty, but Neither is History". The Tennessean. Retrieved December 7, 2023.\n- ^ Feller, Daniel (February 24, 2012). "Andrew Jackson\'s Shifting Legacy". The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. Retrieved August 6, 2022.\n- ^ Rottinghaus & Vaughn 2017.\n- ^ "Total Scores/Overall Rankings | C-SPAN Survey on Presidents 2021 | C-SPAN.org". www.c-span.org. Retrieved July 1, 2021.\nBibliography\nBiographies\n- Brands, H. W. (2005). Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times. New York, NY: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. ISBN 978-1-4000-3072-9. OCLC 1285478081.\n- Brown, David S. (2022). The First Populist: The Defiant Life of Andrew Jackson. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-1-9821-9109-2. OCLC 1303813425.\n- Latner, Richard B. (2002). "Andrew Jackson". In Graff, Henry (ed.). The Presidents: A Reference History (3 ed.). New York, NY: Charles Scribner\'s Sons. pp. 106–127. ISBN 978-0-684-31226-2. OCLC 49029341.\n- Meacham, Jon (2008). American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House. New York, NY: Random House Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-8129-7346-4. OCLC 1145796050.\n- Remini, Robert V. (1977). Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Empire, 1767–1821. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. ISBN 978-0-8018-5912-0. OCLC 1145801830.\n- Remini, Robert V. (1981). Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Freedom, 1822–1832. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. ISBN 978-0-8018-5913-7. OCLC 1145807972.\n- Remini, Robert V. (1984). Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Democracy, 1833–1845. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. ISBN 978-0-8018-5913-7. OCLC 1285459723.\n- Wilentz, Sean (2005). Andrew Jackson. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company. ISBN 978-0-8050-6925-9. OCLC 863515036.\nBooks\n- Adams, Sean P. (2013). "Introduction: The President and his Era". In Adams, Sean P. (ed.). A Companion to the Era of Andrew Jackson. Wiley. pp. 1–11. ISBN 9781444335415. OCLC 1152040405.\n- Aptheker, Herbert (1974) [1943]. "The Turner Cataclysm and Some Repercussions". American Negro Slave Revolts. International Publishers. pp. 293–394. ISBN 9780717800032. OCLC 1028031914.\n- Baptist, Edward E. (2016). The Half has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism. New York, NY: Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-00296-2. OCLC 1302085747.\n- Booraem, Hendrik (2001). Young Hickory: The Making of Andrew Jackson. Lanham, MD: Taylor Trade Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8783-3263-2.\n- Boller, Paul F. Jr. (2004). Presidential Campaigns: From George Washington to George W. Bush. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19516-716-0. OCLC 1285570008.\n- Borneman, Walter R. (2008). Polk: The Man Who Transformed the Presidency and America. New York, NY: Random House. ISBN 978-1-4000-6560-8. OCLC 1150943134.\n- Brands, Henry W. (2008). Traitor to his Class: The Privileged Life and radical Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Doubleday. ISBN 9780385519588. OCLC 759509803.\n- Breen, Patrick H. (2015). The Land Shall be Deluged in Blood : A New History of the Nat Turner Revolt. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199828005. OCLC 929856251.\n- Burstein, Andrew (2003). The Passions of Andrew Jackson. Knopf. ISBN 0375714049. OCLC 1225864865.\n- Cave, Alfred A. (2017). Sharp Knife: Andrew Jackson and the American Indians. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9781440860409. OCLC 987437631.\n- Cheathem, Mark R. (2013). ""The Shape of Democracy": Historical Interpretations of Jacksonian Democracy". In McKnight, Brian D.; Humphreys, James S. (eds.). Interpreting American History: The Age of Andrew Jackson. Kent State University Press. pp. 1–21. ISBN 9781606350980. OCLC 700709151.\n- Cheathem, Mark R. (2014a). Andrew Jackson: Southerner (Ebook). LSU Press. ISBN 9780807151006. OCLC 858995561.\n- Clark, Thomas D.; Guice, John D. W. (1996). The Old Southwest, 1765–1830: Frontiers in conflict. University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 9780806128368. OCLC 1285743152.\n- Durham, Walter T. (1990). Before Tennessee: the Southwest Territory, 1790–1796: a narrative history of the Territory of the United States South of the River Ohio. Piney Flats, TN: Rocky Mount Historical Association. ISBN 978-0-9678-3071-1.\n- Ellis, Richard E. (1974). "Andrew Jackson:1829-1837". In Woodward, C. Vann (ed.). Responses of the Presidents to Charges of Misconduct. Dell. pp. 51–656. OCLC 1036817744.\n- Ellis, Richard E. (1989). The Union at Risk: Jacksonian Democracy, States\' Rights, and the Nullification Crisis. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195345155. OCLC 655900280.\n- Feerick, John D. (1965). From Failing Hands: the Story of Presidential Succession. New York City: Fordham University Press.\n- Fish, Carl R. (1927). The Rise of the Common Man 1830–1850. MacMillian. OCLC 1151151619.\n- Freehling, William (1966). Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, 1816–1836. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195076813. OCLC 1151067281.\n- Garrison, Tim Allen (2002). The Legal Ideology of Removal: The Southern Judiciary and the Sovereignty of Native American Nations. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. ISBN 978-0-8203-3417-2. OCLC 53956489.\n- Gatell, Frank Otto (1967). The Jacksonians and the Money Power. Chicago, Rand McNally. OCLC 651767466.\n- Gilo-Whitaker, Dina (2019). As Long as Grass Grows: The Indigenous Fight for Environmental Justice, from Colonization to Standing Rock. Beacon Press. ISBN 9780807073780. OCLC 1044542033.\n- Greeley, Horace (1864). The American Conflict: A History of the Great Rebellion in the United States of America, 1860-64. Its Causes, Incidents and Results. O. D. Case and Company.\n- Gullan, Harold I. (2004). "Dramatic Departure: Andrew Jackson Sr., Abraham Van Buren". First fathers: the men who inspired our Presidents. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-471-46597-3. OCLC 53090968.\n- Hammond, Bray (1957). Banks and Politics in America from the Revolution to the Civil War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. OCLC 1147712456.\n- Hickey, Donald R. (1989). The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 0252060598. OCLC 1036973138.\n- Howe, Daniel Walker (2007). What Hath God Wrought: the Transformation of America, 1815–1848. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-974379-7. OCLC 646814186.\n- Kakel, Carroll (2011). The American West and the Nazi East: A Comparative and Interpretive Perspective. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9780230307063. OCLC 743799760.\n- Kalaitzidis, Akis; Streich, Gregory W. (2011). U.S. Foreign Policy: A Documentary and Reference Guide. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-0-313-38375-5. OCLC 759101504.\n- Lane, Carl (2014). A Nation Wholly Free: The Elimination of the National Debt in the Age of Jackson. Westholme. ISBN 9781594162091. OCLC 1150853554.\n- Lansford, Tom; Woods, Thomas E., eds. (2008). Exploring American History: From Colonial Times to 1877. Vol. 10. New York: Marshall Cavendish. ISBN 978-0-7614-7758-7.\n- Lynn, John A. (2019). Another Kind of War: The Nature and History of Terrorism. Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300189988. OCLC 1107042059.\n- Mahon, John K. (1962). "The Treaty of Moultrie Creek, 1823". The Florida Historical Quarterly. 40 (4): 350–372. JSTOR 30139875.\n- Marszalek, John F. (1997). The Petticoat Affair: Manners, Mutiny, and Sex in Andrew Jackson\'s White House. Free Press. ISBN 0684828014. OCLC 36767691.\n- McGrane, Reginald C. (1965). The Panic of 1837. University of Chicago Press. OCLC 1150938709.\n- Meyers, Marvin (1960). The Jacksonian Persuasion: Politics & Belief. Vintage Books. OCLC 1035884705.\n- Missall, John; Missall, Mary Lou (2004). The Seminole Wars: America\'s Longest Indian Conflict. University Press of Florida. ISBN 0813027152. OCLC 1256504949.\n- Moser, Harold D.; Macpherson, Sharon, eds. (1984). The Papers of Andrew Jackson, Volume II, 1804–1813. University of Tennessee Press. Retrieved May 25, 2022.\n- Moser, Harold D.; Hoth, David R.; Macpherson, Sharon; Reinbold, John H., eds. (1991). The Papers of Andrew Jackson, Volume III, 1814–1815. University of Tennessee Press. p. 35. Retrieved May 25, 2022.\nI have not heard whether Genl Coffee has taken on to him little Lyncoya-I have got another Pett-given to me by the chief Jame Fife, ... [The Indian children were probably Theodore and Charley.]\n* - Murphy, Sharon A. (2013). "The Myth and Reality of andrew Jackson\'s Rise in the Election of 1824". In Adams, Sean P. (ed.). A Companion to the Era of Andrew Jackson. Wiley. pp. 260–279. ISBN 9781444335415. OCLC 1152040405.\n- Nester, William R. (2013). The Age of Jackson and the Art of Power. Potomac Books. ISBN 9781612346052. OCLC 857769985.\n- Niven, John (1988). John C. Calhoun and the Price of Union: A Biography. Baton Rouge, LA: LSU Press. ISBN 978-0-8071-1858-0. OCLC 1035889000.\n- Nowlan, Robert A. (2012). The American Presidents, Washington to Tyler. Jefferson, NC: McFarland Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7864-6336-7. OCLC 692291434.\n- Ogg, Frederic Austin (1919). The Reign of Andrew Jackson; Vol. 20, Chronicles of America Series. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. OCLC 928924919.\n- Olson, James Stuart (2002). Robert L. Shadle (ed.). Encyclopedia of the Industrial Revolution in America. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0-313-30830-7. OCLC 1033573148.\n- Owsley, Frank Lawrence Jr. (1981). Struggle for the Gulf Borderlands: The Creek War and the Battle of New Orleans, 1812-1815. University Presses of Florida. ISBN 0813006627. OCLC 1151350587.\n- Ostler, Jeffrey (2019). Surviving Genocide. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-24526-4. OCLC 1099434736.\n- Parins, James W.; Littlefield, Daniel F. (2011). "Introduction". In Parins, James W.; Littlefield, Daniel F. (eds.). Encyclopedia of American Indian Removal [2 Volumes]. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9780313360428. OCLC 720586004.\n- Remini, Robert V. (1990). The Legacy of Andrew Jackson: Essays on Democracy, Indian Removal, and Slavery. Louisiana State University Press. ISBN 9780807116425. OCLC 1200479832.\n- Rogin, Michael P. (1975). Fathers and Children: Andrew Jackson and the Subjugation of the American Indian. Knopf. ISBN 0394482042. OCLC 1034678255.\n- Sabato, Larry; O\'Connor, Karen (2002). American Government: Continuity and Change. New York: Pearson Longman. ISBN 978-0-321-31711-7. OCLC 1028046888.\n- Satz, Ronald N. (1974). American Indian Policy in the Jacksonian Era. University of Nebraska. ISBN 9780803208230.\n- Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr. (1945). The Age of Jackson. Little, Brown and Company. ISBN 9780316773430. OCLC 1024176654.\n- Schwartz, Bernard (1993). A History of the Supreme Court. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-509387-2. OCLC 1035668728.\n- Temin, Peter (1969). Jacksonian Economy. Norton. OCLC 1150111725.\n- Turner, Frederick Jackson (1920). The Frontier in American History. Henry Holt. OCLC 1045610195.\n- Unger, Harlow G. (2012). John Quincy Adams. De Capo. ISBN 9780306822650. OCLC 1035758771.\n- Van Deusen, Glyndon G. (1963). The Jacksonian Era, 1828-1848. Harper & Row. ISBN 9780061330285. OCLC 1176180758.\n- Wallace, Anthony F. C. (1993). The Long, Bitter Trail: Andrew Jackson and the Indians. Hill and Wang. ISBN 9780809066315. OCLC 1150209732.\n- Ward, John. W. (1962). "The Age of the Common Man". In Higham, John (ed.). The Reconstruction of American History. Hutchison. pp. 82–97. OCLC 1151080132.\nJournal articles and dissertations\n- Anderson, Gary Clayton (2016). "The Native Peoples of the American West: Genocide or Ethnic Cleansing?". Western Historical Quarterly. 47 (4). Oxford University Press: 416. doi:10.1093/whq/whw126. ISSN 0043-3810. JSTOR 26782720.\n- Bergeron, Paul H. (1976). "The nullification controversy revisited". Tennessee Historical Quarterly. 35 (3): 263–275. JSTOR 42623589.\n- Berutti, Ronald A. (1992). "The Cherokee Cases: The Fight to Save the Supreme Court and the Cherokee Indians". American Indian Law Review. 17 (1): 291–308. doi:10.2307/20068726. ISSN 0094-002X. JSTOR 20068726.\n- Brogdon, Matthew S. (2011). "Defending the Union: Andrew Jackson\'s Nullifaction Proclamation and American federalism". Review of Politics. 73 (2): 245–273. doi:10.1017/S0034670511000064. JSTOR 42623589. S2CID 145679939.\n- Campbell, Stephen W. (2016). "Funding the Bank War: Nicholas Biddle and the public relations campaign to recharter the second bank of the U.S., 1828–1832". American Nineteenth Century History. 17 (3): 279–299. doi:10.1080/14664658.2016.1230930. S2CID 152280055.\n- Cave, Alfred A. (2003). "Abuse of Power: Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act of 1830". The Historian. 65 (6): 1330–1353. doi:10.2307/2205966. JSTOR 2205966.\n- Cheathem, Mark R. (2011). "Andrew Jackson, Slavery, and Historians" (PDF). History Compass. 9 (4): 326–338. doi:10.1111/j.1478-0542.2011.00763.x. ISSN 1478-0542. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 12, 2022.\n- Cheathem, Mark (2014). "Frontiersman or Southern Gentleman? Newspaper Coverage of Andrew Jackson during the 1828 Presidential Campaign". The Readex Report. 9 (3). Archived from the original on January 12, 2015.\n- Carson, James T. (2008). ""The obituary of nations": Ethnic cleansing, memory, and the origins of the Old South". Southern Culture. 14 (4): 6–31. doi:10.1353/scu.0.0026. JSTOR 26391777. S2CID 144154298.\n- Clifton, Frances (1952). "John Overton as Andrew Jackson\'s friend". Tennessee Historical Quarterly. 11 (1): 23–40. JSTOR 42621095.\n- Cole, Donald B. (1986). "Review: The Age of Jackson: After Forty Years". Reviews in American History. 14 (1): 149–159. doi:10.2307/2702131. JSTOR 2702131.\n- Cole, Donald P. (1997). "A yankee in Kentucky: The early years of Amos Kendall, 1789–1828". Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society. Third Series. 109 (1): 24–36. JSTOR 25081127.\n- Davis, Ethan (2010). "An administrative Trail of Tears: Indian removal". The American Journal of Legal History. 50 (1): 1330–1353. doi:10.2307/2205966. JSTOR 2205966.\n- Davis, Karl (2002). ""Remember Fort Mims": Reinterpreting the origins of the Creek War". Journal of the Early Republic. 22 (4): 611–636. doi:10.2307/3124760. JSTOR 3124760.\n- Ely, James W Jr. (1981). "Andrew Jackson as Tennessee state court judge, 1798–1804". Tennessee Historical Quarterly. 40 (2): 144–157. JSTOR 42626180.\n- Ericson, David F. (1995). "The nullification crisis, American republicanism, and the Force Bill debate". Journal of Southern History. 81 (2): 249–270. doi:10.2307/2211577. JSTOR 2211577.\n- Friedrich, Carl Joachim (1937). "The rise and decline of the spoils tradition". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 189: 10–16. doi:10.1177/000271623718900103. JSTOR 1019439. S2CID 144735397.\n- Gammon, Samuel G. (1922). The Presidential Campaign of 1832 (Thesis). Johns Hopkins University. OCLC 1050835838.\n- Gatell, Frank O. (1964). "Spoils of the Bank War: Political Bias in the Selection of Pet Banks". The American Historical Review. 70 (1): 35–58. doi:10.2307/1842097. JSTOR 1842097.\n- Gilman, Stuart C. (1995). "Presidential Ethics and the Ethics of the Presidency". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 537: 58–75. doi:10.1177/0002716295537000006. JSTOR 1047754. S2CID 143876977.\n- Hall, Kermit (1992). "Judiciary Act of 1837". The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Oxford University Press. p. 475. ISBN 0195058356. OCLC 1036760206.\n- Haveman, Christopher D. (2009). The Removal of the Creek Indians from the Southeast, 1825–1838 (PDF) (PhD). Auburn University. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 26, 2022.\n- Heidler, David S. (1993). "The politics of national aggression: Congress and the First Seminole War". Journal of the Early Republic. 13 (4): 501–530. doi:10.2307/3124558. JSTOR 3124558.\n- Henig, Gerald S. (1969). "The Jacksonian attitude toward Abolitionism". Tennessee Historical Quarterly. 28 (1): 42–56. JSTOR 1901307.\n- Howell, William Huntting (2010). ""Read, Pause, and Reflect!!"". Journal of the Early Republic. 30 (2): 293–300. doi:10.1353/jer.0.0149. JSTOR 40662272. S2CID 144448483.\n- Jackson, Carlton (1966). "The internal improvement vetoes of Andrew Jackson". Tennessee Historical Quarterly. 25 (3): 531–550. doi:10.2307/3115344. JSTOR 3115344. S2CID 55379727.\n- Jackson, Carlton (1967). "--Another Time, Another Place--: The attempted assassination of President Andrew Jackson". Tennessee Historical Quarterly. 26 (2): 184–190. JSTOR 42622937.\n- Kanon, Thomas (1999). ""A slow, laborious slaughter": The battle of Horseshoe Bend". Tennessee Historical Quarterly. 58 (1): 2–15. JSTOR 42627446.\n- Koenig, Louis W. (1964). "American Politics: The First Half-Century". Current History. 47 (278): 193–198. doi:10.1525/curh.1964.47.278.193. JSTOR 45311183.\n- Knodell, Jane (2006). "Rethinking the Jacksonian economy: The impact of the 1832 bank veto on commercial banking". Journal of Economic History. 66 (3): 641–574. doi:10.1017/S0022050706000258 (inactive November 1, 2024). JSTOR 3874852. S2CID 155084029.\n{{cite journal}}\n: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link) - Mahon, John K. (1998). "The First Seminole War: November 21, 1817-May24,1818". Florida Historical Quarterly. 77 (1): 62–67. JSTOR 30149093.\n- Latner, Richard B. (1978). "The Kitchen Cabinet and Andrew Jackson\'s advisory system". The Journal of American History. 65 (2): 367–388. doi:10.2307/1894085. JSTOR 1894085.\n- McFaul, John M. (1975). "Expediency vs. morality: Jacksonian politics and slavery". The Journal of American History. 82 (1): 24–39. doi:10.2307/1901307. JSTOR 1901307.\n- McLoughlin, William G. (1986). "Georgia\'s role in instigating compulsory Indian removal". The Georgia Historical Quarterly. 70 (4): 605–632. JSTOR 40581582.\n- Morgan, William G. (1969). "The origin and development of the congressional nominating caucus". Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 113 (2): 184–196. JSTOR 985965.\n- Miles, Edwin A. (1992). "After John Marshall\'s Decision: Worcester v. Georgia and the Nullification Crisis". Journal of Southern History. 39 (4): 519–544. doi:10.2307/2205966. JSTOR 2205966.\n- Nettels, Curtis (1925). "The Mississippi Valley and the federal judiciary, 1807-1837". The Mississippi Valley Historical Review. 12 (2): 202–226. doi:10.2307/1886513. JSTOR 1886513.\n- Owsley, Harriet Chappel (1977). "The marriages of Rachel Donelson". Tennessee Historical Quarterly. 36 (4): 479–492. JSTOR 42625784.\n- Parsons, Lynn Hudson (1973). ""A perpetual harrow upon my feelings": John Quincy Adams and the American indian". The New England Quarterly. 46 (3): 339–379. doi:10.2307/364198. JSTOR 364198.\n- Perdue, Theda (2012). "The Legacy of Indian Removal". Journal of Southern History. 78 (1): 3–36. JSTOR 23247455.\n- Perkins, Edwin J. (1987). "Lost opportunities for compromise in the Bank War: A reassessment of jackson\'s veto message". Business History Review. 61 (4): 531–550. doi:10.2307/3115344. JSTOR 3115344. S2CID 55379727.\n- Phillips, Kim T. (1976). "The Pennsylvania origins of the Jackson movement". Political Science Quarterly. 91 (3): 489–501. doi:10.2307/2148938. JSTOR 2148938.\n- Porter, Kenneth Wiggins (1951). "Negroes and the Seminole War, 1817-1818". Journal of Negro History. 36 (3): 249–280. doi:10.2307/2715671. JSTOR 2715671. S2CID 150360181.\n- Ratcliffe, Donald J. (2000). "The Nullification Crisis, Southern discontents, and the American political process". American Nineteenth Century History. 1 (2): 1–30. doi:10.1080/14664650008567014. S2CID 144242176.\n- Remini, Robert V. (1991). "Andrew Jackson\'s Adventures on the Natchez Trace". Southern Quarterly. 29 (4). Hattiesburg, Mississippi: University of Southern Mississippi: 35–42. ISSN 0038-4496. OCLC 1644229.\n- Rousseau, Peter L. (2002). "Jacksonian money policy, specie flows, and the panic of 1837". The Journal of Economic History. 82 (2): 457–488. JSTOR 2698187.\n- Rottinghaus, Brandon; Vaughn, Justin S. (2017). "Presidential Greatness and Political Science: Assessing the 2014 APSA Presidents and Executive Politics Section Presidential Greatness Survey". PS: Political Science & Politics. 50 (3): 824–830. doi:10.1017/S1049096517000671. S2CID 157101605.\n- Schmidt, Louis Bernard (1955). "Andrew Jackson and the Agrarian West". Current History. 28 (166): 321–330. doi:10.1525/curh.1955.28.166.321. JSTOR 45308841. S2CID 249685683.\n- Sellers, Charles G. Jr. (1958). "Andrew Jackson versus the Historians". Mississippi Valley Historical Review. 44 (4): 615–634. doi:10.2307/1886599. JSTOR 1886599.\n- Sellers, Charles G. Jr. (1954). "Banking and politics in Jackson\'s Tennessee, 1817–1827". Mississippi Valley Historical Review. 41 (1): 61–84. doi:10.2307/1898150. JSTOR 1898150.\n- Somit, Albert (1948). "Andrew Jackson: Legend and Reality". Tennessee Historical Quarterly. 7 (4): 291–313. JSTOR 42620991.\n- Stenberg, Richard R. (1934). "The Texas schemes of Jackson and Houston, 1829–1836". The Southwestern Social Science Quarterly. 15 (3): 229–250. JSTOR 42879202.\n- Thomas, Robert C. (1976). "Andrew Jackson versus France: American policy towards France, 1834–1836". Tennessee Historical Quarterly. 35 (1): 457–488. JSTOR 42623553.\n- Thompson, Sheneese; Barchiesi, Franco (2018). "Harriet Tubman and Andrew Jackson on the Twenty-Dollar Bill: A Monstrous Intimacy". Open Cultural Studies. 2: 417–429. doi:10.1515/culture-2018-0038. S2CID 166210849.\n- Timberlake, Richard H. (1965). "The Specie Circular and Sales of public land". The American Historical Review. 25 (3): 414–416. JSTOR 2116177.\n- Tregle, Joseph G. Jr. (1981). "Andrew Jackson and the continuing Battle of New Orleans". Journal of the Early Republic. 1 (4): 373–393. doi:10.2307/3122827. JSTOR 3122827.\n- Watson, Harry L. (2017). "Andrew Jackson\'s Populism". Tennessee Historical Quarterly. 76 (3): 236–237. JSTOR 26540290.\n- Warshauer, Matthew (2006). "Andrew Jackson: Chivalric slave master". Tennessee Historical Quarterly. 65 (3): 203–229. JSTOR 42627964.\n- Whapples, Robert (2014). "Were Andrew Jackson\'s policies "Good for the Economy"?". The Independent Review. 18 (4): 545–558. JSTOR 24563169.\n- Wood, Kirsten E. (1997). ""One woman so dangerous to public morals": Gender and power in the Eaton Affair". Journal of the Early Republic. 17 (2): 237–275. doi:10.2307/3124447. JSTOR 3124447.\n- Wright, J. Leitch Jr. (1968). "A note on the First Seminole War as seen by the Indians, negroes, and their British advisors". The Journal of Southern History. 34 (4): 565–576. doi:10.2307/2204387. JSTOR 2204387.\nPrimary sources\n- Binns, John (1828). "Some account of some of the bloody deeds of General Jackson". Library of Congress. Archived from the original on January 16, 2014. Retrieved January 15, 2014.\n- "Expunged Senate censure motion against President Andrew Jackson, January 16, 1837". Andrew Jackson – National Archives and Records Administration, Records of the U.S. Senate. The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. Archived from the original on November 3, 2014. Retrieved February 21, 2014.\n- Jackson, Andrew (1829). "Andrew Jackson\'s First Annual Message to Congress". The American Presidency Project. Archived from the original on February 26, 2008. Retrieved March 14, 2008.\n- Jackson, Andrew (1832). "President Jackson\'s Proclamation Regarding Nullification, December 10, 1832". The Avalon Project. Archived from the original on August 24, 2006. Retrieved August 10, 2006.\n- "South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification, November 24, 1832". The Avalon Project. Archived from the original on August 19, 2016. Retrieved August 22, 2016.\n- Taliaferro, John (1828). "Supplemental account of some of the bloody deeds of General Jackson, being a supplement to the "Coffin handbill"". Library of Congress. Archived from the original on June 28, 2017.\n- de Tocqueville, Alexis (1969) [1840]. Democracy in America. Translated by Lawrence, George. Harper & Row. ISBN 9780385081702. OCLC 1148815334.\nExternal links\n- Scholarly coverage of Jackson at Miller Center, U of Virginia\n- Works by Andrew Jackson at Project Gutenberg\n- Works by or about Andrew Jackson at the Internet Archive\n- Works by Andrew Jackson at LibriVox (public domain audiobooks)\n- The Papers of Andrew Jackson at the Avalon Project\n- The Hermitage, home of President Andrew Jackson\n- "Andrew Jackson Papers". Library of Congress. A digital archive providing access to manuscript images of many of Jackson\'s documents.\n- Andrew Jackson\n- 1767 births\n- 1830s in the United States\n- 1845 deaths\n- 18th-century American merchants\n- 18th-century members of the United States House of Representatives\n- 18th-century Presbyterians\n- 18th-century United States senators\n- 19th-century American planters\n- 19th-century deaths from tuberculosis\n- 19th-century presidents of the United States\n- 19th-century United States senators\n- American cotton plantation owners\n- American duellists\n- American Freemasons\n- American militia generals\n- American people of English descent\n- American people of Scotch-Irish descent\n- American people of Scottish descent\n- American Presbyterians\n- American prosecutors\n- American racehorse owners and breeders\n- American Revolutionary War prisoners of war held by Great Britain\n- American shooting survivors\n- Battle of New Orleans\n- Businesspeople from Nashville, Tennessee\n- Candidates in the 1824 United States presidential election\n- Candidates in the 1828 United States presidential election\n- Candidates in the 1832 United States presidential election\n- Congressional Gold Medal recipients\n- Deaths from edema\n- Democratic Party (United States) presidential nominees\n- Democratic Party presidents of the United States\n- Democratic-Republican Party members of the United States House of Representatives from Tennessee\n- Democratic-Republican Party United States senators\n- Family of Andrew Jackson\n- Florida Democratic-Republicans\n- Governors of Florida Territory\n- Grand masters of the Grand Lodge of Tennessee\n- Hall of Fame for Great Americans inductees\n- Infectious disease deaths in Tennessee\n- Justices of the Tennessee Supreme Court\n- Left-wing populism in the United States\n- Members of the United States House of Representatives who owned slaves\n- Negro Fort\n- North Carolina lawyers\n- People acquitted of assault\n- People from Lancaster County, South Carolina\n- People from pre-statehood Mississippi\n- People from pre-statehood Tennessee\n- People of the Creek War\n- Politicians from Nashville, Tennessee\n- Presidents of the United States\n- Second Party System\n- Southern Democrats\n- Tennessee Democrats\n- Tennessee Jacksonians\n- Trail of Tears perpetrators\n- Tuberculosis deaths in Tennessee\n- United States Army generals\n- United States Army personnel of the Seminole Wars\n- United States Army personnel of the War of 1812\n- United States Indian agents\n- United States military governors\n- United States senators from Tennessee\n- United States senators who owned slaves', + "relevant": "Andrew Jackson\nAndrew Jackson | |\n|---|---|\n| 7th President of the United States | |\n| In office March 4, 1829 – March 4, 1837 | |\n| Vice President |\n|\n| Preceded by | John Quincy Adams |\n| Succeeded by | Martin Van Buren |\n| United States Senator from Tennessee | |\n| In office March 4, 1823 – October 14, 1825 | |\n| Preceded by | John Williams |\n| Succeeded by | Hugh Lawson White |\n| In office September 26, 1797 – April 1, 1798 | |\n| Preceded by | William Cocke |\n| Succeeded by | Daniel Smith |\n| Federal Military Commissioner of Florida | |\n| In office March 10, 1821 – December 31, 1821 | |\n| ", + }, + { + "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress", + "content": 'United States Congress\nThis article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. (May 2024) |\nUnited States Congress | |\n|---|---|\n| 119th Congress | |\n| Type | |\n| Type | |\n| Houses | Senate House of Representatives |\n| History | |\n| Founded | March 4, 1789 |\n| Preceded by | Congress of the Confederation |\nNew session started | January 3, 2025 |\n| Leadership | |\n| Structure | |\n| Seats |\n|\nSenate political groups | Majority (52)\nMinority (47)\nVacant (1)\n|\nHouse of Representatives political groups | Majority (218)\nMinority (215)\nVacant (2)\n|\n| Elections | |\nLast Senate election | November 5, 2024 |\nLast House of Representatives election | November 5, 2024 |\nNext Senate election | November 3, 2026 |\nNext House of Representatives election | November 3, 2026 |\n| Meeting place | |\n| United States Capitol Washington, D.C. United States of America | |\n| Website | |\n| congress | |\n| Constitution | |\n| United States Constitution, article I |\n| This article is part of a series on the |\n| Politics of the United States |\n|---|\nThe United States Congress is the legislature of the federal government of the United States. It is bicameral, composed of a lower body, the United States House of Representatives, and an upper body, the United States Senate. It meets in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. Members are chosen through direct election,[d] though vacancies in the Senate may be filled by a governor\'s appointment. Congress[e] has a total of 535 voting members, a figure which includes 100 senators and 435 representatives; the House of Representatives has 6 additional non-voting members. The vice president of the United States, as President of the Senate, has a vote in the Senate only when there is a tie.[4]\nCongress convenes for a two-year term, commencing every other January. Elections are held every even-numbered year on Election Day. The members of the House of Representatives are elected for the two-year term of a Congress. The Reapportionment Act of 1929 established that there be 435 representatives, and the Uniform Congressional Redistricting Act requires that they be elected from single-member constituencies or districts. It is also required that the congressional districts be apportioned among states by population every ten years using the U.S. census results, provided that each state has at least one congressional representative. Each senator is elected at-large in their state for a six-year term, with terms staggered, so every two years approximately one-third of the Senate is up for election. Each state, regardless of population or size, has two senators, so currently, there are 100 senators for the 50 states.\nArticle One of the U.S. Constitution requires that members of Congress be at least 25 years old for the House and at least 30 years old for the U.S. Senate, be a U.S. citizen for seven years for the House and nine years for the Senate, and be an inhabitant of the state which they represent. Members in both chambers may stand for re-election an unlimited number of times.\nCongress was created by the U.S. Constitution and first met in 1789, replacing the Congress of the Confederation in its legislative function. Although not legally mandated, in practice since the 19th century, members of Congress are typically affiliated with one of the two major parties, the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, and only rarely with a third party or independents affiliated with no party. In the case of the latter, the lack of affiliation with a political party does not mean that such members are unable to caucus with members of the political parties. Members can also switch parties at any time, although this is quite uncommon.\nOverview\n[edit]Article One of the United States Constitution states, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." The House and Senate are equal partners in the legislative process – legislation cannot be enacted without the consent of both chambers. The Constitution grants each chamber some unique powers. The Senate ratifies treaties and approves presidential appointments while the House initiates revenue-raising bills.\nThe House initiates and decides impeachment while the Senate votes on conviction and removal of office for impeachment cases.[5] A two-thirds vote of the Senate is required before an impeached person can be removed from office.[5]\nThe term Congress can also refer to a particular meeting of the legislature. A Congress covers two years; the current one, the 119th Congress, began on January 3, 2025, and will end on January 3, 2027. Since the adoption of the Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Congress has started and ended at noon on the third day of January of every odd-numbered year. Members of the Senate are referred to as senators; members of the House of Representatives are referred to as representatives, congressmen, or congresswomen.\nScholar and representative Lee H. Hamilton asserted that the "historic mission of Congress has been to maintain freedom" and insisted it was a "driving force in American government"[6] and a "remarkably resilient institution".[7] Congress is the "heart and soul of our democracy", according to this view, even though legislators rarely achieve the prestige or name recognition of presidents or Supreme Court justices; one wrote that "legislators remain ghosts in America\'s historical imagination." One analyst argues that it is not a solely reactive institution but has played an active role in shaping government policy and is extraordinarily sensitive to public pressure.[8] Several academics described Congress:\nCongress reflects us in all our strengths and all our weaknesses. It reflects our regional idiosyncrasies, our ethnic, religious, and racial diversity, our multitude of professions, and our shadings of opinion on everything from the value of war to the war over values. Congress is the government\'s most representative body ... Congress is essentially charged with reconciling our many points of view on the great public policy issues of the day.[6]\nCongress is constantly changing and is constantly in flux.[9] In recent times, the American South and West have gained House seats according to demographic changes recorded by the census and includes more women and minorities.[9] While power balances among the different parts of government continue to change, the internal structure of Congress is important to understand along with its interactions with so-called intermediary institutions such as political parties, civic associations, interest groups, and the mass media.[8]\nThe Congress of the United States serves two distinct purposes that overlap: local representation to the federal government of a congressional district by representatives and a state\'s at-large representation to the federal government by senators.\nMost incumbents seek re-election, and their historical likelihood of winning subsequent elections exceeds 90 percent.[10]\nThe historical records of the House of Representatives and the Senate are maintained by the Center for Legislative Archives, which is a part of the National Archives and Records Administration.[11]\nCongress is directly responsible for the governing of the District of Columbia, the current seat of the federal government.\nHistory\n[edit]18th century\n[edit]The First Continental Congress was a gathering of representatives from twelve of the Thirteen Colonies.[12] On July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence, referring to the new nation as the "United States of America". The Articles of Confederation in 1781 created the Congress of the Confederation, a unicameral body with equal representation among the states in which each state had a veto over most decisions. Congress had executive but not legislative authority, and the federal judiciary was confined to admiralty[13] and lacked authority to collect taxes, regulate commerce, or enforce laws.[14][15]\nGovernment powerlessness led to the Convention of 1787 which proposed a revised constitution with a two-chamber or bicameral Congress.[16] Smaller states argued for equal representation for each state.[17] The two-chamber structure had functioned well in state governments.[18] A compromise plan, the Connecticut Compromise, was adopted with representatives chosen by population (benefiting larger states) and exactly two senators chosen by state governments (benefiting smaller states).[9][19] The ratified constitution created a federal structure with two overlapping power centers so that each citizen as an individual is subject to the powers of state government and national government.[20][21][22] To protect against abuse of power, each branch of government – executive, legislative, and judicial – had a separate sphere of authority and could check other branches according to the principle of the separation of powers.[5] Furthermore, there were checks and balances within the legislature since there were two separate chambers.[23] The new government became active in 1789.[5][24]\nPolitical scientist Julian E. Zelizer suggested there were four main congressional eras, with considerable overlap, and included the formative era (1780s–1820s), the partisan era (1830s–1900s), the committee era (1910s–1960s), and the contemporary era (1970–present).[25]\nFederalists and anti-federalists jostled for power in the early years as political parties became pronounced. With the passage of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the anti-federalist movement was exhausted. Some activists joined the Anti-Administration Party that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were forming about 1790–1791 to oppose policies of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton; it soon became the Democratic-Republican Party or the Jeffersonian Republican Party[26] and began the era of the First Party System.\n19th century\n[edit]In 1800, Thomas Jefferson\'s election to the presidency marked a peaceful transition of power between the parties. John Marshall, 4th chief justice of the Supreme Court, empowered the courts by establishing the principle of judicial review in law in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison in 1803, effectively giving the Supreme Court a power to nullify congressional legislation.[27][28]\nThe Civil War, which lasted from 1861 to 1865, resolved the slavery issue and unified the nation under federal authority but weakened the power of states\' rights. The Gilded Age (1877–1901) was marked by Republican dominance of Congress. During this time, lobbying activity became more intense, particularly during the administration of President Ulysses S. Grant in which influential lobbies advocated for railroad subsidies and tariffs on wool.[29] Immigration and high birth rates swelled the ranks of citizens and the nation grew at a rapid pace. The Progressive Era was characterized by strong party leadership in both houses of Congress and calls for reform; sometimes reformers said lobbyists corrupted politics.[30] The position of Speaker of the House became extremely powerful under leaders such as Thomas Reed in 1890 and Joseph Gurney Cannon.\n20th century\n[edit]By the beginning of the 20th century, party structures and leadership emerged as key organizers of Senate proceedings.[32]\nA system of seniority, in which long-time members of Congress gained more and more power, encouraged politicians of both parties to seek long terms. Committee chairmen remained influential in both houses until the reforms of the 1970s.[33]\nImportant structural changes included the direct popular election of senators according to the Seventeenth Amendment,[19] ratified on April 8, 1913. Supreme Court decisions based on the Constitution\'s commerce clause expanded congressional power to regulate the economy.[34] One effect of popular election of senators was to reduce the difference between the House and Senate in terms of their link to the electorate.[35] Lame duck reforms according to the Twentieth Amendment reduced the power of defeated and retiring members of Congress to wield influence despite their lack of accountability.[36]\nThe Great Depression ushered in President Franklin Roosevelt and strong control by Democrats[37] and historic New Deal policies. Roosevelt\'s election in 1932 marked a shift in government power towards the executive branch. Numerous New Deal initiatives came from the White House rather initiated by Congress.[38] President Roosevelt pushed his agenda in Congress by detailing Executive Branch staff to friendly Senate committees (a practice that ended with the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946).[39] The Democratic Party controlled both houses of Congress for many years.[40][41][42] During this time, Republicans and conservative southern Democrats[43] formed the Conservative Coalition.[42][44] Democrats maintained control of Congress during World War II.[45][46] Congress struggled with efficiency in the postwar era partly by reducing the number of standing congressional committees.[47] Southern Democrats became a powerful force in many influential committees although political power alternated between Republicans and Democrats during these years. More complex issues required greater specialization and expertise, such as space flight and atomic energy policy.[47] Senator Joseph McCarthy exploited the fear of communism during the Second Red Scare and conducted televised hearings.[48][49] In 1960, Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy narrowly won the presidency and power shifted again to the Democrats who dominated both chambers of Congress from 1961 to 1980, and retained a consistent majority in the House from 1955 to 1994.[50]\nCongress enacted Johnson\'s Great Society program to fight poverty and hunger. The Watergate Scandal had a powerful effect of waking up a somewhat dormant Congress which investigated presidential wrongdoing and coverups; the scandal "substantially reshaped" relations between the branches of government, suggested political scientist Bruce J. Schulman.[51] Partisanship returned, particularly after 1994; one analyst attributes partisan infighting to slim congressional majorities which discouraged friendly social gatherings in meeting rooms such as the Board of Education.[8] Congress began reasserting its authority.[38][52] Lobbying became a big factor despite the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act. Political action committees or PACs could make substantive donations to congressional candidates via such means as soft money contributions.[53] While soft money funds were not given to specific campaigns for candidates, the money often benefited candidates substantially in an indirect way and helped reelect candidates.[53] Reforms such as the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act limited campaign donations but did not limit soft money contributions.[54] One source suggests post-Watergate laws amended in 1974 meant to reduce the "influence of wealthy contributors and end payoffs" instead "legitimized PACs" since they "enabled individuals to band together in support of candidates".[55]\nFrom 1974 to 1984, PACs grew from 608 to 3,803 and donations leaped from $12.5 million to $120 million[55][56][57] along with concern over PAC influence in Congress.[58][59] In 2009, there were 4,600 business, labor and special-interest PACs[60] including ones for lawyers, electricians, and real estate brokers.[61] From 2007 to 2008, 175 members of Congress received "half or more of their campaign cash" from PACs.[60][62][63]\nFrom 1970 to 2009, the House expanded delegates, along with their powers and privileges representing U.S. citizens in non-state areas, beginning with representation on committees for Puerto Rico\'s resident commissioner in 1970. In 1971, a delegate for the District of Columbia was authorized, and in 1972 new delegate positions were established for U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam. In 1978, an additional delegate for American Samoa were added.\nIn the late 20th century, the media became more important in Congress\'s work.[64] Analyst Michael Schudson suggested that greater publicity undermined the power of political parties and caused "more roads to open up in Congress for individual representatives to influence decisions".[64] Norman Ornstein suggested that media prominence led to a greater emphasis on the negative and sensational side of Congress, and referred to this as the tabloidization of media coverage.[9] Others saw pressure to squeeze a political position into a thirty-second soundbite.[65] A report characterized Congress in 2013 as unproductive, gridlocked, and "setting records for futility".[66] In October 2013, with Congress unable to compromise, the government was shut down for several weeks and risked a serious default on debt payments, causing 60% of the public to say they would "fire every member of Congress" including their own representative.[67] One report suggested Congress posed the "biggest risk to the U.S. economy" because of its brinksmanship, "down-to-the-wire budget and debt crises" and "indiscriminate spending cuts", resulting in slowed economic activity and keeping up to two million people unemployed.[68] There has been increasing public dissatisfaction with Congress,[69] with extremely low approval ratings[70][71] which dropped to 5% in October 2013.[72]\n21st century\n[edit]In 2009, Congress authorized another delegate for the Northern Mariana Islands. These six members of Congress enjoy floor privileges to introduce bills and resolutions, and in recent Congresses they vote in permanent and select committees, in party caucuses and in joint conferences with the Senate. They have Capitol Hill offices, staff and two annual appointments to each of the four military academies. While their votes are constitutional when Congress authorizes their House Committee of the Whole votes, recent Congresses have not allowed for that, and they cannot vote when the House is meeting as the House of Representatives.[73]\nOn January 6, 2021, Congress gathered to confirm the election of Joe Biden, when supporters of the outgoing president Donald Trump attacked the building. The session of Congress ended prematurely, and Congress representatives evacuated. Trump supporters occupied Congress until D.C police evacuated the area. The event was the first time since the Burning of Washington by the British during the War of 1812 that the United States Congress was forcefully occupied.[74]\nWomen in Congress\n[edit]Various social and structural barriers have prevented women from gaining seats in Congress. In the early 20th century, women\'s domestic roles and the inability to vote forestalled opportunities to run for and hold public office. The two party system and the lack of term limits favored incumbent white men, making the widow\'s succession – in which a woman temporarily took over a seat vacated by the death of her husband – the most common path to Congress for white women.[75]\nWomen candidates began making substantial inroads in the later 20th century, due in part to new political support mechanisms and public awareness of their underrepresentation in Congress. [76] Recruitment and financial support for women candidates were rare until the second-wave feminism movement, when activists moved into electoral politics. Beginning in the 1970s, donors and political action committees like EMILY\'s List began recruiting, training and funding women candidates. Watershed political moments like the confirmation of Clarence Thomas and the 2016 presidential election created momentum for women candidates, resulting in the Year of the Woman and the election of members of The Squad, respectively.[77][78]\nWomen of color faced additional challenges that made their ascension to Congress even more difficult. Jim Crow laws, voter suppression and other forms of structural racism made it virtually impossible for women of color to reach Congress prior to 1965. The passage of the Voting Rights Act that year, and the elimination of race-based immigration laws in the 1960s opened the possibility for Black, Asian American, Latina and other non-white women candidates to run for Congress.[79]\nRacially polarized voting, racial stereotypes and lack of institutional support still prevent women of color from reaching Congress as easily as white people. Senate elections, which require victories in statewide electorates, have been particularly difficult for women of color.[80] Carol Moseley Braun became the first woman of color to reach the Senate in 1993. The second, Mazie Hirono, won in 2013.\nIn 2021, Kamala Harris became the first female President of the Senate, which came with her role as the first female Vice President of the United States.\nRole\n[edit]Powers\n[edit]Overview\n[edit]Article One of the Constitution creates and sets forth the structure and most of the powers of Congress. Sections One through Six describe how Congress is elected and gives each House the power to create its own structure. Section Seven lays out the process for creating laws, and Section Eight enumerates numerous powers. Section Nine is a list of powers Congress does not have, and Section Ten enumerates powers of the state, some of which may only be granted by Congress.[81] Constitutional amendments have granted Congress additional powers. Congress also has implied powers derived from the Constitution\'s Necessary and Proper Clause.\nCongress has authority over financial and budgetary policy through the enumerated power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". There is vast authority over budgets, although analyst Eric Patashnik suggested that much of Congress\'s power to manage the budget has been lost when the welfare state expanded since "entitlements were institutionally detached from Congress\'s ordinary legislative routine and rhythm."[82] Another factor leading to less control over the budget was a Keynesian belief that balanced budgets were unnecessary.[82]\nThe Sixteenth Amendment in 1913 extended congressional power of taxation to include income taxes without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.[83] The Constitution also grants Congress the exclusive power to appropriate funds, and this power of the purse is one of Congress\'s primary checks on the executive branch.[83] Congress can borrow money on the credit of the United States, regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states, and coin money.[84] Generally, the Senate and the House of Representatives have equal legislative authority, although only the House may originate revenue and appropriation bills.[5]\nCongress has an important role in national defense, including the exclusive power to declare war, to raise and maintain the armed forces, and to make rules for the military.[85] Some critics charge that the executive branch has usurped Congress\'s constitutionally defined task of declaring war.[86] While historically presidents initiated the process for going to war, they asked for and received formal war declarations from Congress for the War of 1812, the Mexican–American War, the Spanish–American War, World War I, and World War II,[87] although President Theodore Roosevelt\'s military move into Panama in 1903 did not get congressional approval.[87] In the early days after the North Korean invasion of 1950, President Truman described the American response as a "police action".[88] According to Time magazine in 1970, "U.S. presidents [had] ordered troops into position or action without a formal congressional declaration a total of 149 times."[87] In 1993, Michael Kinsley wrote that "Congress\'s war power has become the most flagrantly disregarded provision in the Constitution," and that the "real erosion [of Congress\'s war power] began after World War II."[89][90][91] Disagreement about the extent of congressional versus presidential power regarding war has been present periodically throughout the nation\'s history.[92]\nCongress can establish post offices and post roads, issue patents and copyrights, fix standards of weights and measures, establish Courts inferior to the Supreme Court, and "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof". Article Four gives Congress the power to admit new states into the Union.\nOne of Congress\'s foremost non-legislative functions is the power to investigate and oversee the executive branch.[93] Congressional oversight is usually delegated to committees and is facilitated by Congress\'s subpoena power.[94] Some critics have charged that Congress has in some instances failed to do an adequate job of overseeing the other branches of government. In the Plame affair, critics including Representative Henry A. Waxman charged that Congress was not doing an adequate job of oversight in this case.[95] There have been concerns about congressional oversight of executive actions such as warrantless wiretapping, although others respond that Congress did investigate the legality of presidential decisions.[96] Political scientists Ornstein and Mann suggested that oversight functions do not help members of Congress win reelection. Congress also has the exclusive power of removal, allowing impeachment and removal of the president, federal judges and other federal officers.[97] There have been charges that presidents acting under the doctrine of the unitary executive have assumed important legislative and budgetary powers that should belong to Congress.[98] So-called signing statements are one way in which a president can "tip the balance of power between Congress and the White House a little more in favor of the executive branch", according to one account.[99] Past presidents, including Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush,[100] have made public statements when signing congressional legislation about how they understand a bill or plan to execute it, and commentators, including the American Bar Association, have described this practice as against the spirit of the Constitution.[101][102] There have been concerns that presidential authority to cope with financial crises is eclipsing the power of Congress.[103] In 2008, George F. Will called the Capitol building a "tomb for the antiquated idea that the legislative branch matters".[104]\nEnumeration\n[edit]The Constitution enumerates the powers of Congress in detail. In addition, other congressional powers have been granted, or confirmed, by constitutional amendments. The Thirteenth (1865), Fourteenth (1868), and Fifteenth Amendments (1870) gave Congress authority to enact legislation to enforce rights of African Americans, including voting rights, due process, and equal protection under the law.[105] Generally militia forces are controlled by state governments, not Congress.[106]\nImplicit, commerce clause\n[edit]Congress also has implied powers deriving from the Constitution\'s Necessary and Proper Clause which permit Congress to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof".[107] Broad interpretations of this clause and of the Commerce Clause, the enumerated power to regulate commerce, in rulings such as McCulloch v. Maryland, have effectively widened the scope of Congress\'s legislative authority far beyond that prescribed in Section Eight.[108][109]\nTerritorial government\n[edit]Constitutional responsibility for the oversight of Washington, D.C., the federal district and national capital, and the U.S. territories of Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands rests with Congress.[110] The republican form of government in territories is devolved by congressional statute to the respective territories including direct election of governors, the D.C. mayor and locally elective territorial legislatures.[111]\nEach territory and Washington, D.C., elects a non-voting delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives as they have throughout congressional history. They "possess the same powers as other members of the House, except that they may not vote when the House is meeting as the House of Representatives". They are assigned offices and allowances for staff, participate in debate, and appoint constituents to the four military service academies for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard.[112]\nWashington, D.C., citizens alone among U.S. territories have the right to directly vote for the President of the United States, although the Democratic and Republican political parties nominate their presidential candidates at national conventions which include delegates from the five major territories.[113]\nChecks and balances\n[edit]Representative Lee H. Hamilton explained how Congress functions within the federal government:\nTo me the key to understanding it is balance. The founders went to great lengths to balance institutions against each other – balancing powers among the three branches: Congress, the president, and the Supreme Court; between the House of Representatives and the Senate; between the federal government and the states; among states of different sizes and regions with different interests; between the powers of government and the rights of citizens, as spelled out in the Bill of Rights ... No one part of government dominates the other.[6]: 6\nThe Constitution provides checks and balances among the three branches of the federal government. Its authors expected the greater power to lie with Congress as described in Article One.[6][114]\nThe influence of Congress on the presidency has varied from period to period depending on factors such as congressional leadership, presidential political influence, historical circumstances such as war, and individual initiative by members of Congress. The impeachment of Andrew Johnson made the presidency less powerful than Congress for a considerable period afterwards.[115] The 20th and 21st centuries have seen the rise of presidential power under politicians such as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush.[116] Congress restricted presidential power with laws such as the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and the War Powers Resolution. The presidency remains considerably more powerful today than during the 19th century.[6][116] Executive branch officials are often loath to reveal sensitive information to members of Congress because of concern that information could not be kept secret; in return, knowing they may be in the dark about executive branch activity, congressional officials are more likely to distrust their counterparts in executive agencies.[117] Many government actions require fast coordinated effort by many agencies, and this is a task that Congress is ill-suited for. Congress is slow, open, divided, and not well matched to handle more rapid executive action or do a good job of overseeing such activity, according to one analysis.[118]\nThe Constitution concentrates removal powers in the Congress by empowering and obligating the House of Representatives to impeach executive or judicial officials for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". Impeachment is a formal accusation of unlawful activity by a civil officer or government official. The Senate is constitutionally empowered and obligated to try all impeachments. A simple majority in the House is required to impeach an official; a two-thirds majority in the Senate is required for conviction. A convicted official is automatically removed from office; in addition, the Senate may stipulate that the defendant be banned from holding office in the future. Impeachment proceedings may not inflict more than this. A convicted party may face criminal penalties in a normal court of law. In the history of the United States, the House of Representatives has impeached sixteen officials, of whom seven were convicted. Another resigned before the Senate could complete the trial. Only three presidents have ever been impeached: Andrew Johnson in 1868, Bill Clinton in 1999, Donald Trump in 2019 and 2021. The trials of Johnson, Clinton, and the 2019 trial of Trump all ended in acquittal; in Johnson\'s case, the Senate fell one vote short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction. In 1974, Richard Nixon resigned from office after impeachment proceedings in the House Judiciary Committee indicated his removal from office.\nThe Senate has an important check on the executive power by confirming Cabinet officials, judges, and other high officers "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate". It confirms most presidential nominees, but rejections are not uncommon. Furthermore, treaties negotiated by the President must be ratified by a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate to take effect. As a result, presidential arm-twisting of senators can happen before a key vote; for example, President Obama\'s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, urged her former senate colleagues to approve a nuclear arms treaty with Russia in 2010.[119] The House of Representatives has no formal role in either the ratification of treaties or the appointment of federal officials, other than in filling a vacancy in the office of the vice president; in such a case, a majority vote in each House is required to confirm a president\'s nomination of a vice president.[5]\nIn 1803, the Supreme Court established judicial review of federal legislation in Marbury v. Madison, holding that Congress could not grant unconstitutional power to the Court itself. The Constitution did not explicitly state that the courts may exercise judicial review. The notion that courts could declare laws unconstitutional was envisioned by the founding fathers. Alexander Hamilton, for example, mentioned and expounded upon the doctrine in Federalist No. 78. Originalists on the Supreme Court have argued that if the constitution does not say something explicitly it is unconstitutional to infer what it should, might, or could have said.[120] Judicial review means that the Supreme Court can nullify a congressional law. It is a huge check by the courts on the legislative authority and limits congressional power substantially. In 1857, for example, the Supreme Court struck down provisions of a congressional act of 1820 in its Dred Scott decision.[121] At the same time, the Supreme Court can extend congressional power through its constitutional interpretations.\nThe congressional inquiry into St. Clair\'s Defeat of 1791 was the first congressional investigation of the executive branch.[122] Investigations are conducted to gather information on the need for future legislation, to test the effectiveness of laws already passed, and to inquire into the qualifications and performance of members and officials of the other branches. Committees may hold hearings, and, if necessary, subpoena people to testify when investigating issues over which it has the power to legislate.[123][124] Witnesses who refuse to testify may be cited for contempt of Congress, and those who testify falsely may be charged with perjury. Most committee hearings are open to the public (the House and Senate intelligence committees are the exception); important hearings are widely reported in the mass media and transcripts published a few months afterwards.[124] Congress, in the course of studying possible laws and investigating matters, generates an incredible amount of information in various forms, and can be described as a publisher.[125] Indeed, it publishes House and Senate reports[125] and maintains databases which are updated irregularly with publications in a variety of electronic formats.[125]\nCongress also plays a role in presidential elections. Both Houses meet in joint session on the sixth day of January following a presidential election to count the electoral votes, and there are procedures to follow if no candidate wins a majority.[5]\nThe main result of congressional activity is the creation of laws,[126] most of which are contained in the United States Code, arranged by subject matter alphabetically under fifty title headings to present the laws "in a concise and usable form".[5]\nStructure\n[edit]Congress is split into two chambers – House and Senate – and manages the task of writing national legislation by dividing work into separate committees which specialize in different areas. Some members of Congress are elected by their peers to be officers of these committees. Further, Congress has ancillary organizations such as the Government Accountability Office and the Library of Congress to help provide it with information, and members of Congress have staff and offices to assist them as well. In addition, a vast industry of lobbyists helps members write legislation on behalf of diverse corporate and labor interests.\nCommittees\n[edit]Specializations\n[edit]The committee structure permits members of Congress to study a particular subject intensely. It is neither expected nor possible that a member be an expert on all subject areas before Congress.[127] As time goes by, members develop expertise in particular subjects and their legal aspects. Committees investigate specialized subjects and advise the entire Congress about choices and trade-offs. The choice of specialty may be influenced by the member\'s constituency, important regional issues, prior background and experience.[128] Senators often choose a different specialty from that of the other senator from their state to prevent overlap.[129] Some committees specialize in running the business of other committees and exert a powerful influence over all legislation; for example, the House Ways and Means Committee has considerable influence over House affairs.[130]\nPower\n[edit]Committees write legislation. While procedures, such as the House discharge petition process, can introduce bills to the House floor and effectively bypass committee input, they are exceedingly difficult to implement without committee action. Committees have power and have been called independent fiefdoms. Legislative, oversight, and internal administrative tasks are divided among about two hundred committees and subcommittees which gather information, evaluate alternatives, and identify problems.[131] They propose solutions for consideration by the full chamber.[131] In addition, they perform the function of oversight by monitoring the executive branch and investigating wrongdoing.[131]\nOfficer\n[edit]At the start of each two-year session, the House elects a speaker who does not normally preside over debates but serves as the majority party\'s leader. In the Senate, the vice president is the ex officio president of the Senate. In addition, the Senate elects an officer called the president pro tempore. Pro tempore means for the time being and this office is usually held by the most senior member of the Senate\'s majority party and customarily keeps this position until there is a change in party control. Accordingly, the Senate does not necessarily elect a new president pro tempore at the beginning of a new Congress. In the House and Senate, the actual presiding officer is generally a junior member of the majority party who is appointed so that new members become acquainted with the rules of the chamber.\nSupport services\n[edit]Library of Congress\n[edit]The Library of Congress was established by an act of Congress in 1800. It is primarily housed in three buildings on Capitol Hill, but also includes several other sites: the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped in Washington, D.C.; the National Audio-Visual Conservation Center in Culpeper, Virginia; a large book storage facility located in Fort Meade, Maryland; and multiple overseas offices. The Library had mostly law books when it was burnt by British forces in 1814 during the War of 1812, but the library\'s collections were restored and expanded when Congress authorized the purchase of Thomas Jefferson\'s private library. One of the library\'s missions is to serve Congress and its staff as well as the American public. It is the largest library in the world with nearly 150 million items including books, films, maps, photographs, music, manuscripts, graphics, and materials in 470 languages.[132]\nCongressional Research Service\n[edit]The Congressional Research Service, part of the Library of Congress, provides detailed, up-to-date and non-partisan research for senators, representatives, and their staff to help them carry out their official duties. It provides ideas for legislation, helps members analyze a bill, facilitates public hearings, makes reports, consults on matters such as parliamentary procedure, and helps the two chambers resolve disagreements. It has been called the "House\'s think tank" and has a staff of about 900 employees.[133]\nCongressional Budget Office\n[edit]The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is a federal agency which provides economic data to Congress.[134]\nIt was created as an independent non-partisan agency by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. It helps Congress estimate revenue inflows from taxes and helps the budgeting process. It makes projections about such matters as the national debt[135] as well as likely costs of legislation. It prepares an annual Economic and Budget Outlook with a mid-year update and writes An Analysis of the President\'s Budgetary Proposals for the Senate\'s Appropriations Committee. The speaker of the House and the Senate\'s president pro tempore jointly appoint the CBO director for a four-year term.\nLobbying\n[edit]Lobbyists represent diverse interests and often seek to influence congressional decisions to reflect their clients\' needs. Lobby groups and their members sometimes write legislation and whip bills. In 2007, there were approximately 17,000 federal lobbyists in Washington, D.C.[136] They explain to legislators the goals of their organizations. Some lobbyists represent non-profit organizations and work pro bono for issues in which they are personally interested.\nPolice\n[edit]Partisanship versus bipartisanship\n[edit]Congress has alternated between periods of constructive cooperation and compromise between parties, known as bipartisanship, and periods of deep political polarization and fierce infighting, known as partisanship. The period after the Civil War was marked by partisanship, as is the case today. It is generally easier for committees to reach accord on issues when compromise is possible. Some political scientists speculate that a prolonged period marked by narrow majorities in both chambers of Congress has intensified partisanship in the last few decades, but that an alternation of control of Congress between Democrats and Republicans may lead to greater flexibility in policies, as well as pragmatism and civility within the institution.[137]\nProcedures\n[edit]Sessions\n[edit]A term of Congress is divided into two "sessions", one for each year; Congress has occasionally been called into an extra or special session. A new session commences on January 3 each year unless Congress decides differently. The Constitution requires Congress to meet at least once each year and forbids either house from meeting outside the Capitol without the consent of the other house.\nJoint sessions\n[edit]Joint sessions of the United States Congress occur on special occasions that require a concurrent resolution from House and Senate. These sessions include counting electoral votes after a presidential election and the president\'s State of the Union address. The constitutionally mandated report, normally given as an annual speech, is modeled on Britain\'s Speech from the Throne, was written by most presidents after Jefferson but personally delivered as a spoken oration beginning with Wilson in 1913. Joint Sessions and Joint Meetings are traditionally presided over by the speaker of the House, except when counting presidential electoral votes when the vice president (acting as the president of the Senate) presides.\nBills and resolutions\n[edit]Ideas for legislation can come from members, lobbyists, state legislatures, constituents, legislative counsel, or executive agencies. Anyone can write a bill, but only members of Congress may introduce bills. Most bills are not written by Congress members, but originate from the Executive branch; interest groups often draft bills as well. The usual next step is for the proposal to be passed to a committee for review.[5] A proposal is usually in one of these forms:\n- Bills are laws in the making. A House-originated bill begins with the letters "H.R." for "House of Representatives", followed by a number kept as it progresses.[126]\n- Joint resolutions. There is little difference between a bill and a joint resolution since both are treated similarly; a joint resolution originating from the House, for example, begins "H.J.Res." followed by its number.[126]\n- Concurrent Resolutions affect only the House and Senate and accordingly are not presented to the president. In the House, they begin with "H.Con.Res."[126]\n- Simple resolutions concern only the House or only the Senate and begin with "H.Res." or "S.Res."[126]\nRepresentatives introduce a bill while the House is in session by placing it in the hopper on the Clerk\'s desk.[126] It is assigned a number and referred to a committee which studies each bill intensely at this stage.[126] Drafting statutes requires "great skill, knowledge, and experience" and sometimes take a year or more.[5] Sometimes lobbyists write legislation and submit it to a member for introduction. Joint resolutions are the normal way to propose a constitutional amendment or declare war. On the other hand, concurrent resolutions (passed by both houses) and simple resolutions (passed by only one house) do not have the force of law but express the opinion of Congress or regulate procedure. Bills may be introduced by any member of either house. The Constitution states: "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." While the Senate cannot originate revenue and appropriation bills, it has the power to amend or reject them. Congress has sought ways to establish appropriate spending levels.[5]\nEach chamber determines its own internal rules of operation unless specified in the Constitution or prescribed by law. In the House, a Rules Committee guides legislation; in the Senate, a Standing Rules committee is in charge. Each branch has its own traditions; for example, the Senate relies heavily on the practice of getting "unanimous consent" for noncontroversial matters.[5] House and Senate rules can be complex, sometimes requiring a hundred specific steps before a bill can become a law.[6] Members sometimes turn to outside experts to learn about proper congressional procedures.[138]\nEach bill goes through several stages in each house including consideration by a committee and advice from the Government Accountability Office.[5] Most legislation is considered by standing committees which have jurisdiction over a particular subject such as Agriculture or Appropriations. The House has twenty standing committees; the Senate has sixteen. Standing committees meet at least once each month.[5] Almost all standing committee meetings for transacting business must be open to the public unless the committee votes, publicly, to close the meeting.[5] A committee might call for public hearings on important bills.[5] Each committee is led by a chair who belongs to the majority party and a ranking member of the minority party. Witnesses and experts can present their case for or against a bill.[126] Then, a bill may go to what is called a mark-up session, where committee members debate the bill\'s merits and may offer amendments or revisions.[126] Committees may also amend the bill, but the full house holds the power to accept or reject committee amendments. After debate, the committee votes whether it wishes to report the measure to the full house. If a bill is tabled then it is rejected. If amendments are extensive, sometimes a new bill with amendments built in will be submitted as a so-called clean bill with a new number.[126] Both houses have procedures under which committees can be bypassed or overruled but they are rarely used. Generally, members who have been in Congress longer have greater seniority and therefore greater power.[139]\nA bill which reaches the floor of the full house can be simple or complex[126] and begins with an enacting formula such as "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled ..." Consideration of a bill requires, itself, a rule which is a simple resolution specifying the particulars of debate – time limits, possibility of further amendments, and such.[126] Each side has equal time and members can yield to other members who wish to speak.[126] Sometimes opponents seek to recommit a bill which means to change part of it.[126] Generally, discussion requires a quorum, usually half of the total number of representatives, before discussion can begin, although there are exceptions.[140] The house may debate and amend the bill; the precise procedures used by the House and Senate differ. A final vote on the bill follows.\nOnce a bill is approved by one house, it is sent to the other which may pass, reject, or amend it. For the bill to become law, both houses must agree to identical versions of the bill.[126] If the second house amends the bill, then the differences between the two versions must be reconciled in a conference committee, an ad hoc committee that includes senators and representatives[126] sometimes by using a reconciliation process to limit budget bills.[5] Both houses use a budget enforcement mechanism informally known as pay-as-you-go or paygo which discourages members from considering acts that increase budget deficits.[5] If both houses agree to the version reported by the conference committee, the bill passes, otherwise it fails.\nThe Constitution specifies that a majority of members (a quorum) be present before doing business in each house. The rules of each house assume that a quorum is present unless a quorum call demonstrates the contrary and debate often continues despite the lack of a majority.\nVoting within Congress can take many forms, including systems using lights and bells and electronic voting.[5] Both houses use voice voting to decide most matters in which members shout "aye" or "no" and the presiding officer announces the result. The Constitution requires a recorded vote if demanded by one-fifth of the members present or when voting to override a presidential veto. If the voice vote is unclear or if the matter is controversial, a recorded vote usually happens. The Senate uses roll-call voting, in which a clerk calls out the names of all the senators, each senator stating "aye" or "no" when their name is announced. In the Senate, the Vice President may cast the tie-breaking vote if present when the senators are equally divided.\nThe House reserves roll-call votes for the most formal matters, as a roll call of all 435 representatives takes quite some time; normally, members vote by using an electronic device. In the case of a tie, the motion in question fails. Most votes in the House are done electronically, allowing members to vote yea or nay or present or open.[5] Members insert a voting ID card and can change their votes during the last five minutes if they choose; in addition, paper ballots are used occasionally (yea indicated by green and nay by red).[5] One member cannot cast a proxy vote for another.[5] Congressional votes are recorded on an online database.[141][142]\nAfter passage by both houses, a bill is enrolled and sent to the president for approval.[126] The president may sign it making it law or veto it, perhaps returning it to Congress with the president\'s objections. A vetoed bill can still become law if each house of Congress votes to override the veto with a two-thirds majority. Finally, the president may do nothing neither signing nor vetoing the bill and then the bill becomes law automatically after ten days (not counting Sundays) according to the Constitution. But if Congress is adjourned during this period, presidents may veto legislation passed at the end of a congressional session simply by ignoring it; the maneuver is known as a pocket veto, and cannot be overridden by the adjourned Congress.\nPublic interaction\n[edit]Advantage of incumbency\n[edit]Citizens and representatives\n[edit]Senators face reelection every six years, and representatives every two. Reelections encourage candidates to focus their publicity efforts at their home states or districts.[64] Running for reelection can be a grueling process of distant travel and fund-raising which distracts senators and representatives from paying attention to governing, according to some critics.[143] Although others respond that the process is necessary to keep members of Congress in touch with voters.\nIncumbent members of Congress running for reelection have strong advantages over challengers.[53] They raise more money[58] because donors fund incumbents over challengers, perceiving the former as more likely to win,[56][144] and donations are vital for winning elections.[145] One critic compared election to Congress to receiving life tenure at a university.[144] Another advantage for representatives is the practice of gerrymandering.[146][147] After each ten-year census, states are allocated representatives based on population, and officials in power can choose how to draw the congressional district boundaries to support candidates from their party. As a result, reelection rates of members of Congress hover around 90 percent,[10] causing some critics to call them a privileged class.[9] Academics such as Princeton\'s Stephen Macedo have proposed solutions to fix gerrymandering in the U.S. Senators and representatives enjoy free mailing privileges, called franking privileges; while these are not intended for electioneering, this rule is often skirted by borderline election-related mailings during campaigns.\nExpensive campaigns\n[edit]In 1971, the cost of running for Congress in Utah was $70,000[148] but costs have climbed.[149] The biggest expense is television advertisements.[57][144][148][150][151] Today\'s races cost more than a million dollars for a House seat, and six million or more for a Senate seat.[9][57][150][152][153] Since fundraising is vital, "members of Congress are forced to spend ever-increasing hours raising money for their re-election."[attribution needed][154]\nThe Supreme Court has treated campaign contributions as a free speech issue.[149] Some see money as a good influence in politics since it "enables candidates to communicate with voters".[149] Few members retire from Congress without complaining about how much it costs to campaign for reelection.[9] Critics contend that members of Congress are more likely to attend to the needs of heavy campaign contributors than to ordinary citizens.[9]\nElections are influenced by many variables. Some political scientists speculate there is a coattail effect (when a popular president or party position has the effect of reelecting incumbents who win by "riding on the president\'s coattails"), although there is some evidence that the coattail effect is irregular and possibly declining since the 1950s.[53] Some districts are so heavily Democratic or Republican that they are called a safe seat; any candidate winning the primary will almost always be elected, and these candidates do not need to spend money on advertising.[155][156] But some races can be competitive when there is no incumbent. If a seat becomes vacant in an open district, then both parties may spend heavily on advertising in these races; in California in 1992, only four of twenty races for House seats were considered highly competitive.[157]\nTelevision and negative advertising\n[edit]Since members of Congress must advertise heavily on television, this usually involves negative advertising, which smears an opponent\'s character without focusing on the issues.[158] Negative advertising is seen as effective because "the messages tend to stick."[159] These advertisements sour the public on the political process in general as most members of Congress seek to avoid blame.[160] One wrong decision or one damaging television image can mean defeat at the next election, which leads to a culture of risk avoidance, a need to make policy decisions behind closed doors,[160][161] and concentrating publicity efforts in the members\' home districts.[64]\nPerceptions\n[edit]Prominent Founding Fathers, writing in The Federalist Papers, felt that elections were essential to liberty, that a bond between the people and the representatives was particularly essential,[162] and that "frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured."[162] In 2009, few Americans were familiar with leaders of Congress.[163][164][165] The percentage of Americans eligible to vote who did, in fact, vote was 63% in 1960, but has been falling since, although there was a slight upward trend in the 2008 election.[166] Public opinion polls asking people if they approve of the job Congress is doing have, in the last few decades, hovered around 25% with some variation.[9][167][168][169][170][171][172] Scholar Julian Zeliger suggested that the "size, messiness, virtues, and vices that make Congress so interesting also create enormous barriers to our understanding the institution ... Unlike the presidency, Congress is difficult to conceptualize."[173] Other scholars suggest that despite the criticism, "Congress is a remarkably resilient institution ... its place in the political process is not threatened ... it is rich in resources" and that most members behave ethically.[7] They contend that "Congress is easy to dislike and often difficult to defend" and this perception is exacerbated because many challengers running for Congress run against Congress, which is an "old form of American politics" that further undermines Congress\'s reputation with the public:[9]\nThe rough-and-tumble world of legislating is not orderly and civil, human frailties too often taint its membership, and legislative outcomes are often frustrating and ineffective ... Still, we are not exaggerating when we say that Congress is essential to American democracy. We would not have survived as a nation without a Congress that represented the diverse interests of our society, conducted a public debate on the major issues, found compromises to resolve conflicts peacefully, and limited the power of our executive, military, and judicial institutions ... The popularity of Congress ebbs and flows with the public\'s confidence in government generally ... the legislative process is easy to dislike – it often generates political posturing and grandstanding, it necessarily involves compromise, and it often leaves broken promises in its trail. Also, members of Congress often appear self-serving as they pursue their political careers and represent interests and reflect values that are controversial. Scandals, even when they involve a single member, add to the public\'s frustration with Congress and have contributed to the institution\'s low ratings in opinion polls.\n— Smith, Roberts & Wielen[9]\nAn additional factor that confounds public perceptions of Congress is that congressional issues are becoming more technical and complex and require expertise in subjects such as science, engineering and economics.[9] As a result, Congress often cedes authority to experts at the executive branch.[9]\nSince 2006, Congress has dropped ten points in the Gallup confidence poll with only nine percent having "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in their legislators.[174] Since 2011, Gallup poll has reported Congress\'s approval rating among Americans at 10% or below three times.[70][71] Public opinion of Congress plummeted further to 5% in October 2013 after parts of the U.S. government deemed \'nonessential government\' shut down.[72]\nSmaller states and bigger states\n[edit]When the Constitution was ratified in 1787, the ratio of the populations of large states to small states was roughly twelve to one. The Connecticut Compromise gave every state, large and small, an equal vote in the Senate.[175] Since each state has two senators, residents of smaller states have more clout in the Senate than residents of larger states. But since 1787, the population disparity between large and small states has grown; in 2006, for example, California had seventy times the population of Wyoming.[176] Critics, such as constitutional scholar Sanford Levinson, have suggested that the population disparity works against residents of large states and causes a steady redistribution of resources from "large states to small states".[177][178][179] Others argue that the Connecticut Compromise was deliberately intended by the Founding Fathers to construct the Senate so that each state had equal footing not based on population,[175] and contend that the result works well on balance.\nMembers and constituents\n[edit]A major role for members of Congress is providing services to constituents.[180] Constituents request assistance with problems.[181] Providing services helps members of Congress win votes and elections[146][182][183] and can make a difference in close races.[184] Congressional staff can help citizens navigate government bureaucracies.[6] One academic described the complex intertwined relation between lawmakers and constituents as home style.[185]: 8\nMotivation\n[edit]One way to categorize lawmakers, according to former University of Rochester political science professor Richard Fenno, is by their general motivation:\n- Reelection: These are lawmakers who "never met a voter they didn\'t like" and provide excellent constituent services.\n- Good public policy: Legislators who "burnish a reputation for policy expertise and leadership".\n- Power in the chamber: Lawmakers who spend serious time along the "rail of the House floor or in the Senate cloakroom ministering to the needs of their colleagues". Famous legislator Henry Clay in the mid-19th century was described as an "issue entrepreneur" who looked for issues to serve his ambitions.[185]: 34\nPrivileges\n[edit]Outside income and gifts\n[edit]Representative Jim Cooper of Tennessee told Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig that a chief problem with Congress was that members focused on their future careers as lobbyists after serving – that Congress was a "Farm League for K Street".[186][187] Family members of active legislators have also been hired by lobbying firms, which while not allowed to lobby their family member, has drawn criticism as a conflict of interest.[188]\nMembers of congress have been accused of insider trading, such as in the 2020 congressional insider trading scandal, where members of congress or their family members have traded on stocks related to work on their committees.[189] One 2011 study concluded that portfolios of members of congress outperformed both the market and hedge funds, which the authors suggested as evidence of insider trading.[190] Proposed solutions include putting stocks in blind trusts to prevent future insider trading.[191]\nSome members of congress have gone on lavish trips paid for by outside groups, sometimes bringing family members, which are often legal even if in an ethical gray area.[192][193]\nPay\n[edit]Some critics complain congressional pay is high compared with a median American income.[194] Others have countered that congressional pay is consistent with other branches of government.[167] Another criticism is that members of Congress are insulated from the health care market due to their coverage.[195] Others have criticized the wealth of members of Congress.[148][151] In January 2014, it was reported that for the first time over half of the members of Congress were millionaires.[196] Congress has been criticized for trying to conceal pay raises by slipping them into a large bill at the last minute.[197]\nMembers elected since 1984 are covered by the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). Like other federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through taxes and participants\' contributions. Members of Congress under FERS contribute 1.3% of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2% of their salary in Social Security taxes. And like federal employees, members contribute one-third of the cost of health insurance with the government covering the other two-thirds.[198] The size of a congressional pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest three years of their salary. By law, the starting amount of a member\'s retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of their final salary. In 2018, the average annual pension for retired senators and representatives under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) was $75,528, while those who retired under FERS, or in combination with CSRS, was $41,208.[199]\nMembers of Congress make fact-finding missions to learn about other countries and stay informed, but these outings can cause controversy if the trip is deemed excessive or unconnected with the task of governing. For example, The Wall Street Journal reported in 2009 that lawmaker trips abroad at taxpayer expense had included spas, $300-per-night extra unused rooms, and shopping excursions.[200] Some lawmakers responded that "traveling with spouses compensates for being away from them a lot in Washington" and justify the trips as a way to meet officials in other nations.[200]\nBy the Twenty-seventh Amendment, changes to congressional pay may not take effect before the next election to the House of the Representatives.[201] In Boehner v. Anderson, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the amendment does not affect cost-of-living adjustments.[202][201]\nPostage\n[edit]The franking privilege allows members of Congress to send official mail to constituents at government expense. Though they are not permitted to send election materials, borderline material is often sent, especially in the run-up to an election by those in close races.[203][204] Some academics consider free mailings as giving incumbents a big advantage over challengers.[10][failed verification][205]\nProtection\n[edit]Members of Congress enjoy parliamentary privilege, including freedom from arrest in all cases except for treason, felony, and breach of the peace, and freedom of speech in debate. This constitutionally derived immunity applies to members during sessions and when traveling to and from sessions.[206] The term "arrest" has been interpreted broadly, and includes any detention or delay in the course of law enforcement, including court summons and subpoenas. The rules of the House strictly guard this privilege; a member may not waive the privilege on their own but must seek the permission of the whole house to do so. Senate rules are less strict and permit individual senators to waive the privilege as they choose.[207]\nThe Constitution guarantees absolute freedom of debate in both houses, providing in the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution that "for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place." Accordingly, a member of Congress may not be sued in court for slander because of remarks made in either house, although each house has its own rules restricting offensive speeches, and may punish members who transgress.[208]\nObstructing the work of Congress is a crime under federal law and is known as contempt of Congress. Each member has the power to cite people for contempt but can only issue a contempt citation – the judicial system pursues the matter like a normal criminal case. If convicted in court of contempt of Congress, a person may be imprisoned for up to one year.[209]\nSee also\n[edit]- Caucuses of the United States Congress\n- Congressional Archives\n- Current members of the United States House of Representatives\n- Current members of the United States Senate\n- Elections in the United States § Congressional elections\n- List of United States Congresses\n- Oath of office § United States\n- Radio and Television Correspondents\' Association\n- United States Congress Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction\n- United States Congressional Baseball Game\n- United States congressional hearing\n- United States presidents and control of Congress\nNotes\n[edit]- ^ Independent Sens. Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont caucus with the Democratic Party;[1]\n- ^ Vice President-elect JD Vance (R-OH) resigned his seat.\n- ^ Matt Gaetz (R) declined to take office after being re-elected. [2]\nA special election will be held on April 1, 2025. - ^ Before the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1913, senators were chosen by state legislatures.\n- ^ Congress does not take a grammatical article, except when referring to a specific session of Congress.[3]\nCitations\n[edit]- ^ "Maine Independent Angus King To Caucus With Senate Democrats". Politico. November 14, 2012. Archived from the original on December 8, 2020. Retrieved November 28, 2020.\nAngus King of Maine, who cruised to victory last week running as an independent, said Wednesday that he will caucus with Senate Democrats. [...] The Senate\'s other independent, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, also caucuses with the Democrats.\n- ^ McIntire, Mary Ellen (November 22, 2024). "Matt Gaetz says he won\'t return to Congress next year". Roll Call. Archived from the original on November 23, 2024. Retrieved November 23, 2024.\n- ^ Garner, Bryan A. (2011). Garner\'s Dictionary of Legal Usage (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 203. ISBN 9780195384208. Retrieved October 22, 2023.\n- ^ "Membership of the 116th Congress: A Profile". Congressional Research Service. p. 4. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved March 5, 2020.\nCongress is composed of 541 individuals from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Puerto Rico.\n- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v John V. Sullivan (July 24, 2007). "How Our Laws Are Made". U.S. House of Representatives. Archived from the original on May 5, 2020. Retrieved November 27, 2016.\n- ^ a b c d e f g Lee H. Hamilton (2004). How Congress works and why you should care. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-253-34425-5. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ a b Steven S. Smith; Jason M. Roberts; Ryan J. Vander Wielen (2006). "The American Congress (Fourth Edition)". Cambridge University Press. p. 23. ISBN 9781139446990. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ a b c Julian E. Zelizer; Joanne Barrie Freeman; Jack N. Rakove; Alan Taylor, eds. (2004). "The American Congress: The Building of Democracy". Houghton Mifflin Company. pp. xiii–xiv. ISBN 0-618-17906-2. Archived from the original on October 19, 2017. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Steven S. Smith; Jason M. Roberts; Ryan J. Vander Wielen (2006). "The American Congress (Fourth Edition)". Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781139446990. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ a b c Perry Bacon Jr. (August 31, 2009). "Post Politics Hour: Weekend Review and a Look Ahead". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 20, 2009.\n- ^ "Information about the Archives of the United States Senate". U.S. Senate. Archived from the original on January 6, 2014. Retrieved January 6, 2014.\n- ^ Thomas Paine (1982). Kramnick, Isaac (ed.). Common Sense. Penguin Classics. p. 21.\n- ^ "References about weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation".*Pauline Maier (book reviewer) (November 18, 2007). "History – The Framers\' Real Motives (book review) Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution book by Woody Holton". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 10, 2009.*"The Constitution and the Idea of Compromise". PBS. October 10, 2009. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 10, 2009.*Alexander Hamilton (1788). "Federalist No. 15 – The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union". FoundingFathers.info. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 10, 2009.\n- ^ English (2003), pp. 5–6.\n- ^ Collier (1986), p. 5.\n- ^ James Madison (1787). "James Madison and the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787 – Engendering a National Government". The Library of Congress – American memory. Archived from the original on May 4, 2015. Retrieved October 10, 2009.\n- ^ "The Founding Fathers: New Jersey". The Charters of Freedom. October 10, 2009. Archived from the original on October 9, 2016. Retrieved October 10, 2009.\n- ^ "The Presidency: Vetoes". Time. March 9, 1931. Archived from the original on August 12, 2013. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ a b David E. Kyvig (2004). Julian E. Zelizer (ed.). "The American Congress: The Building of Democracy". Houghton Mifflin Company. p. 362. ISBN 0-618-17906-2. Archived from the original on October 19, 2017. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ David B. Rivkin Jr. & Lee A. Casey (August 22, 2009). "Illegal Health Reform". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 29, 2020. Retrieved October 10, 2009.\n- ^ Founding Fathers via FindLaw (1787). "U.S. Constitution: Article I (section 8 paragraph 3) – Article Text – Annotations". FindLaw. Archived from the original on February 12, 2010. Retrieved October 10, 2009.\n- ^ English (2003), p. 7.\n- ^ English (2003), p. 8.\n- ^ "The Convention Timeline". U.S. Constitution Online. October 10, 2009. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 10, 2009.\n- ^ Eric Patashnik (2004). Julian E. Zelizer (ed.). "The American Congress: The Building of Democracy". Houghton Mifflin Company. ISBN 0-618-17906-2. Archived from the original on October 19, 2017. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, March 2, 1794 Archived November 14, 2017, at the Wayback Machine "I see by a paper of last evening that even in New York a meeting of the people has taken place, at the instance of the Republican Party, and that a committee is appointed for the like purpose."\nThomas Jefferson to President Washington, May 23, 1792 Archived January 14, 2021, at the Wayback Machine "The republican party, who wish to preserve the government in its present form, are fewer in number. They are fewer even when joined by the two, three, or half dozen anti-federalists. ..." - ^ Chemerinsky, Erwin (2015). Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (5th ed.). New York: Wolters Kluwer. p. 37. ISBN 978-1-4548-4947-6.\n- ^ Van Alstyne, William (1969). "A Critical Guide to Marbury v. Madison". Duke Law Journal. 18 (1): 1. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved November 24, 2018.\n- ^ Margaret S. Thompson, The "Spider Web": Congress and Lobbying in the Age of Grant (1985)\n- ^ Elisabeth S. Clemens, The People\'s Lobby: Organizational Innovation and the Rise of Interest-Group Politics in the United States, 1890–1925 (1997)\n- ^ "Party in Power – Congress and Presidency – A Visual Guide to the Balance of Power in Congress, 1945–2008". Uspolitics.about.com. Archived from the original on November 1, 2012. Retrieved September 17, 2012.\n- ^ Davidson, Roger H.; Oleszek, Walter J.; Lee, Frances E.; Schickler, Eric; Curry, James M. (2022). Congress and Its Members (18th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage CQ Press. pp. 161–162. ISBN 9781071836859.\n- ^ Fromkin, Lauren (February 15, 2024). "Cleaning Up House: Reforms to Empower U.S. House Committees". Bipartisan Policy. Retrieved May 17, 2024.\n- ^ David B. Rivkin Jr. & Lee A. Casey (August 22, 2009). "Illegal Health Reform". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 29, 2020. Retrieved September 28, 2009.\n- ^ Steven S. Smith; Jason M. Roberts; Ryan J. Vander Wielen (2006). "The American Congress (Fourth Edition)". Cambridge University Press. p. 38. ISBN 9781139446990. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ David E. Kyvig (2004). Julian E. Zelizer (ed.). "The American Congress: The Building of Democracy". Houghton Mifflin Company. ISBN 0-618-17906-2. Archived from the original on October 19, 2017. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ "The Congress: 72nd Made". Time. November 17, 1930. Archived from the original on September 30, 2008. Retrieved October 5, 2010.\n- ^ a b English (2003), p. 14.\n- ^ Farley, Bill (January 25, 2021). "Blending Powers: Hamilton, FDR, and the Backlash That Shaped Modern Congress". Journal of Policy History. 33 (1): 60–92. doi:10.1017/S089803062000024X. ISSN 0898-0306. S2CID 231694131. Archived from the original on November 4, 2021. Retrieved March 2, 2021.\n- ^ "The Congress: Democratic Senate". Time. November 14, 1932. Archived from the original on October 27, 2010. Retrieved October 10, 2010.\n- ^ "Political Notes: Democratic Drift". Time. November 16, 1936. Archived from the original on December 15, 2008. Retrieved October 10, 2010.\n- ^ a b "The Congress: The 76th". Time. November 21, 1938. Archived from the original on August 26, 2010. Retrieved October 10, 2010.\n- ^ "The Vice Presidency: Undeclared War". Time. March 20, 1939. Archived from the original on April 29, 2011. Retrieved October 10, 2010.\n- ^ "Congress: New Houses". Time. November 11, 1940. Archived from the original on October 14, 2010. Retrieved October 10, 2010.\n- ^ "Before the G.O.P. Lay a Forked Road". Time. November 16, 1942. Archived from the original on October 14, 2010. Retrieved October 10, 2010.\n- ^ "Business & Finance: Turn of the Tide". Time. November 16, 1942. Archived from the original on October 14, 2010. Retrieved October 10, 2010.\n- ^ a b "The Congress: Effort toward Efficiency". Time. May 21, 1965. Archived from the original on February 20, 2008. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ "National Affairs: Judgments & Prophecies". Time. November 15, 1954. Archived from the original on May 1, 2011. Retrieved October 10, 2010.\n- ^ "The Congress: Ahead of the Wind". Time. November 17, 1958. Archived from the original on January 31, 2011. Retrieved October 10, 2010.\n- ^ Brownstein, Ronald (June 20, 2023). "Why power in Congress is now so precarious | CNN Politics". CNN. Retrieved May 17, 2024.\n...two decades of unbroken Democratic Senate control from 1961 to 1980 ... Neither side lately has consistently reached the heights that Democrats did while they held unbroken control of the lower chamber from 1955 through 1994 when the party routinely won 250 seats or more.\n- ^ Bruce J. Schulman (2004). Julian E. Zelizer (ed.). "The American Congress: The Building of Democracy". Houghton Mifflin Company. p. 638. ISBN 0-618-17906-2. Archived from the original on October 19, 2017. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ "The House: New Faces and New Strains". Time. November 18, 1974. Archived from the original on December 22, 2008.\n- ^ a b c d Steven S. Smith; Jason M. Roberts; Ryan J. Vander Wielen (2006). "The American Congress (Fourth Edition)". Cambridge University Press. p. 58. ISBN 9781139446990. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Nick Anderson (March 30, 2004). "Political Attack Ads Already Popping Up on the Web". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.\n- ^ a b Susan Tifft; Richard Homik; Hays Corey (August 20, 1984). "Taking an Ax to the PACs". Time. Archived from the original on October 29, 2010. Retrieved October 2, 2009.\n- ^ a b Clymer, Adam (October 29, 1992). "Campaign spending in congress races soars to new high". The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 2, 2009.\n- ^ a b c Jeffrey H. Birnbaum (October 3, 2004). "Cost of Congressional Campaigns Skyrockets". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- ^ a b Richard E. Cohen (August 12, 1990). "PAC Paranoia: Congress Faces Campaign Spending – Politics: Hysteria was the operative word when legislators realized they could not return home without tougher campaign finance laws". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 2, 2009.\n- ^ Walter Isaacson; Evan Thomas; other bureaus (October 25, 1982). "Running with the PACs". Time. Archived from the original on April 29, 2011. Retrieved October 2, 2009.\n- ^ a b John Fritze (March 2, 2009). "PACs spent record $416M on federal election". USA Today. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 2, 2009.\n- ^ Thomas Frank (October 29, 2006). "Beer PAC aims to put Congress under influence". USA TODAY. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 2, 2009.\n- ^ Michael Isikoff & Dina Fine Maron (March 21, 2009). "Congress – Follow the Bailout Cash". Newsweek. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 2, 2009.\n- ^ Richard L. Berke (February 14, 1988). "Campaign Finance; Problems in the PAC\'s: Study Finds Frustration". The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 2, 2009.\n- ^ a b c d Michael Schudson (2004). Julian E. Zelizer (ed.). "The American Congress: The Building of Democracy". Houghton Mifflin Company. ISBN 0-618-17906-2. Archived from the original on October 19, 2017. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Steven S. Smith; Jason M. Roberts; Ryan J. Vander Wielen (2006). "The American Congress (Fourth Edition)". Cambridge University Press. p. 12. ISBN 9781139446990. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Mark Murray, NBC News, June 30, 2013, Unproductive Congress: How stalemates became the norm in Washington DC Archived January 14, 2021, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved June 30, 2013.\n- ^ Domenico Montanaro, NBC News, October 10, 2013, NBC/WSJ poll: 60 percent say fire every member of Congress Archived January 14, 2021, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved October 10, 2013, "... 60 percent of Americans ... if they had the chance to vote to defeat and replace every single member of Congress ... they would ..."\n- ^ Andy Sullivan of Reuters, NBC News, October 17, 2013, Washington: the biggest risk to U.S. economy Archived January 14, 2021, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved October 18, 2013, "... the biggest risk to the world\'s largest economy may be its own elected representatives ... Down-to-the-wire budget and debt crises, indiscriminate spending cuts and a 16-day government shutdown ..."\n- ^ Domenico Montanaro, NBC News, October 10, 2013, NBC/WSJ poll: 60 percent say fire every member of Congress Archived January 14, 2021, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved October 10, 2013, "... 60 percent of Americans ... saying if they had the chance to vote to defeat and replace every single member of Congress, including their own representative, they would ..."\n- ^ a b Wall Street Journal, Approval of Congress Matches All-Time Low Archived January 14, 2021, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved June 13, 2013.\n- ^ a b Carrie Dann, NBC News, Americans\' faith in Congress lower than all major institutions – ever Archived January 14, 2021, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved June 13, 2013.\n- ^ a b "White House: Republicans Will \'Do the Right Thing\'". Voice of America. October 9, 2013. Archived from the original on March 5, 2016. Retrieved October 10, 2013.\n- ^ Palmer, Betsy. Delegates to the U.S. Congress: history and current status Archived January 14, 2021, at the Wayback Machine, Congressional Research Service; U.S. House of Representatives, "The House Explained Archived November 11, 2017, at the Wayback Machine", viewed January 9, 2015.\n- ^ Ward, Matthew (January 8, 2021). "The US Capitol has been stormed before – when British troops burned Washington in 1814". The Conversation. Archived from the original on April 7, 2021. Retrieved March 15, 2021.\n- ^ Sanbonmatsu 2020, pp. 42–43.\n- ^ Sanbonmatsu 2020, p. 45.\n- ^ Vogelstein, Rachel; Bro, Alexandra (November 9, 2018). "The \'Year of the Woman\' goes global". CNN. Retrieved May 17, 2024.\n- ^ Sullivan, Kate (July 16, 2019). "Here are the 4 congresswomen known as \'The Squad\' targeted by Trump\'s racist tweets". CNN Politics. Retrieved May 17, 2024.\n- ^ Sanbonmatsu 2020, pp. 44–45.\n- ^ Sanbonmatsu 2020, p. 42.\n- ^ Epps, Garrett (2013). American Epic: Reading the U.S. Constitution. New York: Oxford. p. 9. ISBN 978-0-19-938971-1.\n- ^ a b Eric Patashnik (2004). "The American Congress: The Building of Democracy". Houghton Mifflin Company. pp. 671–2. ISBN 0-618-17906-2. Archived from the original on October 19, 2017. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ a b Davidson (2006), p. 18.\n- ^ "Congress and the Dollar". New York Sun. May 30, 2008. Archived from the original on August 1, 2020. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Kate Zernike (September 28, 2006). "Senate Passes Detainee Bill Sought by Bush". The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 3, 2020. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ "References about congressional war declaring power".\n- Dana D. Nelson (October 11, 2008). "The \'unitary executive\' question". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 4, 2009.\n- Steve Holland (May 1, 2009). "Obama revelling in U.S. power unseen in decades". Reuters UK. Archived from the original on January 3, 2011. Retrieved September 28, 2009.\n- "The Law: The President\'s War Powers". Time. June 1, 1970. Archived from the original on August 22, 2013. Retrieved September 28, 2009.\n- ^ a b c "The Law: The President\'s War Powers". Time. June 1, 1970. Archived from the original on August 22, 2013. Retrieved September 28, 2009.\n- ^ "The President\'s News Conference of June 29, 1950". Teachingamericanhistory.org. June 29, 1950. Archived from the original on December 26, 2010. Retrieved December 20, 2010.\n- ^ Michael Kinsley (March 15, 1993). "The Case for a Big Power Swap". Time. Archived from the original on August 13, 2013. Retrieved September 28, 2009.\n- ^ "Time Essay: Where\'s Congress?". Time. May 22, 1972. Archived from the original on May 21, 2013. Retrieved September 28, 2009.\n- ^ "The Law: The President\'s War Powers". Time. June 1, 1970. Archived from the original on August 22, 2013. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ "The proceedings of congress.; senate". The New York Times. June 28, 1862. Archived from the original on October 10, 2017. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ David S. Broder (March 18, 2007). "Congress\'s Oversight Offensive". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on May 1, 2011. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Thomas Ferraro (April 25, 2007). "House committee subpoenas Rice on Iraq". Reuters. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ James Gerstenzang (July 16, 2008). "Bush claims executive privilege in Valerie Plame Wilson case". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on August 1, 2008. Retrieved October 4, 2009.\n- ^ Elizabeth B. Bazan; Jennifer K. Elsea; legislative attorneys (January 5, 2006). "Presidential Authority to Conduct Warrantless Electronic Surveillance to Gather Foreign Intelligence Information" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Archived (PDF) from the original on February 5, 2012. Retrieved September 28, 2009.\n- ^ Linda P. Campbell & Glen Elsasser (October 20, 1991). "Supreme Court Slugfests A Tradition". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on April 29, 2011. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Eric Cantor (July 30, 2009). "Obama\'s 32 Czars". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on August 31, 2010. Retrieved September 28, 2009.\n- ^ Christopher Lee (January 2, 2006). "Alito Once Made Case For Presidential Power". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 4, 2009.\n- ^ Dan Froomkin (March 10, 2009). "Playing by the Rules". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 4, 2009.\n- ^ Dana D. Nelson (October 11, 2008). "The \'unitary executive\' question". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 4, 2009.\n- ^ Charlie Savage (March 16, 2009). "Obama Undercuts Whistle-Blowers, Senator Says". The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 4, 2009.\n- ^ Binyamin Appelbaum & David Cho (March 24, 2009). "U.S. Seeks Expanded Power to Seize Firms Goal Is to Limit Risk to Broader Economy". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 28, 2009.\n- ^ George F. Will – op-ed columnist (December 21, 2008). "Making Congress Moot". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on May 1, 2011. Retrieved September 28, 2009.\n- ^ Davidson (2006), p. 19.\n- ^ Kincaid, J. Leslie (January 17, 1916). "To Make the Militia a National Force: The Power of Congress Under the Constitution "for Organizing, Arming, and Disciplining" the State Troops". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 30, 2011. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Stephen Herrington (February 25, 2010). "Red State Anxiety and The Constitution". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on July 2, 2010. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ "Timeline". CBS News. 2010. Archived from the original on May 1, 2011. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Randy E. Barnett (April 23, 2009). "The Case for a Federalism Amendment". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on July 2, 2015. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Executive Order 13423 Sec. 9. (l). "The \'United States\' when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, and associated territorial waters and airspace."\n- ^ U.S. State Department, Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty Archived June 21, 2022, at the Wayback Machine\n- ^ House Learn Archived November 11, 2017, at the Wayback Machine webpage. Viewed January 26, 2013.\n- ^ The Green Papers, 2016 Presidential primaries, caucuses and conventions Archived January 14, 2021, at the Wayback Machine, viewed September 3, 2015.\n- ^ "The very structure of the Constitution gives us profound insights about what the founders thought was important ... the Founders thought that the Legislative Branch was going to be the great branch of government." —Hon. John Charles Thomas [1] Archived October 14, 2007, at the Wayback Machine\n- ^ Susan Sachs (January 7, 1999). "Impeachment: The Past; Johnson\'s Trial: 2 Bitter Months for a Still-Torn Nation". The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ a b Greene, Richard (January 19, 2005). "Kings in the White House". BBC News. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 7, 2007.\n- ^ Steven S. Smith; Jason M. Roberts; Ryan J. Vander Wielen (2006). "The American Congress (Fourth Edition)". Cambridge University Press. pp. 18–19. ISBN 9781139446990. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Steven S. Smith; Jason M. Roberts; Ryan J. Vander Wielen (2006). "The American Congress (Fourth Edition)". Cambridge University Press. p. 19. ISBN 9781139446990. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Charles Wolfson (August 11, 2010). "Clinton Presses Senate to Ratify Nuclear Arms Treaty with Russia". CBS News. Archived from the original on September 14, 2010. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ "Constitutional Interpretation the Old Fashioned Way". Center For Individual Freedom. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 15, 2007.\n- ^ "Decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott Case". The New York Times. March 6, 1851. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Waxman, Matthew (November 4, 2018). "Remembering St. Clair\'s Defeat". Lawfare. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved May 22, 2019.\n- ^ Frank Askin (July 21, 2007). "Congress\'s Power To Compel". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 28, 2009.\n- ^ a b "Congressional Hearings: About". GPO Access. September 28, 2005. Archived from the original on August 9, 2010. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ a b c "Congressional Reports: Main Page". U.S. Government Printing Office Access. May 25, 2010. Archived from the original on August 7, 2010. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q "Tying It All Together: Learn about the Legislative Process". United States House of Representatives. Archived from the original on April 20, 2011. Retrieved April 20, 2011.\n- ^ English (2003), pp. 46–47.\n- ^ English, p. 46.\n- ^ Schiller, Wendy J. (2000). Partners and Rivals: Representation in U.S. Senate Delegations. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-04887-8.\n- ^ "Committees". U.S. Senate. 2010. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 12, 2010.\n- ^ a b c Committee Types and Roles, Congressional Research Service, April 1, 2003.\n- ^ "General Information – Library of Congress". Library of Congress. Archived from the original on February 24, 2014. Retrieved December 30, 2017.\n- ^ "The Congressional Research Service and the American Legislative Process" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. 2008. Archived (PDF) from the original on July 18, 2009. Retrieved July 25, 2009.\n- ^ O\'Sullivan, Arthur; Sheffrin, Steven M. (2003). Economics: Principles in Action. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. p. 388. ISBN 0-13-063085-3.\n- ^ "Congressional Budget Office – About CBO". Cbo.gov. Archived from the original on December 5, 2010. Retrieved December 20, 2010.\n- ^ Washington Representatives (32 ed.). Bethesda, MD: Columbia Books. November 2007. p. 949. ISBN 978-1-880873-55-7.\n- ^ Steven S. Smith; Jason M. Roberts; Ryan J. Vander Wielen (2006). The American Congress (Fourth ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 17–18. ISBN 9781139446990. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Partnership for Public Service (March 29, 2009). "Walter Oleszek: A Hill Staffer\'s Guide to Congressional History and Habit". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ "Blacks: Confronting the President". Time. April 5, 1971. Archived from the original on December 21, 2008. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ "News from Washington". The New York Times. December 3, 1861. Archived from the original on October 10, 2017. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ United States government (2010). "Recent Votes". United States Senate. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ "The U.S. Congress – Votes Database – Members of Congress / Robert Byrd". The Washington Post. June 17, 2010. Archived from the original on November 10, 2010. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Larry J. Sabato (September 26, 2007). "An amendment is needed to fix the primary mess". USA Today. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 20, 2009.\n- ^ a b c Joseph A. Califano Jr. (May 27, 1988). "PAC\'s Remain a Pox". The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 2, 2009.\n- ^ Brian Kalish (May 19, 2008). "GOP exits to cost party millions". USA TODAY. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- ^ a b Susan Page (May 9, 2006). "5 keys to who will control Congress: How immigration, gas, Medicare, Iraq and scandal could affect midterm races". USA Today. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Macedo, Stephen (August 11, 2008). "Toward a more democratic Congress? Our imperfect democratic constitution: the critics examined". Boston University Law Review. 89: 609–628. Archived from the original on May 1, 2011. Retrieved September 20, 2009.\n- ^ a b c "Time Essay: Campaign Costs: Floor, Not Ceiling". Time. May 17, 1971. Archived from the original on December 21, 2008. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- ^ a b c Barbara Borst, Associated Press (October 29, 2006). "Campaign spending up in U.S. congressional elections". USA Today. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- ^ a b Dan Froomkin (September 15, 1997). "Campaign Finance – Introduction". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- ^ a b Thomas, Evan (April 4, 2008). "At What Cost? – Sen. John Warner and Congress\'s money culture". Newsweek. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- ^ "References about diffname".\n- Jean Merl (October 18, 2000). "Gloves Come Off in Attack Ads by Harman, Kuykendall". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.\n- Shanto Iyengar (August 12, 2008). "Election 2008: The Advertising". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.\n- Dave Lesher (September 12, 1994). "Column One – TV Blitz Fueled by a Fortune – Once obscure, Huffington now is pressing Feinstein. His well-financed rapid-response team has mounted an unprecedented ad attack". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.\n- Howard Kurtz (October 28, 1998). "Democrats Chase Votes With a Safety Net". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.\n- ^ James Oliphant (April 9, 2008). "\'08 Campaign costs nearing $2 Billion. Is it worth it?". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- ^ "Campaign Finance Groups Praise Rep. Welch for Cosponsoring Fair Elections Now Act". Reuters. May 19, 2009. Archived from the original on January 22, 2010. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- ^ John Balzar (May 24, 2006). "Democrats Battle Over a Safe Seat in Congress". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.\n- ^ "The Congress: An Idea on the March". Time. January 11, 1963. Archived from the original on May 1, 2011. Retrieved September 30, 2009.\n- ^ "Decision \'92 – Special Voters\' Guide to State and Local Elections – The Congressional Races". Los Angeles Times. October 25, 1992. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.\n- ^ "References about prevalence of attack ads".\n- Brooks Jackson & Justin Bank (February 5, 2009). "Radio, Radio – New Democratic ads attacking House Republicans in the lead-up to the 2010 midterm elections don\'t tell the whole story". Newsweek. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.\n- Fredreka Schouten (September 19, 2008). "Union helps non-profit groups pay for attack ads". USA Today. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.\n- Ruth Marcus (August 8, 2007). "Attack Ads You\'ll Be Seeing". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.\n- Chris Cillizza (September 20, 2006). "Ads, Ads Everywhere!". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.\n- Samantha Gross (September 7, 2007). "Coming Soon: Personalized Campaign Ads". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.\n- ^ Howard Kurtz (January 6, 2008). "Campaign on Television People May Dislike Attack Ads, but the Messages Tend to Stick". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.\n- ^ a b Steven S. Smith; Jason M. Roberts; Ryan J. Vander Wielen (2006). "The American Congress (Fourth Edition)". Cambridge University Press. p. 21. ISBN 9781139446990. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Lobbying: influencing decision making with transparency and integrity (PDF). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2012. Archived (PDF) from the original on April 11, 2019. Retrieved March 30, 2019.\n- ^ a b Alexander Hamilton or James Madison (February 8, 1788). "The Federalist Paper No. 52". Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- ^ "Congress\' Approval Rating at Lowest Point for Year". Reuters. September 2, 2009. Archived from the original on September 5, 2009. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- ^ "The Congress: Makings of the 72nd (Cont.)". Time. September 22, 1930. Archived from the original on August 27, 2013. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- ^ Jonathan Peterson (October 21, 1996). "Confident Clinton Lends Hand to Congress Candidates". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- ^ "References about diffname".\n- "The Congress: Makings of the 72nd (Cont.)". Time. September 22, 1930. Archived from the original on August 27, 2013. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- Maki Becker (June 17, 1994). "Informed Opinions on Today\'s Topics – Looking for Answers to Voter Apathy". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- Daniel Brumberg (October 30, 2008). "America\'s Re-emerging Democracy". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 10, 2017. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- Karen Tumulty (July 8, 1986). "Congress Must Now Make Own Painful Choices". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- Janet Hook (December 22, 1997). "As U.S. Economy Flows, Voter Vitriol Ebbs". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- ^ a b "Congress gets $4,100 pay raise". USA Today. Associated Press. January 9, 2008. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 28, 2009.\n- ^ Gallup Poll/Newsweek (October 8, 2009). "Congress and the Public: Congressional Job Approval Ratings Trend (1974–present)". The Gallup Organization. Archived from the original on August 7, 2013. Retrieved October 8, 2009.\n- ^ "References about low approval ratings".\n- "Congress\' Approval Rating Jumps to 31%". Gallup. February 17, 2009. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- "Congress\' Approval Rating at Lowest Point for Year". Reuters. September 2, 2009. Archived from the original on September 5, 2009. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- John Whitesides (September 19, 2007). "Bush, Congress at record low ratings: Reuters poll". Reuters. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- Seung Min Kim (February 18, 2009). "Poll: Congress\' job approval at 31%". USA Today. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- ^ interview by David Schimke (September–October 2008). "Presidential Power to the People – Author Dana D. Nelson on why democracy demands that the next president be taken down a notch". Utne Reader. Archived from the original on January 15, 2013. Retrieved September 20, 2009.\n- ^ Guy Gugliotta (November 3, 2004). "Politics In, Voter Apathy Out Amid Heavy Turnout". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 14, 2017. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- ^ "Voter Turnout Rate Said to Be Highest Since 1968". The Washington Post. Associated Press. December 15, 2008. Archived from the original on October 14, 2017. Retrieved October 1, 2009.\n- ^ Julian E. Zelizer, ed. (2004). "The American Congress: The Building of Democracy". Houghton Mifflin Company. p. xiv–xv. ISBN 0-618-17906-2. Archived from the original on October 19, 2017. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Norman, Jim (June 13, 2016). "Americans\' Confidence in Institutions Stays Low". Gallup. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved June 14, 2016.\n- ^ a b "Roger Sherman and The Connecticut Compromise". Connecticut Judicial Branch: Law Libraries. January 10, 2010. Archived from the original on January 17, 2010. Retrieved January 10, 2010.\n- ^ Cass R. Sunstein (October 26, 2006). "It Could Be Worse". The New Republic. Archived from the original on July 30, 2010. Retrieved January 10, 2010.\n- ^ Robert Justin Lipkin (January 2007). "Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (And How We the People can Correct It)". Widener University School of Law. Archived from the original on September 25, 2009. Retrieved September 20, 2009.\n- ^ Sanford Levinson (2006). "Our Undemocratic Constitution". Oxford University Press. p. 60. ISBN 9780195345612. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved January 10, 2010.\n- ^ Labunski, Richard; Schwartz, Dan (October 18, 2007). "Time for a Second Constitutional Convention?". Policy Today. Archived from the original on November 20, 2009. Retrieved September 20, 2009.\n- ^ Charles L. Clapp, The Congressman, His Work as He Sees It (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1963), p. 55; cf. pp. 50–55, 64–66, 75–84.\n- ^ Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 35 (September 3, 1977): 1855. English, op. cit., pp. 48–49, notes that members will also regularly appear at local events in their home district, and will maintain offices in the home congressional district or state.\n- ^ Robert Preer (August 15, 2010). "Two Democrats in Senate race stress constituent services". Boston Globe. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Daniel Malloy (August 22, 2010). "Incumbents battle association with stimulus, Obama". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Amy Gardner (November 27, 2008). "Wolf\'s Decisive Win Surprised Even the GOP". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ a b William T. Blanco, ed. (2000). "Congress on display, Congress at work". University of Michigan. ISBN 0-472-08711-8. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Lessig, Lawrence (February 8, 2010). "How to Get Our Democracy Back". CBS News. Archived from the original on January 20, 2013. Retrieved December 14, 2011.\n- ^ Lessig, Lawrence (November 16, 2011). "Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It". Google, YouTube, The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on December 5, 2013. Retrieved December 13, 2011.\n(see 30:13 minutes into the video)\n- ^ Attkisson, Sharyl (June 25, 2010). "Family Ties Bind Federal Lawmakers to Lobbyists - CBS News". www.cbsnews.com. Retrieved May 15, 2024.\n- ^ Parlapiano, Alicia; Playford, Adam; Kelly, Kate; Uz, Ege (September 13, 2022). "These 97 Members of Congress Reported Trades in Companies Influenced by Their Committees". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved May 15, 2024.\n- ^ Schwartz, John (July 9, 2011). "Not-So-Representative Investors". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved May 15, 2024.\n- ^ Vitali, Ali; Tsirkin, Julie; Talbot, Haley (February 8, 2022). "Stock ban proposed for Congress to stop insider trading among lawmakers". NBC News. Retrieved May 15, 2024.\n- ^ Leonard, Kimberly. "An $84,000 trip to Qatar and a $41,000 retreat in Miami: Members of Congress are going on expensive travels paid for by private groups where some bring their loved ones". Business Insider. Retrieved May 15, 2024.\n- ^ House, Billy (March 18, 2023). "US Lawmakers Resume Globe Trotting Paid by Special Interests". Bloomberg.\n- ^ Lee, Timothy B. (September 19, 2013). "This chart shows why members of Congress really should earn more than $172,000". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 17, 2024.\n- ^ Lui, Kevin (March 17, 2017). "A Petition to Remove Health Care Subsidies From Members of Congress Has Nearly 500000 Signatures". Time Magazine. Washington D.C. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved May 22, 2018.\n- ^ Lipton, Eric (January 9, 2014). "Half of Congress Members Are Millionaires, Report Says". The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved January 11, 2014.\n- ^ "A Quiet Raise – Congressional Pay – special report". The Washington Post. 1998. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved February 23, 2015.\n- ^ Scott, Walter (April 25, 2010). "Personality Parade column:Q. Does Congress pay for its own health care?". New York, NY: Parade. p. 2.\n- ^ Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress Archived October 14, 2022, at the Wayback Machine (PDF). Congressional Research Service, August 8, 2019.\n- ^ a b Brody Mullins & T. W. Farnam (December 17, 2009). "Congress Travels More, Public Pays: Lawmakers Ramp Up Taxpayer-Financed Journeys; Five Days in Scotland". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved December 17, 2009.\n- ^ a b "Constitutional Amendments – Amendment 27 – "Financial Compensation for the Congress"". Ronald Reagan. Retrieved May 17, 2024.\n- ^ 30 F.3d 156 (D.C. Cir. 1994)\n- ^ English (2003), pp. 24–25.\n- ^ Simpson, G. R. (October 22, 1992). "Surprise! Top Frankers Also Have the Stiffest Challenges". Roll Call.\n- ^ Steven S. Smith; Jason M. Roberts; Ryan J. Vander Wielen (2006). "The American Congress (Fourth Edition)". Cambridge University Press. p. 79. ISBN 9781139446990. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.\n- ^ Davidson (2006), p. 17.\n- ^ "Rules Of The Senate | U.S. Senate Committee on Rules & Administration". www.rules.senate.gov. Archived from the original on December 30, 2017. Retrieved September 30, 2022.\n- ^ Brewer, F. M. (1952). "Congressional Immunity". CQ Press. doi:10.4135/cqresrre1952042500. Archived from the original on January 25, 2021. Retrieved January 16, 2021.\n- ^ "Contempt of Congress". HeinOnline. The Jurist. January 1, 1957. ProQuest 1296619169. Retrieved September 7, 2020.\nReferences\n[edit]- "How To Clean Up The Mess From Inside The System, A Plea – And A Plan – To Reform Campaign Finance Before It\'s Too". Newsweek. October 28, 1996. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 20, 2009.\n- "The Constitution and the Idea of Compromise". PBS. October 10, 2009. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 10, 2009.\n- Alexander Hamilton (1788). "Federalist No. 15 – The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union". FoundingFathers.info. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 10, 2009.\n- Bacon, Donald C.; Davidson, Roger H.; Keller, Morton, eds. (1995). Encyclopedia of the United States Congress (4 vols.). Simon & Schuster.\n- Collier, Christopher & Collier, James Lincoln (1986). Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787. Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-394-52346-6.\n- Davidson, Roger H. & Walter J. Oleszek (2006). Congress and Its Members (10th ed.). Congressional Quarterly (CQ) Press. ISBN 0-87187-325-7. (Legislative procedure, informal practices, and other information)\n- English, Ross M. (2003). The United States Congress. Manchester University Press. ISBN 0-7190-6309-4.\n- Francis-Smith, Janice (October 22, 2008). "Waging campaigns against incumbents in Oklahoma". The Oklahoma City Journal Record. Archived from the original on May 10, 2010. Retrieved September 20, 2009.\n- Herrnson, Paul S. (2004). Congressional Elections: Campaigning at Home and in Washington. CQ Press. ISBN 1-56802-826-1.\n- Huckabee, David C. (2003). Reelection Rates of Incumbents. Hauppauge, New York: Novinka Books, an imprint of Nova Science Publishers. p. 21. ISBN 1-59033-509-0. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 27, 2020.\n- Huckabee, David C. – Analyst in American National Government – Government Division (March 8, 1995). "Reelection rate of House Incumbents 1790–1990 Summary (page 2)" (PDF). Congressional Research Service – The Library of Congress. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 29, 2011. Retrieved September 20, 2009.\n- Maier, Pauline (book reviewer) (November 18, 2007). "HISTORY – The Framers\' Real Motives (book review) Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution book by Woody Holton". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 10, 2009.\n- Oleszek, Walter J. (2004). Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process. CQ Press. ISBN 0-87187-477-6.\n- Polsby, Nelson W. (2004). How Congress Evolves: Social Bases of Institutional Change. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-516195-5.\n- Price, David E. (2000). The Congressional Experience. Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-1157-8.\n- Sanbonmatsu, Kira (2020). "Women\'s Underrepresentation in the U.S. Congress". Daedalus. 149: 40–55. doi:10.1162/daed_a_01772. ISSN 0011-5266. S2CID 209487865. Archived from the original on April 24, 2021. Retrieved April 6, 2021.\n- Struble, Robert Jr. (2007). Chapter seven, Treatise on Twelve Lights. TeLL. Archived from the original on April 14, 2016.\n- Zelizer, Julian E. (2004). The American Congress: The Building of Democracy. Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-618-17906-2.\nFurther reading\n[edit]- Ritchie, Donald A. (2022). The U.S. Congress: A Very Short Introduction. (History, representation, and legislative procedure)\n- Smith, Steven S.; Roberts, Jason M.; Vander Wielen, Ryan (2007). The American Congress (5th ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-19704-5. (Legislative procedure, informal practices, and other information)\n- Hamilton, Lee H. (2004) How Congress Works and Why You Should Care, Indiana University Press.\n- Lee, Frances and Bruce Oppenheimer. (1999). Sizing Up the Senate: The Unequal Consequences of Equal Representation. University of Chicago Press: Chicago. (Equal representation in the Senate)\n- Some information in this article has been provided by the Senate Historical Office.', + "relevant": "United States Congress\nThis article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. (May 2024) |\nUnited States Congress | |\n|---|---|\n| 119th Congress | |\n| Type | |\n| Type | |\n| Houses | Senate House of Representatives |\n| History | |\n| Founded | March 4, 1789 |\n| Preceded by | Congress of the Confederation |\nNew session started | January 3, 2025 |\n| Leadership | |\n| Structure | |\n| Seats |\n|\nSenate political groups | Majority (52)\nMinority (47)\nVacant (1)\n|\nHouse of Representatives political groups", + }, + { + "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States", + "content": 'Vice President of the United States\nThis article may be affected by the following current event: Second inauguration of Donald Trump. Information in this article may change rapidly as the event progresses. Initial news reports may be unreliable. The last updates to this article may not reflect the most current information. (January 2025) |\n| Vice President of the United States | |\n|---|---|\nsince January 20, 2021 | |\n| Style |\n|\n| Status |\n|\n| Member of | |\n| Residence | Number One Observatory Circle |\n| Seat | Washington, D.C. |\n| Appointer | Electoral College, or, if vacant, President of the United States via congressional confirmation |\n| Term length | Four years, no term limit |\n| Constituting instrument | Constitution of the United States |\n| Formation | March 4, 1789[1][2][3] |\n| First holder | John Adams[4] |\n| Succession | First[5] |\n| Unofficial names | VPOTUS,[6] VP, Veep[7] |\n| Salary | $284,600 per annum |\n| Website | www.whitehouse.gov |\nThe vice president of the United States (VPOTUS) is the second-highest ranking office in the executive branch[8][9] of the U.S. federal government, after the president of the United States, and ranks first in the presidential line of succession. The vice president is also an officer in the legislative branch, as the president of the Senate. In this capacity, the vice president is empowered to preside over the United States Senate, but may not vote except to cast a tie-breaking vote.[10] The vice president is indirectly elected at the same time as the president to a four-year term of office by the people of the United States through the Electoral College, but the electoral votes are cast separately for these two offices.[10] Following the passage in 1967 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, a vacancy in the office of vice president may be filled by presidential nomination and confirmation by a majority vote in both houses of Congress.\nThe modern vice presidency is a position of significant power and is widely seen as an integral part of a president\'s administration. The presidential candidate selects the candidate for the vice presidency, as their running mate in the lead-up to the presidential election. While the exact nature of the role varies in each administration, since the vice president\'s service in office is by election, the president cannot dismiss the vice president, and the personal working-relationship with the president varies, most modern vice presidents serve as a key presidential advisor, governing partner, and representative of the president. The vice president is also a statutory member of the United States Cabinet and United States National Security Council[10] and thus plays a significant role in executive government and national security matters. As the vice president\'s role within the executive branch has expanded, the legislative branch role has contracted; for example, vice presidents now preside over the Senate only infrequently.[11]\nThe role of the vice presidency has changed dramatically since the office was created during the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Originally something of an afterthought, the vice presidency was considered an insignificant office for much of the nation\'s history, especially after the Twelfth Amendment meant that vice presidents were no longer the runners-up in the presidential election. The vice president\'s role began steadily growing in importance during the 1930s, with the Office of the Vice President being created in the executive branch in 1939, and has since grown much further. Due to its increase in power and prestige, the vice presidency is now often considered to be a stepping stone to the presidency. Since the 1970s, the vice president has been afforded an official residence at Number One Observatory Circle.\nThe Constitution does not expressly assign the vice presidency to a branch of the government, causing a dispute among scholars about which branch the office belongs to (the executive, the legislative, both, or neither).[11][12] The modern view of the vice president as an officer of the executive branch—one isolated almost entirely from the legislative branch—is due in large part to the assignment of executive authority to the vice president by either the president or Congress.[11][13] Nevertheless, many vice presidents have previously served in Congress, and are often tasked with helping to advance an administration\'s legislative priorities. Kamala Harris is the 49th and current vice president, having assumed office on January 20, 2021.\nHistory and development\nConstitutional Convention\nNo mention of an office of vice president was made at the 1787 Constitutional Convention until near the end, when an eleven-member committee on "Leftover Business" proposed a method of electing the chief executive (president).[14] Delegates had previously considered the selection of the Senate\'s presiding officer, deciding that "the Senate shall choose its own President", and had agreed that this official would be designated the executive\'s immediate successor. They had also considered the mode of election of the executive but had not reached consensus. This all changed on September 4, when the committee recommended that the nation\'s chief executive be elected by an Electoral College, with each state having a number of presidential electors equal to the sum of that state\'s allocation of representatives and senators.[11][15]\nRecognizing that loyalty to one\'s individual state outweighed loyalty to the new federation, the Constitution\'s framers assumed individual electors would be inclined to choose a candidate from their own state (a so-called "favorite son" candidate) over one from another state. So they created the office of vice president and required the electors to vote for two candidates, at least one of whom must be from outside the elector\'s state, believing that the second vote would be cast for a candidate of national character.[15][16] Additionally, to guard against the possibility that electors might strategically waste their second votes, it was specified that the first runner-up would become vice president.[15]\nThe resultant method of electing the president and vice president, spelled out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3, allocated to each state a number of electors equal to the combined total of its Senate and House of Representatives membership. Each elector was allowed to vote for two people for president (rather than for both president and vice president), but could not differentiate between their first and second choice for the presidency. The person receiving the greatest number of votes (provided it was an absolute majority of the whole number of electors) would be president, while the individual who received the next largest number of votes became vice president. If there were a tie for first or for second place, or if no one won a majority of votes, the president and vice president would be selected by means of contingent elections protocols stated in the clause.[17][18]\nEarly vice presidents and Twelfth Amendment\nThe first two vice presidents, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, both of whom gained the office by virtue of being runners-up in presidential contests, presided regularly over Senate proceedings and did much to shape the role of Senate president.[19][20] Several 19th-century vice presidents—such as George Dallas, Levi Morton, and Garret Hobart—followed their example and led effectively, while others were rarely present.[19]\nThe emergence of political parties and nationally coordinated election campaigns during the 1790s (which the Constitution\'s framers had not contemplated) quickly frustrated the election plan in the original Constitution. In the election of 1796, Federalist candidate John Adams won the presidency, but his bitter rival, Democratic-Republican candidate Thomas Jefferson, came second and thus won the vice presidency. As a result, the president and vice president were from opposing parties; and Jefferson used the vice presidency to frustrate the president\'s policies. Then, four years later, in the election of 1800, Jefferson and fellow Democratic-Republican Aaron Burr each received 73 electoral votes. In the contingent election that followed, Jefferson finally won the presidency on the 36th ballot, leaving Burr the vice presidency. Afterward, the system was overhauled through the Twelfth Amendment in time to be used in the 1804 election.[21]\n19th and early 20th centuries\nFor much of its existence, the office of vice president was seen as little more than a minor position. John Adams, the first vice president, was the first of many frustrated by the "complete insignificance" of the office. To his wife Abigail Adams he wrote, "My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man ... or his imagination contrived or his imagination conceived; and as I can do neither good nor evil, I must be borne away by others and met the common fate."[22] Thomas R. Marshall, who served as vice president from 1913 to 1921 under President Woodrow Wilson, lamented: "Once there were two brothers. One ran away to sea; the other was elected Vice President of the United States. And nothing was heard of either of them again."[23] His successor, Calvin Coolidge, was so obscure that Major League Baseball sent him free passes that misspelled his name, and a fire marshal failed to recognize him when Coolidge\'s Washington residence was evacuated.[24] John Nance Garner, who served as vice president from 1933 to 1941 under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, claimed that the vice presidency "isn\'t worth a pitcher of warm piss".[25] Harry Truman, who also served as vice president under Franklin Roosevelt, said the office was as "useful as a cow\'s fifth teat".[26] Walter Bagehot remarked in The English Constitution that "[t]he framers of the Constitution expected that the vice-president would be elected by the Electoral College as the second wisest man in the country. The vice-presidentship being a sinecure, a second-rate man agreeable to the wire-pullers is always smuggled in. The chance of succession to the presidentship is too distant to be thought of."[27]\nWhen the Whig Party asked Daniel Webster to run for the vice presidency on Zachary Taylor\'s ticket, he replied "I do not propose to be buried until I am really dead and in my coffin."[28] This was the second time Webster declined the office, which William Henry Harrison had first offered to him. Ironically, both the presidents making the offer to Webster died in office, meaning the three-time candidate would have become president had he accepted either. Since presidents rarely die in office, however, the better preparation for the presidency was considered to be the office of Secretary of State, in which Webster served under Harrison, Tyler, and later, Taylor\'s successor, Fillmore.\nIn the first hundred years of the United States\' existence no fewer than seven proposals to abolish the office of vice president were advanced.[29] The first such constitutional amendment was presented by Samuel W. Dana in 1800; it was defeated by a vote of 27 to 85 in the United States House of Representatives.[29] The second, introduced by United States Senator James Hillhouse in 1808, was also defeated.[29] During the late 1860s and 1870s, five additional amendments were proposed.[29] One advocate, James Mitchell Ashley, opined that the office of vice president was "superfluous" and dangerous.[29]\nGarret Hobart, the first vice president under William McKinley, was one of the very few vice presidents at this time who played an important role in the administration. A close confidant and adviser of the president, Hobart was called "Assistant President".[30] However, until 1919, vice presidents were not included in meetings of the President\'s Cabinet. This precedent was broken by Woodrow Wilson when he asked Thomas R. Marshall to preside over Cabinet meetings while Wilson was in France negotiating the Treaty of Versailles.[31] President Warren G. Harding also invited Calvin Coolidge, to meetings. The next vice president, Charles G. Dawes, did not seek to attend Cabinet meetings under President Coolidge, declaring that "the precedent might prove injurious to the country."[32] Vice President Charles Curtis regularly attended Cabinet meetings on the invitation of President Herbert Hoover.[33]\nEmergence of the modern vice presidency\nIn 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt raised the stature of the office by renewing the practice of inviting the vice president to cabinet meetings, which every president since has maintained. Roosevelt\'s first vice president, John Nance Garner, broke with him over the "court-packing" issue early in his second term, and became Roosevelt\'s leading critic. At the start of that term, on January 20, 1937, Garner had been the first vice president to be sworn into office on the Capitol steps in the same ceremony with the president, a tradition that continues. Prior to that time, vice presidents were traditionally inaugurated at a separate ceremony in the Senate chamber. Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller, who were each appointed to the office under the terms of the 25th Amendment, were inaugurated in the House and Senate chambers respectively.\nAt the 1940 Democratic National Convention, Roosevelt selected his own running mate, Henry Wallace, instead of leaving the nomination to the convention, when he wanted Garner replaced.[34] He then gave Wallace major responsibilities during World War II. However, after numerous policy disputes between Wallace and other Roosevelt Administration and Democratic Party officials, he was denied re-nomination at the 1944 Democratic National Convention. Harry Truman was selected instead. During his 82-day vice presidency, Truman was never informed about any war or post-war plans, including the Manhattan Project.[35] Truman had no visible role in the Roosevelt administration outside of his congressional responsibilities and met with the president only a few times during his tenure as vice president.[36] Roosevelt died on April 12, 1945, and Truman succeeded to the presidency (the state of Roosevelt\'s health had also been kept from Truman). At the time he said, "I felt like the moon, the stars and all the planets fell on me."[37] Determined that no future vice president should be so uninformed upon unexpectedly becoming president, Truman made the vice president a member of the National Security Council, a participant in Cabinet meetings and a recipient of regular security briefings in 1949.[35]\nThe stature of the vice presidency grew again while Richard Nixon was in office (1953–1961). He attracted the attention of the media and the Republican Party, when Dwight Eisenhower authorized him to preside at Cabinet meetings in his absence and to assume temporary control of the executive branch, which he did after Eisenhower suffered a heart attack on September 24, 1955, ileitis in June 1956, and a stroke in November 1957. Nixon was also visible on the world stage during his time in office.[35]\nUntil 1961, vice presidents had their offices on Capitol Hill, a formal office in the Capitol itself and a working office in the Russell Senate Office Building. Lyndon B. Johnson was the first vice president to also be given an office in the White House complex, in the Old Executive Office Building. The former Navy Secretary\'s office in the OEOB has since been designated the "Ceremonial Office of the Vice President" and is today used for formal events and press interviews. President Jimmy Carter was the first president to give his vice president, Walter Mondale, an office in the West Wing of the White House, which all vice presidents have since retained. Because of their function as president of the Senate, vice presidents still maintain offices and staff members on Capitol Hill. This change came about because Carter held the view that the office of the vice presidency had historically been a wasted asset and wished to have his vice president involved in the decision-making process. Carter pointedly considered, according to Joel Goldstein, the way Roosevelt treated Truman as "immoral".[38]\nAnother factor behind the rise in prestige of the vice presidency was the expanded use of presidential preference primaries for choosing party nominees during the 20th century. By adopting primary voting, the field of candidates for vice president was expanded by both the increased quantity and quality of presidential candidates successful in some primaries, yet who ultimately failed to capture the presidential nomination at the convention.[34]\nAt the start of the 21st century, Dick Cheney (2001–2009) held much power within the administration, and frequently made policy decisions on his own, without the knowledge of the president.[39] This rapid growth led to Matthew Yglesias and Bruce Ackerman calling for the abolition of the vice presidency[40][41] while 2008\'s both vice presidential candidates, Sarah Palin and Joe Biden, said they would reduce the role to simply being an adviser to the president.[42]\nConstitutional roles\n| This article is part of a series on the |\n| Politics of the United States |\n|---|\nAlthough delegates to the constitutional convention approved establishing the office, with both its executive and senatorial functions, not many understood the office, and so they gave the vice president few duties and little power.[19] Only a few states had an analogous position. Among those that did, New York\'s constitution provided that "the lieutenant-governor shall, by virtue of his office, be president of the Senate, and, upon an equal division, have a casting voice in their decisions, but not vote on any other occasion".[43] As a result, the vice presidency originally had authority in only a few areas, although constitutional amendments have added or clarified some matters.\nPresident of the Senate\nArticle I, Section 3, Clause 4 confers upon the vice president the title "President of the Senate", authorizing the vice president to preside over Senate meetings. In this capacity, the vice president is responsible for maintaining order and decorum, recognizing members to speak, and interpreting the Senate\'s rules, practices, and precedent. With this position also comes the authority to cast a tie-breaking vote.[19] In practice, the number of times vice presidents have exercised this right has varied greatly. Incumbent vice president Kamala Harris holds the record at 33 votes, followed by John C. Calhoun who had previously held the record at 31 votes; John Adams ranks third with 29.[44][45] Nine vice presidents, most recently Joe Biden, did not cast any tie-breaking votes.[46]\nAs the framers of the Constitution anticipated that the vice president would not always be available to fulfill this responsibility, the Constitution provides that the Senate may elect a president pro tempore (or "president for a time") in order to maintain the proper ordering of the legislative process. In practice, since the early 20th century, neither the president of the Senate nor the pro tempore regularly presides; instead, the president pro tempore usually delegates the task to other Senate members.[47] Rule XIX, which governs debate, does not authorize the vice president to participate in debate, and grants only to members of the Senate (and, upon appropriate notice, former presidents of the United States) the privilege of addressing the Senate, without granting a similar privilege to the sitting vice president. Thus, Time magazine wrote in 1925, during the tenure of Vice President Charles G. Dawes, "once in four years the Vice President can make a little speech, and then he is done. For four years he then has to sit in the seat of the silent, attending to speeches ponderous or otherwise, of deliberation or humor."[48]\nPresiding over impeachment trials\nIn their capacity as president of the Senate, the vice president may preside over most impeachment trials of federal officers, although the Constitution does not specifically require it. However, whenever the president of the United States is on trial, the Constitution requires that the chief justice of the United States must preside. This stipulation was designed to avoid the possible conflict of interest in having the vice president preside over the trial for the removal of the one official standing between them and the presidency.[49] In contrast, the Constitution is silent about which federal official would preside were the vice president on trial by the Senate.[12][50] No vice president has ever been impeached, thus leaving it unclear whether an impeached vice president could, as president of the Senate, preside at their own impeachment trial.\nPresiding over electoral vote counts\nThe Twelfth Amendment provides that the vice president, in their capacity as the president of the Senate, receives the Electoral College votes, and then, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, opens the sealed votes.[17] The votes are counted during a joint session of Congress as prescribed by the Electoral Count Act and the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act. The former specifies that the president of the Senate presides over the joint session,[51] and the latter clarifies the solely ministerial role the president of the Senate serves in the process.[52] The next such joint session will next take place following the 2028 presidential election, on January 6, 2029 (unless Congress sets a different date by law).[18]\nIn this capacity, four vice presidents have been able to announce their own election to the presidency: John Adams, in 1797, Thomas Jefferson, in 1801, Martin Van Buren, in 1837 and George H. W. Bush, in 1989.[19] Conversely, John C. Breckinridge, in 1861,[53] Richard Nixon, in 1961,[54] Al Gore, in 2001,[55] and Kamala Harris, in 2025,[56] each had to announce their opponent\'s election victory. In 1969, Vice President Hubert Humphrey would have done so as well, following his 1968 loss to Richard Nixon; however, on the date of the congressional joint session, Humphrey was in Norway attending the funeral of Trygve Lie, the first elected Secretary-General of the United Nations. The president pro tempore, Richard Russell, presided in his absence.[54] On February 8, 1933, Vice President Charles Curtis announced the election victory of his successor, House Speaker John Nance Garner, while Garner was seated next to him on the House dais.[57] Similarly, Walter Mondale, in 1981, Dan Quayle, in 1993, and Mike Pence, in 2021, each had to announce their successor\'s election victory, following their re-election losses.\nSuccessor to the U.S. president\nArticle II, Section 1, Clause 6 stipulates that the vice president takes over the "powers and duties" of the presidency in the event of a president\'s removal, death, resignation, or inability.[58] Even so, it did not clearly state whether the vice president became president or simply acted as president in a case of succession. Debate records from the 1787 Constitutional Convention, along with various participants\' later writings on the subject, show that the framers of the Constitution intended that the vice president would temporarily exercise the powers and duties of the office in the event of a president\'s death, disability or removal, but not actually become the president of the United States in their own right.[59][60]\nThis understanding was first tested in 1841, following the death of President William Henry Harrison, only 31 days into his term. Harrison\'s vice president, John Tyler, asserted that under the Constitution, he had succeeded to the presidency, not just to its powers and duties. He had himself sworn in as president and assumed full presidential powers, refusing to acknowledge documents referring to him as "Acting President".[61] Although some in Congress denounced Tyler\'s claim as a violation of the Constitution,[58] he adhered to his position. His view ultimately prevailed as both the Senate and House voted to acknowledge him as president.[62] The "Tyler Precedent" that a vice president assumes the full title and role of president upon the death, resignation, or removal from office (via impeachment conviction) of their predecessor was codified through the Twenty-fifth Amendment in 1967.[63][64] Altogether, nine vice presidents have succeeded to the presidency intra-term. In addition to Tyler, they are Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester A. Arthur, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Gerald Ford. Four of them—Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, and Lyndon B. Johnson—were later elected to full terms of their own.[59]\nFour sitting vice presidents have been elected president: John Adams in 1796, Thomas Jefferson in 1800, Martin Van Buren in 1836, and George H. W. Bush in 1988. Likewise, two former vice presidents have won the presidency, Richard Nixon in 1968 and Joe Biden in 2020. Also, five incumbent vice presidents lost a presidential election: Breckinridge in 1860, Nixon in 1960, Humphrey in 1968, Gore in 2000, and Harris in 2024. Additionally, former vice president Walter Mondale lost in 1984.[65] In total, 15 vice presidents have become president.[66]\nActing president\nSections 3 and 4 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment provide for situations where the president is temporarily or permanently unable to lead, such as if the president has a surgical procedure, becomes seriously ill or injured, or is otherwise unable to discharge the powers or duties of the presidency. Section 3 deals with self-declared incapacity, and Section 4 addresses incapacity declared by the joint action of the vice president and of a majority of the Cabinet.[67] While Section 4 has never been invoked, Section 3 has been invoked on four occasions by three presidents, first in 1985. When invoked on November 19, 2021, Kamala Harris became the first woman in U.S. history to have presidential powers and duties.[68]\nSections 3 and 4 were added because there was ambiguity in the Article II succession clause regarding a disabled president, including what constituted an "inability", who determined the existence of an inability, and if a vice president became president for the rest of the presidential term in the case of an inability or became merely "acting president". During the 19th century and first half of the 20th century, several presidents experienced periods of severe illness, physical disability or injury, some lasting for weeks or months. During these times, even though the nation needed effective presidential leadership, no vice president wanted to seem like a usurper, and so power was never transferred. After President Dwight D. Eisenhower openly addressed his health issues and made it a point to enter into an agreement with Vice President Richard Nixon that provided for Nixon to act on his behalf if Eisenhower became unable to provide effective presidential leadership (Nixon did informally assume some of the president\'s duties for several weeks on each of three occasions when Eisenhower was ill), discussions began in Congress about clearing up the Constitution\'s ambiguity on the subject.[58][67]\nModern roles\nThe present-day power of the office flows primarily from formal and informal delegations of authority from the president and Congress.[12] These delegations can vary in significance; for example, the vice president is a statutory member of both the National Security Council and the board of regents of the Smithsonian Institution.[10] The extent of the roles and functions of the vice president depend on the specific relationship between the president and the vice president, but often include tasks such as drafter and spokesperson for the administration\'s policies, adviser to the president, and being a symbol of American concern or support. The influence of the vice president in these roles depends almost entirely on the characteristics of the particular administration.[69]\nPresidential advisor\nMost recent vice presidents have been viewed as important presidential advisors. Walter Mondale, unlike his immediate predecessors, did not want specific responsibilities to be delegated to him. Mondale believed, as he wrote President-elect Jimmy Carter a memo following the 1976 election, that his most important role would be as a "general adviser" to the president.[38][70] Al Gore was an important adviser to President Bill Clinton on matters of foreign policy and the environment. Dick Cheney was widely regarded as one of President George W. Bush\'s closest confidants. Joe Biden asked President Barack Obama to let him always be the "last person in the room" when a big decision was made; later, as president himself, Biden adopted this model with his own vice president, Kamala Harris.[71][72]\nGoverning partner\nRecent vice presidents have been delegated authority by presidents to handle significant issue areas independently. Joe Biden (who has held the office of President and Vice President of the United States) has observed that the presidency is "too big anymore for any one man or woman".[73] Dick Cheney was considered to hold a tremendous amount of power and frequently made policy decisions on his own, without the knowledge of the president.[39] Biden was assigned by Barack Obama to oversee Iraq policy; Obama was said to have said, "Joe, you do Iraq."[74] In February 2020, Donald Trump appointed Mike Pence to lead his response to COVID-19[75] and, upon his ascension to the presidency, Biden put Kamala Harris in charge of controlling migration at the US–Mexico border.[76]\nCongressional liaison\nThe vice president is often an important liaison between the administration and Congress, especially in situations where the president has not previously served in Congress or served only briefly. Vice presidents are often selected as running mates in part due to their legislative relationships, notably including Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Walter Mondale, Dick Cheney, Joe Biden, and Mike Pence among others. In recent years, Dick Cheney held weekly meetings in the Vice President\'s Room at the United States Capitol, Joe Biden played a key role in bipartisan budget negotiations, and Mike Pence often met with House and Senate Republicans. Kamala Harris, the current vice president, presided over a 50–50 split Senate during the 117th Congress, which provided her with a key role in passing legislation.\nRepresentative at events\nUnder the American system of government the president is both head of state and head of government,[77] and the ceremonial duties of the former position are often delegated to the vice president. The vice president will on occasion represent the president and the U.S. government at state funerals abroad, or at various events in the United States. This often is the most visible role of the vice president. The vice president may also meet with other heads of state at times when the administration wishes to demonstrate concern or support but cannot send the president personally.\nNational Security Council member\nSince 1949, the vice president has legally been a member of the National Security Council. Harry Truman, having not been told about any war or post-war plans during his vice presidency (notably the Manhattan Project), recognized that upon assuming the presidency a vice president needed to be already informed on such issues. Modern vice presidents have also been included in the president\'s daily intelligence briefings[71] and frequently participate in meetings in the Situation Room with the president.\nSelection process\nEligibility\nTo be constitutionally eligible to serve as the nation\'s vice president, a person must, according to the Twelfth Amendment, meet the eligibility requirements to become president (which are stated in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5). Thus, to serve as vice president, an individual must:\n- be a natural-born U.S. citizen;\n- be at least 35 years old;\n- be a resident in the U.S. for at least 14 years.[78]\nA person who meets the above qualifications is still disqualified from holding the office of vice president under the following conditions:\n- Under Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, upon conviction in impeachment cases, the Senate has the option of disqualifying convicted individuals from holding federal office, including that of vice president;\n- Under the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution, "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States".[78]\n- Under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, no person who has sworn an oath to support the Constitution, who has later "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the United States, or given aid and comfort to the nation\'s enemies can serve in a state or federal office—including as vice president. This disqualification, originally aimed at former supporters of the Confederacy, may be removed by a two-thirds vote of each house of the Congress.[79]\nNomination\nThe vice presidential candidates of the major national political parties are formally selected by each party\'s quadrennial nominating convention, following the selection of the party\'s presidential candidate. The official process is identical to the one by which the presidential candidates are chosen, with delegates placing the names of candidates into nomination, followed by a ballot in which candidates must receive a majority to secure the party\'s nomination.\nIn modern practice, the presidential nominee has considerable influence on the decision, and since the mid 20th century it became customary for that person to select a preferred running mate, who is then nominated and accepted by the convention. Prior to Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940, only two presidents—Andrew Jackson in 1832 and Abraham Lincoln in 1864—had done so.[80] In recent years, with the presidential nomination usually being a foregone conclusion as the result of the primary process, the selection of a vice presidential candidate is often announced prior to the actual balloting for the presidential candidate, and sometimes before the beginning of the convention itself. The most recent presidential nominee not to name a vice presidential choice, leaving the matter up to the convention, was Democrat Adlai Stevenson in 1956. The convention chose Tennessee Senator Estes Kefauver over Massachusetts Senator (and later president) John F. Kennedy. At the tumultuous 1972 Democratic convention, presidential nominee George McGovern selected Missouri Senator Thomas Eagleton as his running mate, but numerous other candidates were either nominated from the floor or received votes during the balloting. Eagleton nevertheless received a majority of the votes and the nomination, though he later resigned from the ticket, resulting in Sargent Shriver from Maryland becoming McGovern\'s final running mate; both lost to the Nixon–Agnew ticket by a wide margin, carrying only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.\nDuring times in a presidential election cycle before the identity of the presidential nominee is clear, including cases where the presidential nomination is still in doubt as the convention approaches, campaigns for the two positions may become intertwined. In 1976, Ronald Reagan, who was trailing President Gerald Ford in the presidential delegate count, announced prior to the Republican National Convention that, if nominated, he would select Pennsylvania Senator Richard Schweiker as his running mate. Reagan was the first presidential aspirant to announce his selection for vice president before the beginning of the convention. Reagan\'s supporters then unsuccessfully sought to amend the convention rules so that Gerald Ford would be required to name his vice presidential running mate in advance as well. This move backfired to a degree, as Schweiker\'s relatively liberal voting record alienated many of the more conservative delegates who were considering a challenge to party delegate selection rules to improve Reagan\'s chances. In the end, Ford narrowly won the presidential nomination and Reagan\'s selection of Schweiker became moot.\nIn the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries, which pitted Hillary Clinton against Barack Obama, Clinton suggested a Clinton–Obama ticket with Obama in the vice president slot, which she said would be "unstoppable" against the presumptive Republican nominee. Obama rejected the offer outright, saying, "I want everybody to be absolutely clear. I\'m not running for vice president. I\'m running for president of the United States of America," adding, "With all due respect. I won twice as many states as Senator Clinton. I\'ve won more of the popular vote than Senator Clinton. I have more delegates than Senator Clinton. So, I don\'t know how somebody who\'s in second place is offering vice presidency to the person who\'s in first place." Obama said the nomination process would have to be a choice between himself and Clinton, saying "I don\'t want anybody here thinking that \'Somehow, maybe I can get both\'", by nominating Clinton and assuming he would be her running mate.[81][82] Some suggested that it was a ploy by the Clinton campaign to denigrate Obama as less qualified for the presidency.[83][failed verification] Later, when Obama became the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, former president Jimmy Carter cautioned against Clinton being picked as the vice presidential nominee on the ticket, saying "I think it would be the worst mistake that could be made. That would just accumulate the negative aspects of both candidates", citing opinion polls showing 50% of US voters with a negative view of Hillary Clinton.[84]\nSelection criteria\nThough the vice president does not need to have any political experience, most major-party vice presidential nominees are current or former United States senators or representatives, with the occasional nominee being a current or former governor, a high-ranking former military officer (active military officers being prohibited under US law from holding political office), or a holder of a major position within the Executive branch. In addition, the vice presidential nominee has always been an official resident of a different state than the presidential nominee. While nothing in the Constitution prohibits a presidential candidate and his or her running mate being from the same state, the "inhabitant clause" of the Twelfth Amendment does mandate that every presidential elector must cast a ballot for at least one candidate who is not from their own state. Prior to the 2000 election, both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney lived in and voted in Texas. To avoid creating a potential problem for Texas\'s electors, Cheney changed his residency back to Wyoming prior to the campaign.[78]\nOften, the presidential nominee will name a vice presidential candidate who will bring geographic or ideological balance to the ticket or appeal to a particular constituency. The vice presidential candidate might also be chosen on the basis of traits the presidential candidate is perceived to lack, or on the basis of name recognition. To foster party unity, popular runners-up in the presidential nomination process are commonly considered. While this selection process may enhance the chances of success for a national ticket, in the past it often resulted in the vice presidential nominee representing regions, constituencies, or ideologies at odds with those of the presidential candidate. As a result, vice presidents were often excluded from the policy-making process of the new administration. Many times their relationships with the president and his staff were aloof, non-existent, or even adversarial.[citation needed]\nHistorically, the vice presidential nominee was usually a second-tier politician, chosen either to appease the party\'s minority faction, satisfy party bosses, or to secure a key state.[85] Factors playing a role in the selection included: geographic and ideological balance, widening a presidential candidate\'s appeal to voters from outside their regional base or wing of the party. Candidates from electoral-vote rich swing states were usually preferred. A 2016 study, which examined vice-presidential candidates over the period 1884-2012, found that vice presidential candidates increased their tickets’ performance in their home states by 2.67 percentage points on average.[86]\nElection\nThe vice president is elected indirectly by the voters of each state and the District of Columbia through the Electoral College, a body of electors formed every four years for the sole purpose of electing the president and vice president to concurrent four-year terms. Each state is entitled to a number of electors equal to the size of its total delegation in both houses of Congress. Additionally, the Twenty-third Amendment provides that the District of Columbia is entitled to the number it would have if it were a state, but in no case more than that of the least populous state.[87] Currently, all states and D.C. select their electors based on a popular election held on Election Day.[18] In all but two states, the party whose presidential–vice presidential ticket receives a plurality of popular votes in the state has its entire slate of elector nominees chosen as the state\'s electors.[88] Maine and Nebraska deviate from this winner-take-all practice, awarding two electors to the statewide winner and one to the winner in each congressional district.[89][90]\nOn the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, about six weeks after the election, the electors convene in their respective states (and in Washington D.C.) to vote for president and, on a separate ballot, for vice president. The certified results are opened and counted during a joint session of Congress, held in the first week of January. A candidate who receives an absolute majority of electoral votes for vice president (currently 270 of 538) is declared the winner. If no candidate has a majority, the Senate must meet to elect a vice president using a contingent election procedure in which senators, casting votes individually, choose between the two candidates who received the most electoral votes for vice president. For a candidate to win the contingent election, they must receive votes from an absolute majority of senators (currently 51 of 100).[18][91]\nThere has been only one vice presidential contingent election since the process was created by the Twelfth Amendment. It occurred on February 8, 1837, after no candidate received a majority of the electoral votes cast for vice president in the 1836 election. By a 33–17 vote, Richard M. Johnson (Martin Van Buren\'s running mate) was elected the nation\'s ninth vice president over Francis Granger (William Henry Harrison\'s and Daniel Webster\'s running mate).[92]\nTenure\nInauguration\nPursuant to the Twentieth Amendment, the vice president\'s term of office begins at noon on January 20, as does the president\'s.[93] The first presidential and vice presidential terms to begin on this date, known as Inauguration Day, were the second terms of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Vice President John Nance Garner in 1937.[94] Previously, Inauguration Day was on March 4. As a result of the date change, both men\'s first terms (1933–1937) were short of four years by 43 days.[95]\nAlso in 1937, the vice president\'s swearing-in ceremony was held on the Inaugural platform on the Capitol\'s east front immediately before the president\'s swearing in. Up until then, most vice presidents took the oath of office in the Senate chamber, prior to the president\'s swearing-in ceremony.[96] Although the Constitution contains the specific wording of the presidential oath, it contains only a general requirement, in Article VI, that the vice president and other government officers shall take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. The current form, which has been used since 1884 reads:\nI, (first name last name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[97]\nTerm of office\nThe term of office for both the vice president and the president is four years. While the Twenty-Second Amendment sets a limit on the number of times an individual can be elected to the presidency (two),[98] there is no such limitation on the office of vice president, meaning an eligible person could hold the office as long as voters continued to vote for electors who in turn would reelect the person to the office; one could even serve under different presidents. This has happened twice: George Clinton (1805–1812) served under both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison; and John C. Calhoun (1825–1832) served under John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson.[19] Additionally, neither the Constitution\'s eligibility provisions nor the Twenty-second Amendment\'s presidential term limit explicitly disqualify a twice-elected president from serving as vice president, though it is arguably prohibited by the last sentence of the Twelfth Amendment: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."[99] As of the 2020 election cycle, however, no former president has tested the amendment\'s legal restrictions or meaning by running for the vice presidency.[100][101]\nImpeachment\nArticle II, Section 4 of the Constitution allows for the removal of federal officials, including the vice president, from office for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". No vice president has ever been impeached.\nVacancies\nPrior to the ratification of the Twenty-fifth Amendment in 1967, no constitutional provision existed for filling an intra-term vacancy in the vice presidency.\nAs a result, when such a vacancy occurred, the office was left vacant until filled through the next ensuing election and inauguration. Between 1812 and 1965, the vice presidency was vacant on sixteen occasions, as a result of seven deaths, one resignation, and eight cases of the vice president succeeding to the presidency. With the vacancy that followed the succession of Lyndon B. Johnson in 1963, the nation had been without a vice president for a cumulative total of 37 years.[102][103]\nSection 2 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment provides that "whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress."[5] This procedure has been implemented twice since the amendment came into force: the first instance occurred in 1973 following the October 10 resignation of Spiro Agnew, when Gerald Ford was nominated by President Richard Nixon and confirmed by Congress. The second occurred ten months later on August 9, 1974, on Ford\'s accession to the presidency upon Nixon\'s resignation, when Nelson Rockefeller was nominated by President Ford and confirmed by Congress.[58][103]\nHad it not been for this new constitutional mechanism, the vice presidency would have remained vacant after Agnew\'s resignation; the speaker of the House, Carl Albert, would have become Acting President had Nixon resigned in this scenario, under the terms of the Presidential Succession Act of 1947.[104]\n| No. | Period of vacancy | Cause of vacancy | Length | Vacancy filled by |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| 1 | April 20, 1812 – March 4, 1813 |\nDeath of George Clinton | 318 days | Election of 1812 |\n| 2 | November 23, 1814 – March 4, 1817 |\nDeath of Elbridge Gerry | 2 years, 101 days | Election of 1816 |\n| 3 | December 28, 1832 – March 4, 1833 |\nResignation of John C. Calhoun | 66 days | Election of 1832 |\n| 4 | April 4, 1841 – March 4, 1845 |\nAccession of John Tyler as president | 3 years, 334 days | Election of 1844 |\n| 5 | July 9, 1850 – March 4, 1853 |\nAccession of Millard Fillmore as president | 2 years, 238 days | Election of 1852 |\n| 6 | April 18, 1853 – March 4, 1857 |\nDeath of William R. King | 3 years, 320 days | Election of 1856 |\n| 7 | April 15, 1865 – March 4, 1869 |\nAccession of Andrew Johnson as president | 3 years, 323 days | Election of 1868 |\n| 8 | November 22, 1875 – March 4, 1877 |\nDeath of Henry Wilson | 1 year, 102 days | Election of 1876 |\n| 9 | September 19, 1881 – March 4, 1885 |\nAccession of Chester A. Arthur as president | 3 years, 166 days | Election of 1884 |\n| 10 | November 25, 1885 – March 4, 1889 |\nDeath of Thomas A. Hendricks | 3 years, 99 days | Election of 1888 |\n| 11 | November 21, 1899 – March 4, 1901 |\nDeath of Garret Hobart | 1 year, 103 days | Election of 1900 |\n| 12 | September 14, 1901 – March 4, 1905 |\nAccession of Theodore Roosevelt as president | 3 years, 171 days | Election of 1904 |\n| 13 | October 30, 1912 – March 4, 1913 |\nDeath of James S. Sherman | 125 days | Election of 1912 |\n| 14 | August 2, 1923 – March 4, 1925 |\nAccession of Calvin Coolidge as president | 1 year, 214 days | Election of 1924 |\n| 15 | April 12, 1945 – January 20, 1949 |\nAccession of Harry S. Truman as president | 3 years, 283 days | Election of 1948 |\n| 16 | November 22, 1963 – January 20, 1965 |\nAccession of Lyndon B. Johnson as president | 1 year, 59 days | Election of 1964 |\n| 17 | October 10, 1973 – December 6, 1973 |\nResignation of Spiro Agnew | 57 days | Confirmation of successor |\n| 18 | August 9, 1974 – December 19, 1974 |\nAccession of Gerald Ford as president | 132 days | Confirmation of successor |\nOffice and status\nSalary\nThe vice president\'s salary in 2019 was $235,100.[105] For 2024, the vice president\'s salary is $284,600,[106] however, due to a pay freeze in effect since 2019, the actual portion of that salary that is payable remains $235,100.[107] The salary was set by the 1989 Government Salary Reform Act, which also provides an automatic cost of living adjustment for federal employees. The vice president does not automatically receive a pension based on that office, but instead receives the same pension as other members of Congress based on their position as president of the Senate.[108] The vice president must serve a minimum of two years to qualify for a pension.[109]\nResidence\nThe home of the vice president was designated in 1974, when Congress established Number One Observatory Circle as the official temporary residence of the vice president of the United States. In 1966 Congress, concerned about safety and security and mindful of the increasing responsibilities of the office, allotted money ($75,000) to fund construction of a residence for the vice president, but implementation stalled and after eight years the decision was revised, and One Observatory Circle was then designated for the vice president.[110] Up until the change, vice presidents lived in homes, apartments, or hotels, and were compensated more like cabinet members and members of Congress, receiving only a housing allowance.\nThe three-story Queen Anne style mansion was built in 1893 on the grounds of the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C., to serve as residence for the superintendent of the Observatory. In 1923, the residence was reassigned to be the home of the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), which it was until it was turned over to the office of the vice president fifty years later.\nTravel and transportation\nThe primary means of long-distance air travel for the vice president is one of two identical Boeing airplanes, which are extensively modified Boeing 757 airliners and are referred to as Air Force Two, while the vice president is on board. Any U.S. Air Force aircraft the vice president is aboard is referred to as "Air Force Two" for the duration of the flight. In-country trips are typically handled with just one of the two planes, while overseas trips are handled with both, one primary and one backup.\nFor short-distance air travel, the vice president has access to a fleet of U.S. Marine Corps helicopters of varying models including Marine Two when the vice president is aboard any particular one in the fleet. Flights are typically handled with as many as five helicopters all flying together and frequently swapping positions as to disguise which helicopter the vice president is actually aboard to any would-be threats.\nStaff\nThe vice president is supported by personnel in the Office of the Vice President of the United States. The office was created in the Reorganization Act of 1939, which included an "office of the Vice President" under the Executive Office of the President. Salary for the staff is provided by both legislative and executive branch appropriations, in light of the vice president\'s roles in each branch.\nProtection\nThe U.S. Secret Service is in charge with protecting the vice president and the second family. As part of their protection, vice presidents, second spouses, their children and other immediate family members, and other prominent persons and locations are assigned Secret Service codenames. The use of such names was originally due to security purposes and safety reasons.\nOffice spaces\nIn the modern era, the vice president makes use of at least four different office spaces. These include an office in the West Wing, a ceremonial office in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building near where most of the vice president\'s staff works, the Vice President\'s Room on the Senate side of the United States Capitol for meetings with members of Congress, and an office at the vice president\'s residence.\nPost–vice presidency\nSince 1977, former presidents and former vice presidents who are elected or re-elected to the Senate are entitled to the largely honorific position of Deputy President pro tempore. To date, the only former vice president to have held this title is Hubert Humphrey. Also, under the terms of an 1886 Senate resolution, all former vice presidents are entitled to a portrait bust in the Senate wing of the United States Capitol, commemorating their service as presidents of the Senate. Dick Cheney is the most recently serving vice president in the collection.[111]\nUnlike former presidents, whose pension is fixed at the same rate, regardless of their time in office, former vice presidents receive their retirement income based on their role as president of the Senate.[112] Additionally, since 2008, each former vice president and their immediate family is entitled (under the Former Vice President Protection Act of 2008) to Secret Service protection for up to six months after leaving office, and again temporarily at any time thereafter if warranted.[113]\nTimeline\nGraphical timeline listing the vice presidents of the United States:\nReferences\n- ^ "The conventions of nine states having adopted the Constitution, Congress, in September or October, 1788, passed a resolution in conformity with the opinions expressed by the Convention and appointed the first Wednesday in March of the ensuing year as the day, and the then seat of Congress as the place, \'for commencing proceedings under the Constitution.\'\n"Both governments could not be understood to exist at the same time. The new government did not commence until the old government expired. It is apparent that the government did not commence on the Constitution\'s being ratified by the ninth state, for these ratifications were to be reported to Congress, whose continuing existence was recognized by the Convention, and who were requested to continue to exercise their powers for the purpose of bringing the new government into operation. In fact, Congress did continue to act as a government until it dissolved on the first of November by the successive disappearance of its members. It existed potentially until 2 March, the day preceding that on which the members of the new Congress were directed to assemble."Owings v. Speed, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat) 420, 422 (1820)\n- ^ Maier, Pauline (2010). Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787–1788. New York: Simon & Schuster. p. 433. ISBN 978-0-684-86854-7.\n- ^ "March 4: A forgotten huge day in American history". Philadelphia: National Constitution Center. March 4, 2013. Archived from the original on February 24, 2018. Retrieved July 24, 2018.\n- ^ Smith, Page (1962). John Adams. Vol. Two 1784–1826. Garden City, New York: Doubleday. p. 744.\n- ^ a b Feerick, John. "Essays on Amendment XXV: Presidential Succession". The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. The Heritage Foundation. Archived from the original on August 22, 2020. Retrieved July 3, 2018.\n- ^ "VPOTUS". Merriam-Webster. Archived from the original on January 25, 2021. Retrieved February 10, 2021.\n- ^ "Veep". Merriam-Webster. Archived from the original on October 14, 2020. Retrieved February 14, 2021.\n- ^ Weinberg, Steve (October 14, 2014). "\'The American Vice Presidency\' sketches all 47 men who held America\'s second-highest office". The Christian Science Monitor. Archived from the original on October 6, 2019. Retrieved October 6, 2019.\n- ^ "Vice President". USLegal.com. n.d. Archived from the original on October 25, 2012. Retrieved October 6, 2019.\nThe Vice President of the United States is the second highest executive office of the United States government, after the President.\n- ^ a b c d "Executive Branch: Vice President". The US Legal System. U.S. Legal Support. Archived from the original on October 25, 2012. Retrieved February 20, 2018.\n- ^ a b c d Garvey, Todd (2008). "A Constitutional Anomaly: Safeguarding Confidential National Security Information Within the Enigma That Is the American Vice Presidency". William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal. 17 (2). Williamsburg, Virginia: William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository: 565–605. Archived from the original on July 16, 2018. Retrieved July 28, 2018.\n- ^ a b c Brownell II, Roy E. (Fall 2014). "A Constitutional Chameleon: The Vice President\'s Place within the American System of Separation of Powers Part I: Text, Structure, Views of the Framers and the Courts" (PDF). Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy. 24 (1): 1–77. Archived (PDF) from the original on December 30, 2017. Retrieved July 27, 2018.\n- ^ Goldstein, Joel K. (1995). "The New Constitutional Vice Presidency". Wake Forest Law Review. 30. Winston Salem, NC: Wake Forest Law Review Association, Inc.: 505. Archived from the original on July 16, 2018. Retrieved July 16, 2018.\n- ^ "Major Themes at the Constitutional Convention: 8. Establishing the Electoral College and the Presidency". TeachingAmericanHistory.org. Ashland, Ohio: Ashbrook Center at Ashland University. Archived from the original on February 10, 2018. Retrieved February 21, 2018.\n- ^ a b c Albert, Richard (Winter 2005). "The Evolving Vice Presidency". Temple Law Review. 78 (4). Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education: 811–896. Archived from the original on April 1, 2019. Retrieved July 29, 2018 – via Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School.\n- ^ Rathbone, Mark (December 2011). "US Vice Presidents". History Review. No. 71. London: History Today. Archived from the original on February 19, 2018. Retrieved February 21, 2018.\n- ^ a b Kuroda, Tadahisa. "Essays on Article II: Electoral College". The Heritage Guide to The Constitution. The Heritage Foundation. Archived from the original on August 22, 2020. Retrieved July 27, 2018.\n- ^ a b c d Neale, Thomas H. (May 15, 2017). "The Electoral College: How It Works in Contemporary Presidential Elections" (PDF). CRS Report for Congress. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service. p. 13. Archived (PDF) from the original on December 6, 2020. Retrieved July 29, 2018.\n- ^ a b c d e f g "Vice President of the United States (President of the Senate)". senate.gov. Washington, D.C.: Secretary of the Senate. Archived from the original on November 15, 2002. Retrieved July 28, 2018.\n- ^ Schramm, Peter W. "Essays on Article I: Vice President as Presiding Officer". Heritage Guide to the Constitution. The Heritage Foundation. Archived from the original on August 22, 2020. Retrieved July 27, 2018.\n- ^ Fried, Charles. "Essays on Amendment XII: Electoral College". The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. The Heritage Foundation. Archived from the original on August 22, 2020. Retrieved February 20, 2018.\n- ^ Smith, Page (1962). John Adams. Vol. II 1784–1826. New York: Doubleday. p. 844. LCCN 63-7188.\n- ^ "A heartbeat away from the presidency: vice presidential trivia". Case Western Reserve University. October 4, 2004. Archived from the original on October 19, 2017. Retrieved September 12, 2008.\n- ^ Greenberg, David (2007). Calvin Coolidge profile. Macmillan. pp. 40–41. ISBN 978-0-8050-6957-0. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 15, 2020.\n- ^ "John Nance Garner quotes". Archived from the original on April 14, 2016. Retrieved August 25, 2008.\n- ^ "Nation: Some Day You\'ll Be Sitting in That Chair". Time. November 29, 1963. Archived from the original on October 7, 2014. Retrieved October 3, 2014.\n- ^ Bagehot, Walter (1963) [1867]. The English Constitution. Collins. p. 80.\n- ^ Binkley, Wilfred Ellsworth; Moos, Malcolm Charles (1949). A Grammar of American Politics: The National Government. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. p. 265. Archived from the original on September 13, 2015. Retrieved October 17, 2015.\n- ^ a b c d e Ames, Herman (1896). The Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the United States During the First Century of Its History. American Historical Association. pp. 70–72.\n- ^ "Garret Hobart". Archived from the original on September 27, 2007. Retrieved August 25, 2008.\n- ^ Harold C. Relyea (February 13, 2001). "The Vice Presidency: Evolution of the Modern Office, 1933–2001" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 9, 2011. Retrieved February 11, 2012.\n- ^ "U.S. Senate Web page on Charles G. Dawes, 30th Vice President (1925–1929)". Senate.gov. Archived from the original on November 6, 2014. Retrieved August 9, 2009.\n- ^ "National Affairs: Curtis v. Brown?". Time. April 21, 1930. Retrieved October 31, 2022.\n- ^ a b Goldstein, Joel K. (September 2008). "The Rising Power of the Modern Vice Presidency". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 38 (3). Wiley: 374–389. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5705.2008.02650.x. ISSN 0360-4918. JSTOR 41219685. Retrieved December 10, 2021.\n- ^ a b c Feuerherd, Peter (May 8, 2018). "How Harry Truman Transformed the Vice Presidency". JSTOR Daily. JSTOR. Retrieved August 12, 2022.\n- ^ Hamby, Alonzo L. (October 4, 2016). "Harry Truman: Life Before the Presidency". Charlottesville, Virginia: Miller Center, University of Virginia. Retrieved August 12, 2022.\n- ^ "Harry S Truman National Historic Site: Missouri". National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Retrieved August 12, 2022.\n- ^ a b Balz, Dan (April 19, 2021). "Mondale lost the presidency but permanently changed the office of vice presidency". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 2, 2023.\n- ^ a b Kenneth T. Walsh (October 3, 2003). "Dick Cheney is the most powerful vice president in history. Is that good?". U.S. News & World Report. Archived from the original on February 5, 2011. Retrieved September 13, 2015.\n- ^ Yglesias, Matthew (July 2009). "End the Vice Presidency". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on December 29, 2017. Retrieved December 28, 2017.\n- ^ Ackerman, Bruce (October 2, 2008). "Abolish the vice presidency". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on December 29, 2017. Retrieved December 28, 2017.\n- ^ "Full Vice Presidential Debate with Gov. Palin and Sen. Biden". YouTube. October 2, 2008. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 30, 2011.\n- ^ "The Senate and the United States Constitution". senate.gov. Washington, D.C.: Secretary of the Senate. Archived from the original on February 11, 2020. Retrieved February 20, 2018.\n- ^ Lebowitz, Megan; Thorp, Frank; Santaliz, Kate (December 5, 2023). "Vice President Harris breaks record for casting the most tie-breaking votes". NBC News. Archived from the original on December 5, 2023. Retrieved December 5, 2023.\n- ^ "U.S. Senate: Votes to Break Ties in the Senate". United States Senate. Retrieved August 25, 2022.\n- ^ "Check out the number of tie-breaking votes vice presidents have cast in the U.S. Senate". Washington Week. PBS. July 25, 2017. Archived from the original on December 12, 2021. Retrieved December 11, 2021.\n- ^ Forte, David F. "Essays on Article I: President Pro Tempore". Heritage Guide to the Constitution. The Heritage Foundation. Archived from the original on August 22, 2020. Retrieved July 27, 2018.\n- ^ "President Dawes". The Congress. Time. Vol. 6, no. 24. New York, New York. December 14, 1925. Archived from the original on October 19, 2017. Retrieved July 31, 2018.\n- ^ Gerhardt, Michael J. "Essays on Article I: Trial of Impeachment". Heritage Guide to the Constitution. The Heritage Foundation. Archived from the original on August 22, 2020. Retrieved October 1, 2019.\n- ^ Goldstein, Joel K. (2000). "Can the Vice President preside at his own impeachment trial?: A critique of bare textualism". Saint Louis University Law Journal. 44: 849–870. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2019.\n- ^ 24 Stat. 373 Archived October 15, 2020, at the Wayback Machine (Feb. 3, 1887).\n- ^ 136 Stat. 5238 Archived October 27, 2023, at the Wayback Machine (Dec. 9, 2022).\n- ^ Glass, Andrew (December 4, 2014). "Senate expels John C. Breckinridge, Dec. 4, 1861". Arlington County, Virginia: Politico. Archived from the original on September 23, 2018. Retrieved July 29, 2018.\n- ^ a b "Electoral Vote Challenge Loses". St. Petersburg Times. January 7, 1969. pp. 1, 6. Retrieved July 29, 2018 – via Google News.\n- ^ Glass, Andrew (January 6, 2016). "Congress certifies Bush as winner of 2000 election, Jan. 6, 2001". Arlington County, Virginia: Politico. Archived from the original on September 23, 2018. Retrieved July 29, 2018.\n- ^ Korecki, Natasha; Leach, Brennan. "With an intent stare, a wide smile and a simple declaration, Harris certifies her loss to Trump". NBC News. Retrieved January 6, 2025.\n- ^ "Congress Counts Electoral Vote; Joint Session Applauds Every State Return as Curtis Performs Grim Task. Yells Drown His Gavel Vice President Finally Laughs With the Rest as Victory of Democrats Is Unfolded. Opponents Cheer Garner Speaker Declares His Heart Will Remain in the House, Replying to Tribute by Snell". The New York Times. February 9, 1933. Archived from the original on February 11, 2020. Retrieved October 1, 2019 – via TimesMachine.\n- ^ a b c d Feerick, John D. (2011). "Presidential Succession and Inability: Before and After the Twenty-Fifth Amendment". Fordham Law Review. 79 (3). New York City: Fordham University School of Law: 907–949. Archived from the original on August 20, 2015. Retrieved July 7, 2017.\n- ^ a b c Neale, Thomas H. (September 27, 2004). "Presidential and Vice Presidential Succession: Overview and Current Legislation" (PDF). CRS Report for Congress. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 14, 2020. Retrieved July 27, 2018.\n- ^ Feerick, John D.; Freund, Paul A. (1965). From Failing Hands: the Story of Presidential Succession. New York City: Fordham University Press. p. 56. LCCN 65-14917. Archived from the original on November 20, 2020. Retrieved July 31, 2018.\n- ^ Freehling, William (October 4, 2016). "John Tyler: Domestic Affairs". Charllotesville, Virginia: Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia. Archived from the original on March 12, 2017. Retrieved July 29, 2018.\n- ^ Abbott, Philip (December 2005). "Accidental Presidents: Death, Assassination, Resignation, and Democratic Succession". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 35 (4): 627–645. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5705.2005.00269.x. JSTOR 27552721.\n- ^ "A controversial President who established presidential succession". Constitution Daily. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: National Constitution Center. March 29, 2017. Retrieved November 25, 2021.\n- ^ "Presidential Succession". US Law. Mountain View, California: Justia. Retrieved July 29, 2018.\n- ^ Waxman, Olivia (April 25, 2019). "Does the Vice Presidency Give Joe Biden an Advantage in the Race to the Top? Here\'s How VPs Before Him Fared". Time. Retrieved December 10, 2021.\n- ^ Lakritz, Talia. "15 vice presidents who became president themselves". Insider.\n- ^ a b Kalt, Brian C.; Pozen, David. "The Twenty-fifth Amendment". The Interactive Constitution. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The National Constitution Center. Archived from the original on September 4, 2019. Retrieved July 28, 2018.\n- ^ Sullivan, Kate (November 19, 2021). "For 85 minutes, Kamala Harris became the first woman with presidential power". CNN. Retrieved November 19, 2021.\n- ^ Lizza, Ryan (October 10, 2008). "Biden\'s Brief". The New Yorker. Retrieved August 1, 2023.\n- ^ Walter Mondale, Memo to Jimmy Carter re: The Role of the Vice President in the Carter Administration Archived March 7, 2020, at the Wayback Machine, Dec. 9, 1976.\n- ^ a b Lizza, Ryan (August 13, 2020). "What Harris Got from Biden During Her Job Interview". Politico. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved August 14, 2020.\n- ^ Bravender, Robin; Sfondeles, Tina (January 29, 2021). "Kamala Harris is the president-in-waiting. Here\'s how the VP is balancing building her own brand against serving as a loyal soldier on Team Biden". Business Insider. Archived from the original on January 29, 2021. Retrieved January 29, 2021.\n- ^ Glueck, Katie (March 16, 2020). "Behind Joe Biden\'s Thinking on a Female Running Mate". The New York Times. Archived from the original on August 25, 2020. Retrieved August 14, 2020.\n- ^ Osnos, Evan (August 12, 2014). "Breaking Up: Maliki and Biden". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on October 2, 2015. Retrieved August 26, 2015.\n- ^ Cancryn, Adam; Forgey, Quint; Diamond, Dan (February 27, 2020). "After fumbled messaging, Trump gets a coronavirus czar by another name". POLITICO. Retrieved July 19, 2021.\n- ^ "Biden tasks Harris with tackling migrant influx on US–Mexico border". BBC News. March 24, 2021. Retrieved July 19, 2021.\n- ^ "Our Government: The Executive Branch". whitehouse.gov. Washington, D.C.: The White House. Archived from the original on July 31, 2018. Retrieved July 31, 2018.\n- ^ a b c "Twelfth Amendment". Annenberg Classroom. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Annenberg Public Policy Center. December 9, 1804. Archived from the original on February 22, 2018. Retrieved February 21, 2018.\n- ^ "Fourteenth Amendment". Annenberg Classroom. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Annenberg Public Policy Center. June 7, 1964. Archived from the original on February 26, 2018. Retrieved February 21, 2018.\n- ^ Py-Lieberman, Beth (November 18, 2014). "How the Office of the Vice Presidency Evolved from Nothing to Something". Smithsonian. Retrieved December 10, 2021.\n- ^ Stratton, Allegra; Nasaw, Daniel (March 11, 2008). "Obama scoffs at Clinton\'s vice-presidential hint". The Guardian. London. Archived from the original on November 22, 2016. Retrieved November 21, 2016.\n- ^ "Obama rejects being Clinton\'s No. 2". CNN. March 11, 2008. Archived from the original on November 22, 2016. Retrieved November 21, 2016.\n- ^ "Trump throws 2008 Obama ad in Clinton\'s face". Politico. June 10, 2016. Archived from the original on November 22, 2016. Retrieved November 21, 2016.{\n- ^ Freedland, Jonathan (June 4, 2008). "US elections: Jimmy Carter tells Barack Obama not to pick Hillary Clinton as running mate". The Guardian. London. Archived from the original on November 16, 2016. Retrieved November 21, 2016.\n- ^ Horwitz, Tony (July 2012). "The Vice Presidents That History Forgot". Smithsonian. Retrieved December 10, 2021.\n- ^ Heersink, Boris; Peterson, Brenton (2016). "Measuring the Vice-Presidential Home State Advantage With Synthetic Controls". American Politics Research. 44 (4): 734–763. doi:10.1177/1532673X16642567. ISSN 1556-5068.\n- ^ "Twenty-third Amendment". Annenberg Classroom. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Annenberg Public Policy Center. March 29, 1961. Archived from the original on July 31, 2018. Retrieved July 30, 2018.\n- ^ "About the Electors". U.S. Electoral College. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration. Archived from the original on July 21, 2018. Retrieved August 2, 2018.\n- ^ "Maine & Nebraska". fairvote.com. Takoma Park, Maryland: FairVote. Archived from the original on August 2, 2018. Retrieved August 1, 2018.\n- ^ "Split Electoral Votes in Maine and Nebraska". 270towin.com. Archived from the original on August 2, 2018. Retrieved August 1, 2018.\n- ^ "What is the Electoral College?". U.S. Electoral College. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration. Archived from the original on December 12, 2019. Retrieved August 2, 2018.\n- ^ Bomboy, Scott (December 19, 2016). "The one election where Faithless Electors made a difference". Constitution Daily. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: National Constitution Center. Archived from the original on February 14, 2021. Retrieved July 30, 2018.\n- ^ Larson, Edward J.; Shesol, Jeff. "The Twentieth Amendment". The Interactive Constitution. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The National Constitution Center. Archived from the original on August 28, 2019. Retrieved June 15, 2018.\n- ^ "The First Inauguration after the Lame Duck Amendment: January 20, 1937". Washington, D.C.: Office of the Historian, U.S. House of Representatives. Archived from the original on July 25, 2018. Retrieved July 24, 2018.\n- ^ "Commencement of the Terms of Office: Twentieth Amendment" (PDF). Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, Library of Congress. pp. 2297–98. Archived (PDF) from the original on July 25, 2018. Retrieved July 24, 2018.\n- ^ "Vice President\'s Swearing-in Ceremony". inaugural.senate.gov. Washington, D.C.: Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. Archived from the original on September 18, 2018. Retrieved July 30, 2018.\n- ^ "Oath of Office". senate.gov. Washington, D.C.: Secretary of the Senate. Archived from the original on July 28, 2018. Retrieved July 30, 2018.\n- ^ "Twenty-second Amendment". Annenberg Classroom. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Annenberg Public Policy Center. Archived from the original on August 2, 2018. Retrieved July 30, 2018.\n- ^ "The Constitution—Full Text". The National Constitution Center. Archived from the original on September 5, 2020. Retrieved September 8, 2020.\n- ^ Baker, Peter (October 20, 2006). "VP Bill? Depends on Meaning of \'Elected\'". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on July 19, 2018. Retrieved February 25, 2018.\n- ^ Peabody, Bruce G.; Gant, Scott E. (1999). "The Twice and Future President: Constitutional Interstices and the Twenty-Second Amendment" (PDF). Minnesota Law Review. 83. Minneapolis, Minnesota: 565. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 29, 2018. Retrieved July 16, 2018.\n- ^ Feerick, John D. (1964). "The Vice-Presidency and the Problems of Presidential Succession and Inability". Fordham Law Review. 31 (3). Fordham University School of Law: 457–498. Archived from the original on October 1, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2019.\n- ^ a b "Succession: Presidential and Vice Presidential Fast Facts". CNN. September 26, 2016. Archived from the original on January 16, 2017. Retrieved January 15, 2017.\n- ^ Gup, Ted (November 28, 1982). "Speaker Albert Was Ready to Be President". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on July 28, 2018. Retrieved July 24, 2018.\n- ^ Groppe, Maureen (February 14, 2019). "Vice President Pence\'s pay bump is not as big as Republicans wanted". USA Today. Archived from the original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved April 15, 2019.\n- ^ "Executive Order - Adjustment of Certain Rates of Pay" (PDF). OPM. December 21, 2023. Schedule 6. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 15, 2024.\n- ^ Ahuja, Kiran A. (December 21, 2023). "Continued Pay Freeze for Certain Senior Political Officials" (PDF). OPM. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 15, 2024.\n- ^ Purcell, Patrick J. (January 21, 2005). "Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress" (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 3, 2018. Retrieved February 16, 2018.\n- ^ Yoffe, Emily (January 3, 2001). "A Presidential Salary FAQ". Slate. Archived from the original on September 14, 2009. Retrieved August 9, 2009.\n- ^ Groppe, Maureen (November 24, 2017). "Where does the vice president live? Few people know, but new book will show you". USA TODAY. Archived from the original on November 21, 2018. Retrieved November 21, 2018.\n- ^ "Senate Vice Presidential Bust Collection". senate.gov. Washington, D.C.: Secretary of the Senate. Archived from the original on March 18, 2021. Retrieved May 5, 2021.\n- ^ Adamczyk, Alicia (January 20, 2017). "Here\'s How Much Money Obama and Biden Will Get From Their Pensions". Money.com. Archived from the original on March 12, 2022. Retrieved August 3, 2018.\n- ^ "H.R.5938—Former Vice President Protection Act of 2008, 110th Congress (2007–2008)". congress.gov. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress. September 26, 2008. Archived from the original on January 9, 2021. Retrieved August 3, 2018.\nFurther reading\n- Brower, Kate A. (2018). First in Line: Presidents, Vice Presidents, and the Pursuit of Power. New York: Harper. ISBN 978-0062668943.\n- Cohen, Jared (2019). Accidental Presidents: Eight Men Who Changed America (Hardcover ed.). New York: Simon & Schuster. pp. 1–48. ISBN 978-1501109829.\n- Goldstein, Joel K. (1982). The Modern American Vice Presidency. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-02208-9.\n- Hatch, Louis C. (2012). Shoup, Earl L. (ed.). A History of the Vice-Presidency of the United States. Whitefish, MT: Literary Licensing. ISBN 978-1258442262.\n- Kamarck, Elaine C. (2020). Picking the Vice President. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. ISBN 9780815738756. OCLC 1164502534. EBook, 37 pp.\n- Tally, Steve (1992). Bland Ambition: From Adams to Quayle—the Cranks, Criminals, Tax Cheats, and Golfers Who Made It to Vice President. Harcourt. ISBN 0-15-613140-4.\n- Vexler, Robert I. (1975). The Vice-Presidents and Cabinet Members: Biographies Arranged Chronologically by Administration. Vol. I. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Publications. ISBN 0379120895.\n- Vexler, Robert I. (1975). The Vice-Presidents and Cabinet Members: Biographies Arranged Chronologically by Administration. Vol. II. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Publications. ISBN 0379120909.\n- Waldrup, Carole C. (2006). Vice Presidents: Biographies of the 45 Men Who Have Held the Second Highest Office in the United States. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company. ISBN 978-0786426119.\n- Witcover, Jules (2014). The American Vice Presidency: From Irrelevance to Power. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Books. ISBN 978-1588344717.\nExternal links\n- White House website for Vice President Kamala Harris\n- Vice-President Elect Chester Arthur on Expectations of VP Shapell Manuscript Foundation\n- A New Nation Votes: American Election Returns 1787–1825\n- Documentary about the 1996 election and Vice Presidents throughout history, Running Mate, 1996-10-01, The Walter J. Brown Media Archives & Peabody Awards Collection at the University of Georgia, American Archive of Public Broadcasting', + "relevant": "Vice President of the United States\nThis article may be affected by the following current event: Second inauguration of Donald Trump. Information in this article may change rapidly as the event progresses. Initial news reports may be unreliable. The last updates to this article may not reflect the most current information. (January 2025) |\n| Vice President of the United States | |\n|---|---|\nsince January 20, 2021 | |\n| Style |\n|\n| Status |\n|\n| Member of | |\n| Residence | Number One Observatory Circle |\n| Seat | Washington, D.C. |\n| Appointer | Electoral College, or, if vacant, President of the", + }, + { + "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College", + "content": 'United States Electoral College\n| This article is part of a series on the |\n| Politics of the United States |\n|---|\nIn the United States, the Electoral College is the group of presidential electors that is formed every four years during the presidential election for the sole purpose of voting for the president and vice president. This process is described in Article Two of the Constitution.[1] The number of electoral votes exercised by each state is equal to that state\'s congressional delegation which is the number of Senators (two) plus the number of Representatives for that state. Each state appoints electors using legal procedures determined by its legislature. Federal office holders, including senators and representatives, cannot be electors. Additionally, the Twenty-third Amendment granted the federal District of Columbia three electors (bringing the total number from 535 to 538). A simple majority of electoral votes (270 or more) is required to elect the president and vice president. If no candidate achieves a majority, a contingent election is held by the House of Representatives, to elect the president, and by the Senate, to elect the vice president.\nThe states and the District of Columbia hold a statewide or district-wide popular vote on Election Day in November to choose electors based upon how they have pledged to vote for president and vice president, with some state laws prohibiting faithless electors. All states except Maine and Nebraska use a party block voting, or general ticket method, to choose their electors, meaning all their electors go to one winning ticket. Maine and Nebraska choose one elector per congressional district and two electors for the ticket with the highest statewide vote. The electors meet and vote in December, and the inaugurations of the president and vice president take place in January.\nThe merit of the electoral college system has been a matter of ongoing debate in the United States since its inception at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, becoming more controversial by the latter years of the 19th century, up to the present day.[2][3] More resolutions have been submitted to amend the Electoral College mechanism than any other part of the constitution.[4] An amendment that would have abolished the system was approved by the House in 1969, but failed to move past the Senate.[5]\nSupporters argue that it requires presidential candidates to have broad appeal across the country to win, while critics argue that it is not representative of the popular will of the nation.[a] Winner-take-all systems, especially with representation not proportional to population, do not align with the principle of "one person, one vote".[b][9] Critics object to the inequity that, due to the distribution of electors, individual citizens in states with smaller populations have more voting power than those in larger states. Because the number of electors each state appoints is equal to the size of its congressional delegation, each state is entitled to at least three electors regardless of its population, and the apportionment of the statutorily fixed number of the rest is only roughly proportional. This allocation has contributed to runners-up of the nationwide popular vote being elected president in 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016.[10][11] In addition, faithless electors may not vote in accord with their pledge.[12][c] A further objection is that swing states receive the most attention from candidates.[14] By the end of the 20th century, electoral colleges had been abandoned by all other democracies around the world in favor of direct elections for an executive president.[15][16]:215\nProcedure\nArticle II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution directs each state to appoint a number of electors equal to that state\'s congressional delegation (the number of members of the House of Representatives plus two senators). The same clause empowers each state legislature to determine the manner by which that state\'s electors are chosen but prohibits federal office holders from being named electors. Following the national presidential election day on Tuesday after the first Monday in November,[17] each state, and the federal district, selects its electors according to its laws. After a popular election, the states identify and record their appointed electors in a Certificate of Ascertainment, and those appointed electors then meet in their respective jurisdictions and produce a Certificate of Vote for their candidate; both certificates are then sent to Congress to be opened and counted.[18]\nIn 48 of the 50 states, state laws mandate that the winner of the plurality of the statewide popular vote receives all of that state\'s electoral votes.[19] In Maine and Nebraska, two electoral votes are assigned in this manner, while the remaining electoral votes are allocated based on the plurality of votes in each of their congressional districts.[20] The federal district, Washington, D.C., allocates its 3 electoral votes to the winner of its single district election. States generally require electors to pledge to vote for that state\'s winning ticket; to prevent electors from being faithless electors, most states have adopted various laws to enforce the electors\' pledge.[21]\nThe electors of each state meet in their respective state capital on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday of December, between December 14 and 20, to cast their votes.[19][22] The results are sent to and counted by the Congress, where they are tabulated in the first week of January before a joint meeting of the Senate and the House of Representatives, presided over by the current vice president, as president of the Senate.[19][23]\nShould a majority of votes not be cast for a candidate, a contingent election takes place: the House holds a presidential election session, where one vote is cast by each of the fifty states. The Senate is responsible for electing the vice president, with each senator having one vote.[24] The elected president and vice president are inaugurated on January 20.\nSince 1964, there have been 538 electors. States select 535 of the electors, this number matches the aggregate total of their congressional delegations.[25][26][27] The additional three electors come from the Twenty-third Amendment, ratified in 1961, providing that the district established pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 as the seat of the federal government (namely, Washington, D.C.) is entitled to the same number of electors as the least populous state.[28] In practice, that results in Washington D.C. being entitled to three electors.[29][30]\nBackground\nThe Electoral College was officially selected as the means of electing president towards the end of the Constitutional Convention, due to pressure from slave states wanting to increase their voting power, since they could count slaves as 3/5 of a person when allocating electors, and by small states who increased their power given the minimum of three electors per state.[31] The compromise was reached after other proposals, including a direct election for president (as proposed by Hamilton among others), failed to get traction among slave states.[31] Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt describe it as "not a product of constitutional theory or farsighted design. Rather, it was adopted by default, after all other alternatives had been rejected."[31]\nIn 1787, the Constitutional Convention used the Virginia Plan as the basis for discussions, as the Virginia proposal was the first. The Virginia Plan called for Congress to elect the president.[32][33] Delegates from a majority of states agreed to this mode of election. After being debated, delegates came to oppose nomination by Congress for the reason that it could violate the separation of powers. James Wilson then made a motion for electors for the purpose of choosing the president.[34][35]\nLater in the convention, a committee formed to work out various details. They included the mode of election of the president, including final recommendations for the electors, a group of people apportioned among the states in the same numbers as their representatives in Congress (the formula for which had been resolved in lengthy debates resulting in the Connecticut Compromise and Three-Fifths Compromise), but chosen by each state "in such manner as its Legislature may direct". Committee member Gouverneur Morris explained the reasons for the change. Among others, there were fears of "intrigue" if the president were chosen by a small group of men who met together regularly, as well as concerns for the independence of the president if he were elected by Congress.[36][37]\nOnce the Electoral College had been decided on, several delegates (Mason, Butler, Morris, Wilson, and Madison) openly recognized its ability to protect the election process from cabal, corruption, intrigue, and faction. Some delegates, including James Wilson and James Madison, preferred popular election of the executive.[38][39] Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the South:\nThere was one difficulty, however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.[40]\nThe convention approved the committee\'s Electoral College proposal, with minor modifications, on September 4, 1787.[41][42] Delegates from states with smaller populations or limited land area, such as Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maryland, generally favored the Electoral College with some consideration for states.[43][non-primary source needed] At the compromise providing for a runoff among the top five candidates, the small states supposed that the House of Representatives, with each state delegation casting one vote, would decide most elections.[44]\nIn The Federalist Papers, James Madison explained his views on the selection of the president and the Constitution. In Federalist No. 39, Madison argued that the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government. Congress would have two houses: the state-based Senate and the population-based House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the president would be elected by a mixture of the two modes.[45]\nAlexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 68, published on March 12, 1788, laid out what he believed were the key advantages to the Electoral College. The electors come directly from the people and them alone, for that purpose only, and for that time only. This avoided a party-run legislature or a permanent body that could be influenced by foreign interests before each election.[46][non-primary source needed] Hamilton explained that the election was to take place among all the states, so no corruption in any state could taint "the great body of the people" in their selection. The choice was to be made by a majority of the Electoral College, as majority rule is critical to the principles of republican government. Hamilton argued that electors meeting in the state capitals were able to have information unavailable to the general public, in a time before telecommunications. Hamilton also argued that since no federal officeholder could be an elector, none of the electors would be beholden to any presidential candidate.[46]\nAnother consideration was that the decision would be made without "tumult and disorder", as it would be a broad-based one made simultaneously in various locales where the decision makers could deliberate reasonably, not in one place where decision makers could be threatened or intimidated. If the Electoral College did not achieve a decisive majority, then the House of Representatives was to choose the president from among the top five candidates,[47][citation needed] ensuring selection of a presiding officer administering the laws would have both ability and good character. Hamilton was also concerned about somebody unqualified but with a talent for "low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity" attaining high office.[46]\nIn the Federalist No. 10, James Madison argued against "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs of faction" in an electoral system. He defined a faction as "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." A republican government (i.e., representative democracy, as opposed to direct democracy) combined with the principles of federalism (with distribution of voter rights and separation of government powers), would countervail against factions. Madison further postulated in the Federalist No. 10 that the greater the population and expanse of the Republic, the more difficulty factions would face in organizing due to such issues as sectionalism.[48]\nAlthough the United States Constitution refers to "Electors" and "electors", neither the phrase "Electoral College" nor any other name is used to describe the electors collectively. It was not until the early 19th century that the name "Electoral College" came into general usage as the collective designation for the electors selected to cast votes for president and vice president. The phrase was first written into federal law in 1845, and today the term appears in 3 U.S.C. § 4, in the section heading and in the text as "college of electors".[49]\nHistory\nOriginal plan\nArticle II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution provided the original plan by which the electors voted for president. Under the original plan, each elector cast two votes for president; electors did not vote for vice president. Whoever received a majority of votes from the electors would become president, with the person receiving the second most votes becoming vice president.\nAccording to Stanley Chang, the original plan of the Electoral College was based upon several assumptions and anticipations of the Framers of the Constitution:[50]\n- Choice of the president should reflect the "sense of the people" at a particular time, not the dictates of a faction in a "pre-established body" such as Congress or the State legislatures, and independent of the influence of "foreign powers".[51]\n- The choice would be made decisively with a "full and fair expression of the public will" but also maintaining "as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder".[52]\n- Individual electors would be elected by citizens on a district-by-district basis. Voting for president would include the widest electorate allowed in each state.[53]\n- Each presidential elector would exercise independent judgment when voting, deliberating with the most complete information available in a system that over time, tended to bring about a good administration of the laws passed by Congress.[51]\n- Candidates would not pair together on the same ticket with assumed placements toward each office of president and vice president.\nElection expert, William C. Kimberling, reflected on the original intent as follows:\n"The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party."[54]\nAccording to Supreme Court justice Robert H. Jackson, in a dissenting opinion, the original intention of the framers was that the electors would not feel bound to support any particular candidate, but would vote their conscience, free of external pressure.\n"No one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated, what is implicit in its text, that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation\'s highest offices."[55]\nIn support for his view, Justice Jackson cited Federalist No. 68:\n\'It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any pre-established body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture... It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.\'\nPhilip J. VanFossen of Purdue University explains that the original purpose of the electors was not to reflect the will of the citizens, but rather to "serve as a check on a public who might be easily misled."[56]\nRandall Calvert, the Eagleton Professor of Public Affairs and Political Science at Washington University in St. Louis, stated, "At the framing the more important consideration was that electors, expected to be more knowledgeable and responsible, would actually do the choosing."[57]\nConstitutional expert Michael Signer explained that the electoral college was designed "to provide a mechanism where intelligent, thoughtful and statesmanlike leaders could deliberate on the winner of the popular vote and, if necessary, choose another candidate who would not put Constitutional values and practices at risk."[58] Robert Schlesinger, writing for U.S. News and World Report, similarly stated, "The original conception of the Electoral College, in other words, was a body of men who could serve as a check on the uninformed mass electorate."[59]\nBreakdown and revision\nIn spite of Hamilton\'s assertion that electors were to be chosen by mass election, initially, state legislatures chose the electors in most of the states.[60] States progressively changed to selection by popular election. In 1824, there were six states in which electors were still legislatively appointed. By 1832, only South Carolina had not transitioned. Since 1864 (with the sole exception of newly admitted Colorado in 1876 for logistical reasons), electors in every state have been chosen based on a popular election held on Election Day.[25] The popular election for electors means the president and vice president are in effect chosen through indirect election by the citizens.[61]\nThe emergence of parties and campaigns\nThe framers of the Constitution did not anticipate political parties.[62] Indeed George Washington\'s Farewell Address in 1796 included an urgent appeal to avert such parties. Neither did the framers anticipate candidates "running" for president. Within just a few years of the ratification of the Constitution, however, both phenomena became permanent features of the political landscape of the United States.[citation needed]\nThe emergence of political parties and nationally coordinated election campaigns soon complicated matters in the elections of 1796 and 1800. In 1796, Federalist Party candidate John Adams won the presidential election. Finishing in second place was Democratic-Republican Party candidate Thomas Jefferson, the Federalists\' opponent, who became the vice president. This resulted in the president and vice president being of different political parties.[citation needed]\nIn 1800, the Democratic-Republican Party again nominated Jefferson for president and also again nominated Aaron Burr for vice president. After the electors voted, Jefferson and Burr were tied with one another with 73 electoral votes each. Since ballots did not distinguish between votes for president and votes for vice president, every ballot cast for Burr technically counted as a vote for him to become president, despite Jefferson clearly being his party\'s first choice. Lacking a clear winner by constitutional standards, the election had to be decided by the House of Representatives pursuant to the Constitution\'s contingency election provision.[citation needed]\nHaving already lost the presidential contest, Federalist Party representatives in the lame duck House session seized upon the opportunity to embarrass their opposition by attempting to elect Burr over Jefferson. The House deadlocked for 35 ballots as neither candidate received the necessary majority vote of the state delegations in the House (The votes of nine states were needed for a conclusive election.). On the 36th ballot, Delaware\'s lone Representative, James A. Bayard, made it known that he intended to break the impasse for fear that failure to do so could endanger the future of the Union. Bayard and other Federalists from South Carolina, Maryland, and Vermont abstained, breaking the deadlock and giving Jefferson a majority.[63]\nResponding to the problems from those elections, Congress proposed on December 9, 1803, and three-fourths of the states ratified by June 15, 1804, the Twelfth Amendment. Starting with the 1804 election, the amendment requires electors to cast separate ballots for president and vice president, replacing the system outlined in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3.[citation needed]\nEvolution from unpledged to pledged electors\nSome Founding Fathers hoped that each elector would be elected by the citizens of a district[64] and that elector was to be free to analyze and deliberate regarding who is best suited to be president.[65]\nIn Federalist No. 68 Alexander Hamilton described the Founding Fathers\' view of how electors would be chosen:\nA small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated [tasks]... They [the framers of the constitution] have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men [i.e. Electors pledged to vote one way or another], who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes [i.e., to be told how to vote]; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons [Electors to the Electoral College] for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have EXCLUDED from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office [in other words, no one can be an Elector who is prejudiced toward the president]... Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias [Electors must not come to the Electoral College with bias]. Their transient existence, and their detached [unbiased] situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it."[66]\nHowever, when electors were pledged to vote for a specific candidate, the slate of electors chosen by the state were no longer free agents, independent thinkers, or deliberative representatives. They became, as Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote, "voluntary party lackeys and intellectual non-entities."[67] According to Hamilton, writing in 1788, the selection of the president should be "made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station [of president]."[66]\nHamilton stated that the electors were to analyze the list of potential presidents and select the best one. He also used the term "deliberate." In a 2020 opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, the court additionally cited John Jay\'s view that the electors\' choices would reflect "discretion and discernment."[68] Reflecting on this original intention, a U.S. Senate report in 1826 critiqued the evolution of the system:\nIt was the intention of the Constitution that these electors should be an independent body of men, chosen by the people from among themselves, on account of their superior discernment, virtue, and information; and that this select body should be left to make the election according to their own will, without the slightest control from the body of the people. That this intention has failed of its object in every election, is a fact of such universal notoriety that no one can dispute it. Electors, therefore, have not answered the design of their institution. They are not the independent body and superior characters which they were intended to be. They are not left to the exercise of their own judgment: on the contrary, they give their vote, or bind themselves to give it, according to the will of their constituents. They have degenerated into mere agents, in a case which requires no agency, and where the agent must be useless...[69]\nIn 1833, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story detailed how badly from the framers\' intention the Electoral Process had been "subverted":\nIn no respect have the views of the framers of the constitution been so completely frustrated as relates to the independence of the electors in the electoral colleges. It is notorious, that the electors are now chosen wholly with reference to particular candidates, and are silently pledged to vote for them. Nay, upon some occasions the electors publicly pledge themselves to vote for a particular person; and thus, in effect, the whole foundation of the system, so elaborately constructed, is subverted.[70]\nStory observed that if an elector does what the framers of the Constitution expected him to do, he would be considered immoral:\nSo, that nothing is left to the electors after their choice, but to register votes, which are already pledged; and an exercise of an independent judgment would be treated, as a political usurpation, dishonorable to the individual, and a fraud upon his constituents.[70]\nEvolution to the general ticket\nArticle II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution states:\nEach State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.\nAccording to Hamilton, Madison and others, the original intent was that this would take place district by district.[71][72][73] The district plan was last carried out in Michigan in 1892.[74] For example, in Massachusetts in 1820, the rule stated "the people shall vote by ballot, on which shall be designated who is voted for as an Elector for the district."[75][76] In other words, the name of a candidate for president was not on the ballot. Instead, citizens voted for their local elector.\nSome state leaders began to adopt the strategy that the favorite partisan presidential candidate among the people in their state would have a much better chance if all of the electors selected by their state were sure to vote the same way—a "general ticket" of electors pledged to a party candidate.[77] Once one state took that strategy, the others felt compelled to follow suit in order to compete for the strongest influence on the election.[77]\nWhen James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, two of the most important architects of the Electoral College, saw this strategy being taken by some states, they protested strongly.[71][72][78] Madison said that when the Constitution was written, all of its authors assumed individual electors would be elected in their districts, and it was inconceivable that a "general ticket" of electors dictated by a state would supplant the concept. Madison wrote to George Hay:\nThe district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket [many years later].[79]\nEach state government was free to have its own plan for selecting its electors, and the Constitution does not explicitly require states to popularly elect their electors. However, Federalist No. 68, insofar as it reflects the intent of the founders, states that Electors will be "selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass," and with regard to choosing Electors, "they [the framers] have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America." Several methods for selecting electors are described below.\nMadison and Hamilton were so upset by the trend to "general tickets" that they advocated a constitutional amendment to prevent anything other than the district plan. Hamilton drafted an amendment to the Constitution mandating the district plan for selecting electors.[80][non-primary source needed] Hamilton\'s untimely death in a duel with Aaron Burr in 1804 prevented him from advancing his proposed reforms any further. "[T]he election of Presidential Electors by districts, is an amendment very proper to be brought forward," Madison told George Hay in 1823.[79][non-primary source needed]\nMadison also drafted a constitutional amendment that would ensure the original "district" plan of the framers.[81][non-primary source needed] Jefferson agreed with Hamilton and Madison saying, "all agree that an election by districts would be the best."[74][non-primary source needed] Jefferson explained to Madison\'s correspondent why he was doubtful of the amendment being ratified: "the states are now so numerous that I despair of ever seeing another amendment of the constitution."[82][non-primary source needed]\nEvolution of selection plans\nIn 1789, the at-large popular vote, the winner-take-all method, began with Pennsylvania and Maryland. Massachusetts, Virginia and Delaware used a district plan by popular vote, and state legislatures chose in the five other states participating in the election (Connecticut, Georgia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and South Carolina).[83][failed verification][non-primary source needed] New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island did not participate in the election. New York\'s legislature deadlocked over the method of choosing electors and abstained;[84] North Carolina and Rhode Island had not yet ratified the Constitution.[85]\nBy 1800, Virginia and Rhode Island voted at large; Kentucky, Maryland, and North Carolina voted popularly by district; and eleven states voted by state legislature. Beginning in 1804 there was a definite trend towards the winner-take-all system for statewide popular vote.[86][non-primary source needed]\nBy 1832, only South Carolina legislatively chose its electors, and it abandoned the method after 1860.[86][non-primary source needed] Maryland was the only state using a district plan, and from 1836 district plans fell out of use until the 20th century, though Michigan used a district plan for 1892 only. States using popular vote by district have included ten states from all regions of the country.[87][non-primary source needed]\nSince 1836, statewide winner-take-all popular voting for electors has been the almost universal practice.[88][non-primary source needed] Currently, Maine (since 1972) and Nebraska (since 1992) use a district plan, with two at-large electors assigned to support the winner of the statewide popular vote.[89][non-primary source needed]\nCorrelation between popular vote and electoral college votes\nSince the mid-19th century, when all electors have been popularly chosen, the Electoral College has elected the candidate who received the most (though not necessarily a majority) popular votes nationwide, except in four elections: 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016. A case has also been made that it happened in 1960. In 1824, when there were six states in which electors were legislatively appointed, rather than popularly elected, the true national popular vote is uncertain. The electors in 1824 failed to select a winning candidate, so the matter was decided by the House of Representatives.[90][better source needed]\nThree-fifths clause and the role of slavery\nAfter the initial estimates agreed to in the original Constitution, Congressional and Electoral College reapportionment was made according to a decennial census to reflect population changes, modified by counting three-fifths of slaves. On this basis after the first census, the Electoral College still gave the free men of slave-owning states (but never slaves) extra power (Electors) based on a count of these disenfranchised people, in the choice of the U.S. president.[91]\nAt the Constitutional Convention, the college composition, in theory, amounted to 49 votes for northern states (in the process of abolishing slavery) and 42 for slave-holding states (including Delaware). In the event, the first (i.e. 1788) presidential election lacked votes and electors for unratified Rhode Island (3) and North Carolina (7) and for New York (8) which reported too late; the Northern majority was 38 to 35.[92][non-primary source needed] For the next two decades, the three-fifths clause led to electors of free-soil Northern states numbering 8% and 11% more than Southern states. The latter had, in the compromise, relinquished counting two-fifths of their slaves and, after 1810, were outnumbered by 15.4% to 23.2%.[93]\nWhile House members for Southern states were boosted by an average of 1⁄3,[94] a free-soil majority in the college maintained over this early republic and Antebellum period.[95] Scholars conclude that the three-fifths clause had low impact on sectional proportions and factional strength, until denying the North a pronounced supermajority, as to the Northern, federal initiative to abolish slavery. The seats that the South gained from such "slave bonus" were quite evenly distributed between the parties. In the First Party System (1795–1823), the Jefferson Republicans gained 1.1 percent more adherents from the slave bonus, while the Federalists lost the same proportion. At the Second Party System (1823–1837) the emerging Jacksonians gained just 0.7% more seats, versus the opposition loss of 1.6%.[96]\nThe three-fifths slave-count rule is associated with three or four outcomes, 1792–1860:\n- The clause, having reduced the South\'s power, led to John Adams\'s win in 1796 over Thomas Jefferson.[97]\n- In 1800, historian Garry Wills argues, Jefferson\'s victory over Adams was due to the slave bonus count in the Electoral College as Adams would have won if citizens\' votes were used for each state.[98] However, historian Sean Wilentz points out that Jefferson\'s purported "slave advantage" ignores an offset by electoral manipulation by anti-Jefferson forces in Pennsylvania. Wilentz concludes that it is a myth to say that the Electoral College was a pro-slavery ploy.[99]\n- In 1824, the presidential selection was passed to the House of Representatives, and John Quincy Adams was chosen over Andrew Jackson, who won fewer citizens\' votes. Then Jackson won in 1828, but would have lost if the college were citizen-only apportionment. Scholars conclude that in the 1828 race, Jackson benefited materially from the Three-fifths clause by providing his margin of victory.\nThe first "Jeffersonian" and "Jacksonian" victories were of great importance as they ushered in sustained party majorities of several Congresses and presidential party eras.[100]\nBesides the Constitution prohibiting Congress from regulating foreign or domestic slave trade before 1808 and a duty on states to return escaped "persons held to service",[101][non-primary source needed] legal scholar Akhil Reed Amar argues that the college was originally advocated by slaveholders as a bulwark to prop up slavery. In the Congressional apportionment provided in the text of the Constitution with its Three-Fifths Compromise estimate, "Virginia emerged as the big winner [with] more than a quarter of the [votes] needed to win an election in the first round [for Washington\'s first presidential election in 1788]." Following the 1790 United States census, the most populous state was Virginia, with 39.1% slaves, or 292,315 counted three-fifths, to yield a calculated number of 175,389 for congressional apportionment.[102][non-primary source needed]\n"The "free" state of Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than Virginia but got 20% fewer electoral votes."[103] Pennsylvania split eight to seven for Jefferson, favoring Jefferson with a majority of 53% in a state with 0.1% slave population.[104][non-primary source needed] Historian Eric Foner agrees the Constitution\'s Three-Fifths Compromise gave protection to slavery.[105]\nSupporters of the College have provided many counterarguments to the charges that it defended slavery. Abraham Lincoln, the president who helped abolish slavery, won a College majority in 1860 despite winning 39.8% of citizen\'s votes.[106] This, however, was a clear plurality of a popular vote divided among four main candidates.\nBenner notes that Jefferson\'s first margin of victory would have been wider had the entire slave population been counted on a per capita basis.[107] He also notes that some of the most vociferous critics of a national popular vote at the constitutional convention were delegates from free states, including Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, who declared that such a system would lead to a "great evil of cabal and corruption," and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, who called a national popular vote "radically vicious".[107]\nDelegates Oliver Ellsworth and Roger Sherman of Connecticut, a state which had adopted a gradual emancipation law three years earlier, also criticized a national popular vote.[107] Of like view was Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a member of Adams\' Federalist Party, presidential candidate in 1800. He hailed from South Carolina and was a slaveholder.[107] In 1824, Andrew Jackson, a slaveholder from Tennessee, was similarly defeated by John Quincy Adams, a strong critic of slavery.[107]\nFourteenth Amendment\nSection 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state\'s representation in the House of Representatives to be reduced if the state denies the right to vote to any male citizen aged 21 or older, unless on the basis of "participation in rebellion, or other crime". The reduction is to be proportionate to such people denied a vote. This amendment refers to "the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States" (among other elections). It is the only part of the Constitution currently alluding to electors being selected by popular vote.\nOn May 8, 1866, during a debate on the Fourteenth Amendment, Thaddeus Stevens, the leader of the Republicans in the House of Representatives, delivered a speech on the amendment\'s intent. Regarding Section 2, he said:[108]\nThe second section I consider the most important in the article. It fixes the basis of representation in Congress. If any State shall exclude any of her adult male citizens from the elective franchise, or abridge that right, she shall forfeit her right to representation in the same proportion. The effect of this provision will be either to compel the States to grant universal suffrage or so shear them of their power as to keep them forever in a hopeless minority in the national Government, both legislative and executive.[109]\nFederal law (2 U.S.C. § 6) implements Section 2\'s mandate.\nMeeting of electors\nArticle II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to fix the day on which the electors shall vote, which must be the same day throughout the United States. And both Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 and the Twelfth Amendment that replaced it specifies that "the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted."\nIn 1887, Congress passed the Electoral Count Act, now codified in Title 3, Chapter 1 of the United States Code, establishing specific procedures for the counting of the electoral votes. The law was passed in response to the disputed 1876 presidential election, in which several states submitted competing slates of electors. Among its provisions, the law established deadlines that the states must meet when selecting their electors, resolving disputes, and when they must cast their electoral votes.[23][110]\nFrom 1948 to 2022, the date fixed by Congress for the meeting of the Electoral College was "on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment".[111] As of 2022, with the passing of "S.4573 - Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022", this was changed to be "on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment".[22]\nArticle II, Section 1, Clause 2, disqualifies all elected and appointed federal officials from being electors. The Office of the Federal Register is charged with administering the Electoral College.[112]\nAfter the vote, each state sends to Congress a certified record of their electoral votes, called the Certificate of Vote. These certificates are opened during a joint session of Congress, held on January 6[113][non-primary source needed] unless another date is specified by law, and read aloud by the incumbent vice president, acting in his capacity as president of the Senate. If any person receives an absolute majority of electoral votes, that person is declared the winner.[114][non-primary source needed] If there is a tie, or if no candidate for either or both offices receives an absolute majority, then choice falls to Congress in a procedure known as a contingent election.\nModern mechanics\nSummary\nEven though the aggregate national popular vote is calculated by state officials, media organizations, and the Federal Election Commission, the people only indirectly elect the president and vice president. The president and vice president of the United States are elected by the Electoral College, which consists of 538 electors from the fifty states and Washington, D.C. Electors are selected state-by-state, as determined by the laws of each state. Since the 1824 election, the majority of states have chosen their presidential electors based on winner-take-all results in the statewide popular vote on Election Day.[115]\nAs of 2020[update], Maine and Nebraska are exceptions as both use the congressional district method, Maine since 1972 and in Nebraska since 1992.[116] In most states, the popular vote ballots list the names of the presidential and vice presidential candidates (who run on a ticket). The slate of electors that represent the winning ticket will vote for those two offices. Electors are nominated by the party and, usually, they vote for the ticket to which are promised.[117][non-primary source needed]\nMany states require an elector to vote for the candidate to which the elector is pledged, but some "faithless electors" have voted for other candidates or refrained from voting. A candidate must receive an absolute majority of electoral votes (currently 270) to win the presidency or the vice presidency. If no candidate receives a majority in the election for president or vice president, the election is determined via a contingency procedure established by the Twelfth Amendment. In such a situation, the House chooses one of the top three presidential electoral vote winners as the president, while the Senate chooses one of the top two vice presidential electoral vote winners as vice president.\nElectors\nApportionment\nA state\'s number of electors equals the number of representatives plus two electors for the senators the state has in the United States Congress.[118][119] Each state is entitled to at least one representative, the remaining number of representatives per state is apportioned based on their respective populations, determined every ten years by the United States census. In summary, 153 electors are divided equally among the states and the District of Columbia (3 each), and the remaining 385 are assigned by an apportionment among states.[120][non-primary source needed]\nUnder the Twenty-third Amendment, Washington, D.C., is allocated as many electors as it would have if it were a state but no more electors than the least populous state. Because the least populous state (Wyoming, in the 2020 census) has three electors, D.C. cannot have more than three electors. Even if D.C. were a state, its population would entitle it to only three electors. Based on its population per electoral vote, D.C. has the third highest per capita Electoral College representation, after Wyoming and Vermont.[121][non-primary source needed]\nCurrently, there are 538 electors, based on 435 representatives, 100 senators from the fifty states and three electors from Washington, D.C. The six states with the most electors are California (54), Texas (40), Florida (30), New York (28), Illinois (19), and Pennsylvania (19). The District of Columbia and the six least populous states—Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming—have three electors each.[122][non-primary source needed]\nNominations\nThe custom of allowing recognized political parties to select a slate of prospective electors developed early. In contemporary practice, each presidential-vice presidential ticket has an associated slate of potential electors. Then on Election Day, the voters select a ticket and thereby select the associated electors.[25]\nCandidates for elector are nominated by state chapters of nationally oriented political parties in the months prior to Election Day. In some states, the electors are nominated by voters in primaries the same way other presidential candidates are nominated. In some states, such as Oklahoma, Virginia, and North Carolina, electors are nominated in party conventions. In Pennsylvania, the campaign committee of each candidate names their respective electoral college candidates, an attempt to discourage faithless electors. Varying by state, electors may also be elected by state legislatures or appointed by the parties themselves.[123][unreliable fringe source?]\nSelection process\nArticle II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution requires each state legislature to determine how electors for the state are to be chosen, but it disqualifies any person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, from being an elector.[124] Under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, any person who has sworn an oath to support the United States Constitution in order to hold either a state or federal office, and later rebelled against the United States directly or by giving assistance to those doing so, is disqualified from being an elector. Congress may remove this disqualification by a two-thirds vote in each house.\nAll states currently choose presidential electors by popular vote. As of 2020, eight states[d] name the electors on the ballot. Mostly, the "short ballot" is used. The short ballot displays the names of the candidates for president and vice president, rather than the names of prospective electors.[125] Some states support voting for write-in candidates. Those that do may require pre-registration of write-in candidacy, with designation of electors being done at that time.[126][127] Since 1992, all but two states have followed the winner takes all method of allocating electors by which every person named on the slate for the ticket winning the statewide popular vote are named as presidential electors.[128][129]\nMaine and Nebraska are the only states not using this method.[116] In those states, the winner of the popular vote in each of its congressional districts is awarded one elector, and the winner of the statewide vote is then awarded the state\'s remaining two electors.[128][130] This method has been used in Maine since 1972 and in Nebraska since 1992. The Supreme Court previously upheld the power for a state to choose electors on the basis of congressional districts, holding that states possess plenary power to decide how electors are appointed in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892).\nThe Tuesday following the first Monday in November has been fixed as the day for holding federal elections, called the Election Day.[131] After the election, each state prepares seven Certificates of Ascertainment, each listing the candidates for president and vice president, their pledged electors, and the total votes each candidacy received.[132][non-primary source needed] One certificate is sent, as soon after Election Day as practicable, to the National Archivist in Washington. The Certificates of Ascertainment are mandated to carry the state seal and the signature of the governor, or mayor of D.C.[133][non-primary source needed]\nMeetings\n| External media | |\n|---|---|\n| Images | |\n| A 2020 Pennsylvania elector holds a ballot for Joe Biden (Biden\'s name is handwritten on the blank line). Reuters. December 14, 2020. | |\n| A closeup of the 2020 Georgia Electoral College ballot for Kamala Harris (using a format in which Harris\'s name is checked on the pre-printed card). The New Yorker. December 18, 2020. | |\n| Video | |\n| 2020 California State Electoral College meeting, YouTube video. Reuters. December 14, 2020. |\nThe Electoral College never meets as one body. Electors meet in their respective state capitals (electors for the District of Columbia meet within the District) on the same day (set by Congress as the Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December) at which time they cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for president and vice president.[134][135][136][non-primary source needed][22]\nAlthough procedures in each state vary slightly, the electors generally follow a similar series of steps, and the Congress has constitutional authority to regulate the procedures the states follow.[citation needed] The meeting is opened by the election certification official—often that state\'s secretary of state or equivalent—who reads the certificate of ascertainment. This document sets forth who was chosen to cast the electoral votes. The attendance of the electors is taken and any vacancies are noted in writing. The next step is the selection of a president or chairman of the meeting, sometimes also with a vice chairman. The electors sometimes choose a secretary, often not an elector, to take the minutes of the meeting. In many states, political officials give short speeches at this point in the proceedings.[non-primary source needed]\nWhen the time for balloting arrives, the electors choose one or two people to act as tellers. Some states provide for the placing in nomination of a candidate to receive the electoral votes (the candidate for president of the political party of the electors). Each elector submits a written ballot with the name of a candidate for president. Ballot formats vary between the states: in New Jersey for example, the electors cast ballots by checking the name of the candidate on a pre-printed card. In North Carolina, the electors write the name of the candidate on a blank card. The tellers count the ballots and announce the result. The next step is the casting of the vote for vice president, which follows a similar pattern.[non-primary source needed]\nUnder the Electoral Count Act (updated and codified in 3 U.S.C. § 9), each state\'s electors must complete six certificates of vote. Each Certificate of Vote (or Certificate of the Vote) must be signed by all of the electors and a certificate of ascertainment must be attached to each of the certificates of vote. Each Certificate of Vote must include the names of those who received an electoral vote for either the office of president or of vice president. The electors certify the Certificates of Vote, and copies of the certificates are then sent in the following fashion:[137][non-primary source needed]\n- One is sent by registered mail to the President of the Senate (who usually is the incumbent vice president of the United States);\n- Two are sent by registered mail to the Archivist of the United States;\n- Two are sent to the state\'s secretary of state; and\n- One is sent to the chief judge of the United States district court where those electors met.\nA staff member of the president of the Senate collects the certificates of vote as they arrive and prepares them for the joint session of the Congress. The certificates are arranged—unopened—in alphabetical order and placed in two special mahogany boxes. Alabama through Missouri (including the District of Columbia) are placed in one box and Montana through Wyoming are placed in the other box.[138]\nBefore 1950, the Secretary of State\'s office oversaw the certifications. Since then, the Office of Federal Register in the Archivist\'s office reviews them to make sure the documents sent to the archive and Congress match, and that all formalities have been followed, sometimes requiring states to correct the documents.[112]\nFaithless electors\nAn elector votes for each office, but at least one of these votes (president or vice president) must be cast for a person who is not a resident of the same state as that elector.[139] A "faithless elector" is one who does not cast an electoral vote for the candidate of the party for whom that elector pledged to vote. Faithless electors are comparatively rare because electors are generally chosen among those who are already personally committed to a party and party\'s candidate.[140]\nThirty-three states plus the District of Columbia have laws against faithless electors,[141] which were first enforced after the 2016 election, where ten electors voted or attempted to vote contrary to their pledges. Faithless electors have never changed the outcome of a U.S. election for president. Altogether, 23,529 electors have taken part in the Electoral College as of the 2016 election. Only 165 electors have cast votes for someone other than their party\'s nominee. Of that group, 71 did so because the nominee had died – 63 Democratic Party electors in 1872, when presidential nominee Horace Greeley died; and eight Republican Party electors in 1912, when vice presidential nominee James S. Sherman died.[142]\nWhile faithless electors have never changed the outcome of any presidential election, there are two occasions where the vice presidential election has been influenced by faithless electors:\n- In the 1796 election, 18 electors pledged to the Federalist Party ticket cast their first vote as pledged for John Adams, electing him president, but did not cast their second vote for his running mate Thomas Pinckney. As a result, Adams attained 71 electoral votes, Jefferson received 68, and Pinckney received 59, meaning Jefferson, rather than Pinckney, became vice president.[143]\n- In the 1836 election, Virginia\'s 23 electors, who were pledged to Richard Mentor Johnson, voted instead for former U.S. senator William Smith, which left Johnson one vote short of the majority needed to be elected. In accordance with the Twelfth Amendment, a contingent election was held in the Senate between the top two receivers of electoral votes, Johnson and Francis Granger, for vice president, with Johnson being elected on the first ballot.[144]\nSome constitutional scholars argued that state restrictions would be struck down if challenged based on Article II and the Twelfth Amendment.[145] However, the United States Supreme Court has consistently ruled that state restrictions are allowed under the Constitution. In Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952), the court ruled in favor of state laws requiring electors to pledge to vote for the winning candidate, as well as removing electors who refuse to pledge. As stated in the ruling, electors are acting as a functionary of the state, not the federal government. In Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), and a related case, the court held that electors must vote in accord with their state\'s laws.[146][147] Faithless electors also may face censure from their political party, as they are usually chosen based on their perceived party loyalty.[148]\nJoint session of Congress\n| External videos | |\n|---|---|\n| A joint session of Congress confirms the 2020 electoral college results, YouTube video. Global News. January 6, 2021. |\nThe Twelfth Amendment mandates Congress assemble in joint session to count the electoral votes and declare the winners of the election.[149] The session is ordinarily required to take place on January 6 in the calendar year immediately following the meetings of the presidential electors.[150] Since the Twentieth Amendment, the newly elected joint Congress declares the winner of the election. All elections before 1936 were determined by the outgoing House.\nThe Office of the Federal Register is charged with administering the Electoral College.[112] The meeting is held at 1 p.m. in the chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives.[150] The sitting vice president is expected to preside, but in several cases the president pro tempore of the Senate has chaired the proceedings. The vice president and the speaker of the House sit at the podium, with the vice president sitting to the right of the speaker of the House. Senate pages bring in two mahogany boxes containing each state\'s certified vote and place them on tables in front of the senators and representatives. Each house appoints two tellers to count the vote, normally one member of each political party. Relevant portions of the certificate of vote are read for each state, in alphabetical order.\nBefore an amendment to the law in 2022, members of Congress could object to any state\'s vote count, provided objection is presented in writing and is signed by at least one member of each house of Congress. In 2022, the number of members required to make an objection was raised to one-fifth of each house. An appropriately made objection is followed by the suspension of the joint session and by separate debates and votes in each house of Congress. After both houses deliberate on the objection, the joint session is resumed.\nA state\'s certificate of vote can be rejected only if both houses of Congress vote to accept the objection via a simple majority,[151] meaning the votes from the state in question are not counted. Individual votes can also be rejected, and are also not counted.\nIf there are no objections or all objections are overruled, the presiding officer simply includes a state\'s votes, as declared in the certificate of vote, in the official tally.\nAfter the certificates from all states are read and the respective votes are counted, the presiding officer simply announces the final state of the vote. This announcement concludes the joint session and formalizes the recognition of the president-elect and of the vice president-elect. The senators then depart from the House chamber. The final tally is printed in the Senate and House journals.\nHistorical objections and rejections\nObjections to the electoral vote count are rarely raised, although it has occurred a few times.\n- In 1864, all votes from Louisiana and Tennessee were rejected because of the American Civil War.\n- In 1872, all votes from Arkansas and Louisiana plus three of the eleven electoral votes from Georgia were rejected, due to allegations of electoral fraud, and due to submitting votes for a candidate who had died.[152]\n- After the crises of the 1876 election, where in a few states it was claimed there were two competing state governments, and thus competing slates of electors, Congress adopted the Electoral Count Act to regularize objection procedure.[153]\n- During the vote count in 2001 after the close 2000 presidential election between Governor George W. Bush of Texas and Vice President Al Gore. The election had been controversial, and its outcome was decided by the court case Bush v. Gore. Gore, who as vice president was required to preside over his own Electoral College defeat (by five electoral votes), denied the objections, all of which were raised by representatives and would have favored his candidacy, after no senators would agree to jointly object.\n- Objections were raised in the vote count of the 2004 election, alleging voter suppression and machine irregularities in Ohio, and on that occasion one representative and one senator objected, following protocols mandated by the Electoral Count Act. The joint session was suspended as outlined in these protocols, and the objections were quickly disposed of and rejected by both houses of Congress.\n- Eleven objections were raised during the vote count for the 2016 election, all by various Democratic representatives. As no senator joined the representatives in any objection, all objections were blocked by Vice President Joe Biden.[154]\n- In the 2020 election, there were two objections, and the proceeding was interrupted by an attack on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of outgoing President Donald Trump. Objections to the votes from Arizona and Pennsylvania were each raised by a House member and a senator, and triggered separate debate in each chamber, but were soundly defeated.[155] A few House members raised objections to the votes from Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin, but they could not move forward because no senator joined in those objections.[156]\nContingencies\nContingent presidential election by House\nIf no candidate for president receives an absolute majority of the electoral votes (since 1964, 270 of the 538 electoral votes), then the Twelfth Amendment requires the House of Representatives to go into session immediately to choose a president. In this event, the House of Representatives is limited to choosing from among the three candidates who received the most electoral votes for president. Each state delegation votes en bloc—each delegation having a single vote. The District of Columbia does not get to vote.\nA candidate must receive an absolute majority of state delegation votes (i.e., from 1959, which is the last time a new state was admitted to the union, a minimum of 26 votes) in order for that candidate to become the president-elect. Delegations from at least two thirds of all the states must be present for voting to take place. The House continues balloting until it elects a president.\nThe House of Representatives has been required to choose the president only twice: in 1801 under Article II, Section 1, Clause 3; and in 1825 under the Twelfth Amendment.\nContingent vice presidential election by Senate\nIf no candidate for vice president receives an absolute majority of electoral votes, then the Senate must go into session to choose a vice president. The Senate is limited to choosing from the two candidates who received the most electoral votes for vice president. Normally this would mean two candidates, one less than the number of candidates available in the House vote.\nHowever, the text is written in such a way that all candidates with the most and second-most electoral votes are eligible for the Senate election—this number could theoretically be larger than two. The Senate votes in the normal manner in this case (i.e., ballots are individually cast by each senator, not by state delegations). Two-thirds of the senators must be present for voting to take place.\nThe Twelfth Amendment states a "majority of the whole number" of senators, currently 51 of 100, is necessary for election.[157] The language requiring an absolute majority of Senate votes precludes the sitting vice president from breaking any tie that might occur,[158] although some academics and journalists have speculated to the contrary.[159]\nThe only time the Senate chose the vice president was in 1837. In that instance, the Senate adopted an alphabetical roll call and voting aloud. The rules further stated, "[I]f a majority of the number of senators shall vote for either the said Richard M. Johnson or Francis Granger, he shall be declared by the presiding officer of the Senate constitutionally elected Vice President of the United States"; the Senate chose Johnson.[160]\nDeadlocked election\nSection 3 of the Twentieth Amendment specifies that if the House of Representatives has not chosen a president-elect in time for the inauguration (noon EST on January 20), then the vice president-elect becomes acting president until the House selects a president. Section 3 also specifies that Congress may statutorily provide for who will be acting president if there is neither a president-elect nor a vice president-elect in time for the inauguration. Under the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, the Speaker of the House would become acting president until either the House selects a president or the Senate selects a vice president. Neither of these situations has ever arisen to this day.\nContinuity of government and peaceful transitions of power\nIn Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton argued that one concern that led the Constitutional Convention to create the Electoral College was to ensure peaceful transitions of power and continuity of government during transitions between presidential administrations.[161][e] While recognizing that the question had not been presented in the case, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in the majority opinion in Chiafalo v. Washington (2020) that "nothing in this opinion should be taken to permit the States to bind electors to a deceased candidate" after noting that more than one-third of the cumulative faithless elector votes in U.S. presidential elections history were cast during the 1872 presidential election when Liberal Republican Party and Democratic Party nominee Horace Greeley died after the polls were held and vote tabulations were completed by the states but before the Electoral College cast its ballots, and acknowledging the petitioners concern about the potential turmoil that the death of a presidential candidate between Election Day and the Electoral College meetings could cause.[162][163]\nIn 1872, Greeley carried the popular vote in 6 states (Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas) and had 66 electoral votes pledged to him. After his death on November 29, 1872, 63 of the electors pledged to him voted faithlessly, while 3 votes (from Georgia) that remained pledged to him were rejected at the Electoral College vote count on February 12, 1873, on the grounds that he had died.[164][165] Greeley\'s running mate, B. Gratz Brown, still received the 3 electoral votes from Georgia for vice president that were rejected for Greeley. This brought Brown\'s number of electoral votes for vice president to 47 since he still received all 28 electoral votes from Maryland, Tennessee, and Texas, and 16 other electoral votes from Georgia, Kentucky, and Missouri in total. The other 19 electors from the latter states voted faithlessly for vice president.[166]\nDuring the presidential transition following the 1860 presidential election, Abraham Lincoln had to arrive in Washington, D.C. in disguise and on an altered train schedule after the Pinkerton National Detective Agency found evidence that suggested a secessionist plot to assassinate Lincoln would be attempted in Baltimore.[167][168] During the presidential transition following the 1928 presidential election, an Argentine anarchist group plotted to assassinate Herbert Hoover while Hoover was traveling through Central and South America and crossing the Andes from Chile by train. The plotters were arrested before the attempt was made.[169][170]\nDuring the presidential transition following the 1932 presidential election, Giuseppe Zangara attempted to assassinate Franklin D. Roosevelt by gunshot while Roosevelt was giving an impromptu speech in a car in Miami, but instead killed Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak, who was a passenger in the car, and wounded 5 bystanders.[171][172] During the presidential transition following the 1960 presidential election, Richard Paul Pavlick plotted to assassinate John F. Kennedy while Kennedy was vacationing in Palm Beach, Florida, by detonating a dynamite-laden car where Kennedy was staying. Pavlick delayed his attempt and was arrested and committed to a mental hospital.[173][174][175][176]\nDuring the presidential transition following the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama was targeted in separate security incidents by an assassination plot and a death threat,[177][178] after an assassination plot in Denver during the 2008 Democratic National Convention and an assassination plot in Tennessee during the election were prevented.[179][180]\nDuring the presidential transition following the 2020 presidential election, as a result of former president Donald Trump\'s false insistence that he had won the election, the General Services Administration did not declare Biden the winner until November 23.[181] The subsequent attack on the United States Capitol on January 6 caused delays in the counting of electoral votes to certify Joe Biden\'s victory in the 2020 election, but was ultimately unsuccessful in preventing the count from occurring.[182]\nRatified in 1933, Section 3 of the 20th Amendment requires that if a president-elect dies before Inauguration Day, that the vice president-elect becomes the president.[183][184] Akhil Amar has noted that the explicit text of the 20th Amendment does not specify when the candidates of the winning presidential ticket officially become the president-elect and vice president-elect, and that the text of Article II, Section I and the 12th Amendment suggests that candidates for president and vice president are only formally elected upon the Electoral College vote count.[185] Conversely, a 2020 report issued by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), stated that the balance of scholarly opinion has concluded that the winning presidential ticket is formally elected as soon as the majority of the electoral votes they receive are cast, according to the 1932 House committee report on the 20th Amendment.[183]\nIf a vacancy on a presidential ticket occurs before Election Day—as in 1912 when Republican nominee for Vice President James S. Sherman died less than a week before the election and was replaced by Nicholas Murray Butler at the Electoral College meetings, and in 1972 when Democratic nominee for Vice President Thomas Eagleton withdrew his nomination less than three weeks after the Democratic National Convention and was replaced by Sargent Shriver—the internal rules of the political parties apply for filling vacancies.[186] If a vacancy on a presidential ticket occurs between Election Day and the Electoral College meetings, the 2020 CRS report notes that most legal commentators have suggested that political parties would still follow their internal rules for filling the vacancies.[187] However, in 1872, the Democratic National Committee did not meet to name a replacement for Horace Greeley,[164] and the 2020 CRS report notes that presidential electors may argue that they are permitted to vote faithlessly if a vacancy occurs between Election Day and the Electoral College meetings since they were pledged to vote for a specific candidate.[187]\nUnder the Presidential Succession Clause of Article II, Section I, Congress is delegated the power to "by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected."[188][f][g] Pursuant to the Presidential Succession Clause, the 2nd United States Congress passed the Presidential Succession Act of 1792 that required a special election by the Electoral College in the case of a dual vacancy in the presidency and vice presidency.[192][193] Despite vacancies in the Vice Presidency from 1792 to 1886,[h] the special election requirement would be repealed with the rest of the Presidential Succession Act of 1792 by the 49th United States Congress in passing the Presidential Succession Act of 1886.[196][197]\nIn a special message to the 80th United States Congress calling for revisions to the Presidential Succession Act of 1886, President Harry S. Truman proposed restoring special elections for dual vacancies in the Presidency and Vice Presidency. While most of Truman\'s proposal was included in the final version of the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, the restoration of special elections for dual vacancies was not.[198][199] Along with six other recommendations related to presidential succession,[200] the Continuity of Government Commission recommended restoring special elections for president in the event of a dual vacancy in the presidency and vice presidency due to a catastrophic terrorist attack or nuclear strike, in part because all members of the presidential line of succession live and work in Washington, D.C.[201]\nUnder the 12th Amendment, presidential electors are still required to meet and cast their ballots for president and vice president within their respective states.[202] The CRS noted in a separate 2020 report that members of the presidential line of succession, after the vice president, only become an acting president under the Presidential Succession Clause and Section 3 of the 20th Amendment, rather than fully succeeding to the presidency.[203]\nCurrent electoral vote distribution\n| EV × States | States* |\n|---|---|\n| 54 × 1 = 54 | California |\n| 40 × 1 = 40 | Texas |\n| 30 × 1 = 30 | Florida |\n| 28 × 1 = 28 | New York |\n| 19 × 2 = 38 | Illinois, Pennsylvania |\n| 17 × 1 = 17 | Ohio |\n| 16 × 2 = 32 | Georgia, North Carolina |\n| 15 × 1 = 15 | Michigan |\n| 14 × 1 = 14 | New Jersey |\n| 13 × 1 = 13 | Virginia |\n| 12 × 1 = 12 | Washington |\n| 11 × 4 = 44 | Arizona, Indiana, Massachusetts, Tennessee |\n| 10 × 5 = 50 | Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin |\n| 9 × 2 = 18 | Alabama, South Carolina |\n| 8 × 3 = 24 | Kentucky, Louisiana, Oregon |\n| 7 × 2 = 14 | Connecticut, Oklahoma |\n| 6 × 6 = 36 | Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Nevada, Utah |\n| 5 × 2 = 10 | Nebraska**, New Mexico |\n| 4 × 7 = 28 | Hawaii, Idaho, Maine**, Montana, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, West Virginia |\n| 3 × 7 = 21 | Alaska, Delaware, District of Columbia*, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming |\n| = 538 | Total electors |\n- * The Twenty-third Amendment grants D.C. the same number of electors as the least populous state. This has always been three.\n- ** Maine\'s four electors and Nebraska\'s five are distributed using the Congressional district method.\nChronological table\n| Election year |\n1788–1800 | 1804–1900 | 1904–2000 | 2004– | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| \'88 | \'92 | \'96 \'00 |\n\'04 \'08 |\n\'12 | \'16 | \'20 | \'24 \'28 |\n\'32 | \'36 \'40 |\n\'44 | \'48 | \'52 \'56 |\n\'60 | \'64 | \'68 | \'72 | \'76 \'80 |\n\'84 \'88 |\n\'92 | \'96 \'00 |\n\'04 | \'08 | \'12 \'16 \'20 \'24 \'28 |\n\'32 \'36 \'40 |\n\'44 \'48 |\n\'52 \'56 |\n\'60 | \'64 \'68 |\n\'72 \'76 \'80 |\n\'84 \'88 |\n\'92 \'96 \'00 |\n\'04 \'08 |\n\'12 \'16 \'20 |\n\'24 \'28 | ||\n| # | Total | 81 | 135 | 138 | 176 | 218 | 221 | 235 | 261 | 288 | 294 | 275 | 290 | 296 | 303 | 234 251 |\n294 | 366 | 369 | 401 | 444 | 447 | 476 | 483 | 531 | 537 | 538 | |||||||||\n| State | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||\n| 22 | Alabama | 3 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 0 | 8 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | ||||||\n| 49 | Alaska | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||\n| 48 | Arizona | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 11 | 11 | |||||||||||||||||||||||\n| 25 | Arkansas | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | |||||||||\n| 31 | California | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 13 | 22 | 25 | 32 | 32 | 40 | 45 | 47 | 54 | 55 | 55 | 54 | ||||||||||||\n| 38 | Colorado | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 10 | |||||||||||||||||\n| 5 | Connecticut | 7 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 |\n| – | D.C. | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||\n| 1 | Delaware | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |\n| 27 | Florida | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 10 | 14 | 17 | 21 | 25 | 27 | 29 | 30 | |||||||||||\n| 4 | Georgia | 5 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 9 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 14 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 15 | 16 | 16 |\n| 50 | Hawaii | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||\n| 43 | Idaho | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||\n| 21 | Illinois | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 9 | 9 | 11 | 11 | 16 | 16 | 21 | 21 | 22 | 24 | 24 | 27 | 27 | 29 | 29 | 28 | 27 | 27 | 26 | 26 | 24 | 22 | 21 | 20 | 19 | ||||||\n| 19 | Indiana | 3 | 3 | 5 | 9 | 9 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 14 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 11 | |||||\n| 29 | Iowa | 4 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 8 | 11 | 11 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | |||||||||||\n| 34 | Kansas | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | ||||||||||||||\n| 15 | Kentucky | 4 | 4 | 8 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 14 | 15 | 15 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | |\n| 18 | Louisiana | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 8 | ||||\n| 23 | Maine | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | ||||||\n| 7 | Maryland | 8 | 10 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |\n| 6 | Massachusetts | 10 | 16 | 16 | 19 | 22 | 22 | 15 | 15 | 14 | 14 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 15 | 16 | 16 | 18 | 17 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 14 | 14 | 13 | 12 | 12 | 11 | 11 |\n| 26 | Michigan | 3 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 11 | 11 | 13 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 15 | 19 | 19 | 20 | 20 | 21 | 21 | 20 | 18 | 17 | 16 | 15 | |||||||||\n| 32 | Minnesota | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | |||||||||||||\n| 20 | Mississippi | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6 | ||||||\n| 24 | Missouri | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 11 | 11 | 15 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 17 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 15 | 15 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 10 | ||||||\n| 41 | Montana | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||\n| 37 | Nebraska | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | |||||||||||||||\n| 36 | Nevada | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 6 | ||||||||||||||\n| 9 | New Hampshire | 5 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |\n| 3 | New Jersey | 6 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 12 | 12 | 14 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 17 | 17 | 16 | 15 | 15 | 14 | 14 |\n| 47 | New Mexico | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||\n| 11 | New York | 8 | 12 | 12 | 19 | 29 | 29 | 29 | 36 | 42 | 42 | 36 | 36 | 35 | 35 | 33 | 33 | 35 | 35 | 36 | 36 | 36 | 39 | 39 | 45 | 47 | 47 | 45 | 45 | 43 | 41 | 36 | 33 | 31 | 29 | 28 |\n| 12 | North Carolina | 12 | 12 | 14 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 15 | 16 | |\n| 39 | North Dakota | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||\n| 17 | Ohio | 3 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 16 | 21 | 21 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 21 | 21 | 22 | 22 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 24 | 26 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 26 | 25 | 23 | 21 | 20 | 18 | 17 | |||\n| 46 | Oklahoma | 7 | 10 | 11 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||\n| 33 | Oregon | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | |||||||||||||\n| 2 | Pennsylvania | 10 | 15 | 15 | 20 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 28 | 30 | 30 | 26 | 26 | 27 | 27 | 26 | 26 | 29 | 29 | 30 | 32 | 32 | 34 | 34 | 38 | 36 | 35 | 32 | 32 | 29 | 27 | 25 | 23 | 21 | 20 | 19 |\n| 13 | Rhode Island | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |\n| 8 | South Carolina | 7 | 8 | 8 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 |\n| 40 | South Dakota | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||\n| 16 | Tennessee | 3 | 5 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 11 | 15 | 15 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 12 | 10 | 10 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 11 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | ||\n| 28 | Texas | 4 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 8 | 13 | 15 | 15 | 18 | 18 | 20 | 23 | 23 | 24 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 29 | 32 | 34 | 38 | 40 | |||||||||||\n| 45 | Utah | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | ||||||||||||||||||||\n| 14 | Vermont | 4 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |\n| 10 | Virginia | 12 | 21 | 21 | 24 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 24 | 23 | 23 | 17 | 17 | 15 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 |\n| 42 | Washington | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 12 | |||||||||||||||||||\n| 35 | West Virginia | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | ||||||||||||||\n| 30 | Wisconsin | 4 | 5 | 5 | 8 | 8 | 10 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 10 | |||||||||||\n| 44 | Wyoming | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||\n| # | Total | 81 | 135 | 138 | 176 | 218 | 221 | 235 | 261 | 288 | 294 | 275 | 290 | 296 | 303 | 234 251 |\n294 | 366 | 369 | 401 | 444 | 447 | 476 | 483 | 531 | 537 | 538 |\nSource: Presidential Elections 1789–2000 at Psephos (Adam Carr\'s Election Archive)\nNote: In 1788, 1792, 1796, and 1800, each elector cast two votes for president.\nAlternative methods of choosing electors\n| Year | AL | CT | DE | GA | IL | IN | KY | LA | ME | MD | MA | MS | MO | NH | NJ | NY | NC | OH | PA | RI | SC | TN | VT | VA | |||||\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| 1789 | – | L | D | L | – | – | – | – | – | A | H | – | – | H | L | – | – | – | A | – | L | – | – | D | |||||\n| 1792 | – | L | L | L | – | – | D | – | – | A | H | – | – | H | L | L | L | – | A | L | L | – | L | D | |||||\n| 1796 | – | L | L | A | – | – | D | – | – | D | H | – | – | H | L | L | D | – | A | L | L | H | L | D | |||||\n| 1800 | – | L | L | L | – | – | D | – | – | D | L | – | – | L | L | L | D | – | L | A | L | H | L | A | |||||\n| 1804 | – | L | L | L | – | – | D | – | – | D | D | – | – | A | A | L | D | A | A | A | L | D | L | A | |||||\n| 1808 | – | L | L | L | – | – | D | – | – | D | L | – | – | A | A | L | D | A | A | A | L | D | L | A | |||||\n| 1812 | – | L | L | L | – | – | D | L | – | D | D | – | – | A | L | L | L | A | A | A | L | D | L | A | |||||\n| 1816 | – | L | L | L | – | L | D | L | – | D | L | – | – | A | A | L | A | A | A | A | L | D | L | A | |||||\n| 1820 | L | A | L | L | D | L | D | L | D | D | D | A | L | A | A | L | A | A | A | A | L | D | L | A | |||||\n| 1824 | A | A | L | L | D | A | D | L | D | D | A | A | D | A | A | L | A | A | A | A | L | D | L | A | |||||\n| 1828 | A | A | L | A | A | A | A | A | D | D | A | A | A | A | A | D | A | A | A | A | L | D | A | A | |||||\n| 1832 | A | A | A | A | A | A | A | A | A | D | A | A | A | A | A | A | A | A | A | A | L | A | A | A | |||||\n| Year | AL | CT | DE | GA | IL | IN | KY | LA | ME | MD | MA | MS | MO | NH | NJ | NY | NC | OH | PA | RI | SC | TN | VT | VA |\n| Key | A | Popular vote, At-large | D | Popular vote, Districting | L | Legislative selection | H | Hybrid system |\n|---|\nBefore the advent of the "short ballot" in the early 20th century (as described in Selection process) the most common means of electing the presidential electors was through the general ticket. The general ticket is quite similar to the current system and is often confused with it. In the general ticket, voters cast ballots for individuals running for presidential elector. In the short ballot, voters cast ballots for an entire slate of electors.\nIn the general ticket, the state canvass would report the number of votes cast for each candidate for elector, a complicated process in states like New York with multiple positions to fill. Both the general ticket and the short ballot are often considered at-large or winner-takes-all voting. The short ballot was adopted by the various states at different times. It was adopted for use by North Carolina and Ohio in 1932. Alabama was still using the general ticket as late as 1960 and was one of the last states to switch to the short ballot.\nThe question of the extent to which state constitutions may constrain the legislature\'s choice of a method of choosing electors has been touched on in two U.S. Supreme Court cases. In McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892), the Court cited Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 which states that a state\'s electors are selected "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct" and wrote these words "operat[e] as a limitation upon the state in respect of any attempt to circumscribe the legislative power".\nIn Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70 (2000), a Florida Supreme Court decision was vacated (not reversed) based on McPherson. On the other hand, three dissenting justices in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), wrote: "[N]othing in Article II of the Federal Constitution frees the state legislature from the constraints in the State Constitution that created it."[207]\nAppointment by state legislature\nIn the earliest presidential elections, state legislative choice was the most common method of choosing electors. A majority of the state legislatures selected presidential electors in both 1792 (9 of 15) and 1800 (10 of 16), and half of them did so in 1812.[208] Even in the 1824 election, a quarter of state legislatures (6 of 24) chose electors. In that election, Andrew Jackson lost in spite of having a plurality of both the popular vote and the number of electoral votes representing them.[209] Yet, as six states did not hold a popular election for their electoral votes, the full expression of the popular vote nationally cannot be known.[209]\nSome state legislatures simply chose electors. Other states used a hybrid method in which state legislatures chose from a group of electors elected by popular vote.[210] By 1828, with the rise of Jacksonian democracy, only Delaware and South Carolina used legislative choice.[209] Delaware ended its practice the following election (1832). South Carolina continued using the method until it seceded from the Union in December 1860.[209] South Carolina used the popular vote for the first time in the 1868 election.[211]\nExcluding South Carolina, legislative appointment was used in only four situations after 1832:\n- In 1848, Massachusetts statute awarded the state\'s electoral votes to the winner of the at-large popular vote, but only if that candidate won an absolute majority. When the vote produced no winner between the Democratic, Free Soil, and Whig parties, the state legislature selected the electors, giving all 12 electoral votes to the Whigs, which had won the plurality of votes in the state.[212]\n- In 1864, Nevada, having joined the Union only a few days prior to Election Day, had no choice but to legislatively appoint.[212]\n- In 1868, the newly reconstructed state of Florida legislatively appointed its electors, having been readmitted too late to hold elections.[212]\n- In 1876, the legislature of the newly admitted state of Colorado used legislative choice due to a lack of time and money to hold a popular election.[212]\nLegislative appointment was brandished as a possibility in the 2000 election. Had the recount continued, the Florida legislature was prepared to appoint the Republican slate of electors to avoid missing the federal safe-harbor deadline for choosing electors.[213]\nThe Constitution gives each state legislature the power to decide how its state\'s electors are chosen[209] and it can be easier and cheaper for a state legislature to simply appoint a slate of electors than to create a legislative framework for holding elections to determine the electors. As noted above, the two situations in which legislative choice has been used since the Civil War have both been because there was not enough time or money to prepare for an election. However, appointment by state legislature can have negative consequences: bicameral legislatures can deadlock more easily than the electorate. This is precisely what happened to New York in 1789 when the legislature failed to appoint any electors.[214]\nElectoral districts\nAnother method used early in U.S. history was to divide the state into electoral districts. By this method, voters in each district would cast their ballots for the electors they supported and the winner in each district would become the elector. This was similar to how states are currently separated into congressional districts. The difference stems from the fact that every state always had two more electoral districts than congressional districts. As with congressional districts, this method is vulnerable to gerrymandering.\nCongressional district method\nThere are two versions of the congressional district method: one has been implemented in Maine and Nebraska; another was used in New York in 1828 and proposed for use in Virginia. Under the implemented method, electors are awarded the way seats in Congress are awarded. One electoral vote goes per the plurality of the popular votes of each congressional district (for the U.S. House Of Representatives), and two per the statewide popular vote. This may result in greater proportionality. But it can give results similar to the winner-takes-all states, as in 1992, when George H. W. Bush won all five of Nebraska\'s electoral votes with a clear plurality on 47% of the vote; in a truly proportional system, he would have received three and Bill Clinton and Ross Perot each would have received one.[215]\nIn 2013, the Virginia proposal was tabled. Like the other congressional district methods, this would have distributed the electoral votes based on the popular vote winner within each of Virginia\'s 11 congressional districts; the two statewide electoral votes would be awarded based on which candidate won the most congressional districts.[216] A similar method was used in New York in 1828: the two at large electors were elected by the electors selected in districts.\nA congressional district method is more likely to arise than other alternatives to the winner-takes-whole-state method, in view of the main two parties\' resistance to scrap first-past-the-post. State legislation is sufficient to use this method.[217][non-primary source needed] Advocates of the method believe the system encourages higher voter turnout or incentivizes candidates, to visit and appeal to some states deemed safe, overall, for one party.[218]\nWinner-take-all systems ignore thousands of votes. In Democratic California there are Republican districts, in Republican Texas there are Democratic districts. Because candidates have an incentive to campaign in competitive districts, with a district plan, candidates have an incentive to actively campaign in over thirty states versus about seven "swing" states.[219][220] Opponents of the system argue that candidates might only spend time in certain battleground districts instead of the entire state and cases of gerrymandering could become exacerbated as political parties attempt to draw as many safe districts as they can.[221]\nUnlike simple congressional district comparisons, the district plan popular vote bonus in the 2008 election would have given Obama 56% of the Electoral College versus the 68% he did win; it "would have more closely approximated the percentage of the popular vote won [53%]".[222] However, the district plan would have given Obama 49% of the Electoral College in 2012, and would have given Romney a win in the Electoral College even though Obama won the popular vote by nearly 4% (51.1–47.2) over Romney.[223]\nImplementation\nOf the 44 multi-district states whose 517 electoral votes are amenable to the method, only Maine (4 EV) and Nebraska (5 EV) apply it.[224][225] Maine began using the congressional district method in the election of 1972. Nebraska has used the congressional district method since the election of 1992.[226][227] Michigan used the system for the 1892 presidential election,[215][228][229] and several other states used various forms of the district plan before 1840: Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, North Carolina, Massachusetts, Illinois, Maine, Missouri, and New York.[230]\nThe congressional district method allows a state the chance to split its electoral votes between multiple candidates. Prior to 2008, Nebraska had never split its electoral votes, while Maine had only done so once under its previous district plan in the 1828 election.[215][231][232] Nebraska split its electoral votes for the first time in 2008, giving John McCain its statewide electors and those of two congressional districts, while Barack Obama won the electoral vote of Nebraska\'s 2nd congressional district, centered on the state\'s largest city, Omaha.[233] Following the 2008 split, some Nebraska Republicans made efforts to discard the congressional district method and return to the winner-takes-all system.[234] In January 2010, a bill was introduced in the Nebraska legislature to revert to a winner-take-all system;[235] the bill died in committee in March 2011.[236] Republicans had passed bills in 1995 and 1997 to do the same, which were vetoed by Democratic Governor Ben Nelson.[234]\nMore recently, Maine split its electoral votes for the first time under the congressional district method in 2016. Hillary Clinton won its two statewide electors and its 1st congressional district, which covers the state\'s southwestern coastal region and its largest city of Portland, while Donald Trump won the electoral vote of Maine\'s 2nd congressional district, which takes in the remainder of the state and is much larger by area. In the 2020 election, both Nebraska and Maine split their electoral votes, following the same pattern of congressional district differences that were seen in 2008 and 2016 respectively: Nebraska\'s 2nd congressional district voted for Democrat Joe Biden while the remainder of the state voted for Republican Donald Trump; and Maine\'s 2nd congressional district voted for Trump while the remainder of the state voted for Biden.[237]\nRecent abandoned adoption in other states\nIn 2010, Republicans in Pennsylvania, who controlled both houses of the legislature as well as the governorship, put forward a plan to change the state\'s winner-takes-all system to a congressional district method system. Pennsylvania had voted for the Democratic candidate in the five previous presidential elections, so this was seen an attempt to take away Democratic electoral votes. Democrat Barack Obama won Pennsylvania in 2008 with 55% of its vote. The district plan would have awarded him 11 of its 21 electoral votes, a 52.4% which was much closer to the popular vote percentage.[238][239] The plan later lost support.[240] Other Republicans, including Michigan state representative Pete Lund,[241] RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, have floated similar ideas.[242][243]\nProportional vote\nIn a proportional system, electors would be selected in proportion to the votes cast for their candidate or party, rather than being selected by the statewide plurality vote.[244]\nImpacts and reception\nGary Bugh\'s research of congressional debates over proposed constitutional amendments to abolish the Electoral College reveals reform opponents have often appealed to tradition and the preference for indirect elections, whereas reform advocates often champion a more egalitarian one person, one vote system.[246] Electoral colleges have been scrapped by all other democracies around the world in favor of direct elections for an executive president.[247][15]\nCritics argue that the Electoral College is less democratic than a national direct popular vote and is subject to manipulation because of faithless electors;[12][13] that the system is antithetical to a democracy that strives for a standard of "one person, one vote";[9] and there can be elections where one candidate wins the national popular vote but another wins the electoral vote, as in the 2000 and 2016 elections.[11] Individual citizens in less populated states with 5% of the Electoral College have proportionately more voting power than those in more populous states,[248] and candidates can win by focusing on just a few "swing states".[14][249]\nPolling ~40%\n21st century polling data shows that a majority of Americans consistently favor having a direct popular vote for presidential elections. The popularity of the Electoral College has hovered between 35% and 44%.[245][250][k]\nDifference with popular vote\nOpponents of the Electoral College claim such outcomes do not logically follow the normative concept of how a democratic system should function. One view is the Electoral College violates the principle of political equality, since presidential elections are not decided by the one-person one-vote principle.[251]\nWhile many assume the national popular vote observed under the Electoral College system would reflect the popular vote observed under a National Popular Vote system, supporters contend that is not necessarily the case as each electoral institution produces different incentives for, and strategy choices by, presidential campaigns.[252][253]\nNotable elections\nThe elections of 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016 produced an Electoral College winner who did not receive at least a plurality of the nationwide popular vote.[251] In 1824, there were six states in which electors were legislatively appointed, rather than popularly elected, so it is uncertain what the national popular vote would have been if all presidential electors had been popularly elected. When no presidential candidate received a majority of electoral votes in 1824, the election was decided by the House of Representatives and so could be considered distinct from the latter four elections in which all of the states had popular selection of electors.[254] The true national popular vote was also uncertain in the 1960 election, and the plurality for the winner depends on how votes for Alabama electors are allocated.[255]\nElections where the popular vote and electoral college results differed\n- 1800: Jefferson won with 61.4% of the popular vote; Adams had 38.6%*\n- 1824: Adams won with 30.9% of the popular vote; Jackson had 41.4%*\n- 1836 (only for vice president): Johnson won with 63.5% of the popular vote; Granger had 30.8%*\n- 1876: Tilden (D) received 50.9% of the vote, Hayes (R) received 47.9%\n- 1888: Cleveland (D) received 48.6% of the vote, Harrison (R) received 47.8%\n- 2000: Gore (D) received 48.4% of the vote, Bush (R) received 47.9%\n- 2016: Clinton (D) received 48.2% of the vote, Trump (R) received 46.1%\n*These popular vote tallies are partial because several of the states still used their legislature to choose electors not a popular vote. In both elections a tied electoral college threw the contest over to Congress to decide.\nFavors largest swing states\nThe Electoral College encourages political campaigners to focus on a few so-called swing states while ignoring the rest of the country. Populous states in which pre-election poll results show no clear favorite are inundated with campaign visits, saturation television advertising, get-out-the-vote efforts by party organizers, and debates, while four out of five voters in the national election are "absolutely ignored", according to one assessment.[257] Since most states use a winner-takes-all arrangement in which the candidate with the most votes in that state receives all of the state\'s electoral votes, there is a clear incentive to focus almost exclusively on only a few key undecided states.[251]\nNot all votes count the same\nEach state gets a minimum of three electoral votes, regardless of population, which has increasingly given low-population states more electors per voter (or more voting power).[258][259] For example, an electoral vote represents nearly four times as many people in California as in Wyoming.[258][260] On average, voters in the ten least populated states have 2.5 more electors per person compared with voters in the ten most populous states.[258]\nIn 1968, John F. Banzhaf III developed the Banzhaf power index (BPI) which argued that a voter in the state of New York had, on average, 3.3 times as much voting power in presidential elections as the average voter outside New York.[261] Mark Livingston used a similar method and estimated that individual voters in the largest state, based on the 1990 census, had 3.3 times more individual power to choose a president than voters of Montana.[262][better source needed]\nHowever, others argue that Banzhaf\'s method ignores the demographic makeup of the states and treats votes like independent coin-flips. Critics of Banzhaf\'s method say empirically based models used to analyze the Electoral College have consistently found that sparsely populated states benefit from having their resident\'s votes count for more than the votes of those residing in the more populous states.[263]\nLowers turnout\nExcept in closely fought swing states, voter turnout does not affect the election results due to entrenched political party domination in most states. The Electoral College decreases the advantage a political party or campaign might gain for encouraging voters to turn out, except in those swing states.[264] If the presidential election were decided by a national popular vote, in contrast, campaigns and parties would have a strong incentive to work to increase turnout everywhere.[265]\nIndividuals would similarly have a stronger incentive to persuade their friends and neighbors to turn out to vote. The differences in turnout between swing states and non-swing states under the current electoral college system suggest that replacing the Electoral College with direct election by popular vote would likely increase turnout and participation significantly.[264]\nObscures disenfranchisement within states\nAccording to this criticism, the electoral college reduces elections to a mere count of electors for a particular state, and, as a result, it obscures any voting problems within a particular state. For example, if a particular state blocks some groups from voting, perhaps by voter suppression methods such as imposing reading tests, poll taxes, registration requirements, or legally disfranchising specific groups (like women or people of color), then voting inside that state would be reduced, but as the state\'s electoral count would be the same, disenfranchisement has no effect on its overall electoral power. Critics contend that such disenfranchisement is not penalized by the Electoral College.\nA related argument is the Electoral College may have a dampening effect on voter turnout: there is no incentive for states to reach out to more of its citizens to include them in elections because the state\'s electoral count remains fixed in any event. According to this view, if elections were by popular vote, then states would be motivated to include more citizens in elections since the state would then have more political clout nationally. Critics contend the electoral college system insulates states from negative publicity as well as possible federal penalties for disenfranchising subgroups of citizens.\nLegal scholars Akhil Amar and Vikram Amar have argued that the original Electoral College compromise was enacted partially because it enabled Southern states to disenfranchise their slave populations.[266] It permitted Southern states to disfranchise large numbers of slaves while allowing these states to maintain political clout and prevent Northern dominance within the federation by using the Three-Fifths Compromise. They noted that James Madison believed the question of counting slaves had presented a serious challenge, but that "the substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections."[267] Akhil and Vikram Amar added:\nThe founders\' system also encouraged the continued disfranchisement of women. In a direct national election system, any state that gave women the vote would automatically have doubled its national clout. Under the Electoral College, however, a state had no such incentive to increase the franchise; as with slaves, what mattered was how many women lived in a state, not how many were empowered ... a state with low voter turnout gets precisely the same number of electoral votes as if it had a high turnout. By contrast, a well-designed direct election system could spur states to get out the vote.[266]\nAfter the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, white voters in Southern states benefited from elimination of the Three-Fifths Compromise because with all former slaves counted as one person, instead of 3/5, Southern states increased their share of electors in the Electoral College. Southern states also enacted laws that restricted access to voting by former slaves, thereby increasing the electoral weight of votes by southern whites.[268]\nMinorities tend to be disproportionately located in noncompetitive states, reducing their impact on the overall election and over-representing white voters who have tended to live in the swing states that decide elections.[269][270]\nAmericans in U.S. territories cannot vote\nRoughly four million Americans in Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam, do not have a vote in presidential elections.[29][258] Only U.S. states (per Article II, Section 1, Clause 2) and Washington, D.C. (per the Twenty-third Amendment) are entitled to electors. Various scholars consequently conclude that the U.S. national-electoral process is not fully democratic.[271][272] Guam has held non-binding straw polls for president since the 1980s to draw attention to this fact.[273][274] The Democratic and Republican parties, as well as other third parties, have, however, made it possible for people in U.S. territories to vote in party presidential primaries.[275][276]\nDisadvantages third parties\nIn practice, the winner-take-all manner of allocating a state\'s electors generally decreases the importance of minor parties.[277]\nFederalism and state power\nFor many years early in the nation\'s history, up until the Jacksonian Era (1830s), many states appointed their electors by a vote of the state legislature, and proponents argue that, in the end, the election of the president must still come down to the decisions of each state, or the federal nature of the United States will give way to a single massive, centralized government, to the detriment of the States.[278]\nIn his 2007 book A More Perfect Constitution, Professor Larry Sabato preferred allocating the electoral college (and Senate seats) in stricter proportion to population while keeping the Electoral College for the benefit of lightly populated swing states and to strengthen the role of the states in federalism.[279][278]\nWillamette University College of Law professor Norman R. Williams has argued that the Constitutional Convention delegates chose the Electoral College to choose the president largely in reaction to the experience during the Confederation period where state governors were often chosen by state legislatures and wanting the new federal government to have an executive branch that was effectively independent of the legislative branch.[280] For example, Alexander Hamilton argued that the Electoral College would prevent, sinister bias, foreign interference and domestic intrigue in presidential elections by not permitting members of Congress or any other officer of the United States to serve as electors.[281]\nEfforts to abolish or reform\nMore resolutions have been submitted to amend the U.S. Electoral College mechanism than any other part of the constitution.[4] Since 1800, over 700 proposals to reform or eliminate the system have been introduced in Congress. Proponents of these proposals argued that the electoral college system does not provide for direct democratic election, affords less-populous states an advantage, and allows a candidate to win the presidency without winning the most votes. None of these proposals has received the approval of two thirds of Congress and three fourths of the states required to amend the Constitution.[282] Ziblatt and Levitsky argue that America has by far the most difficult constitution to amend, which is why reform efforts have only stalled in America.[283]\n1969–1970: Bayh–Celler amendment\nThe closest the United States has come to abolishing the Electoral College occurred during the 91st Congress (1969–1971).[284] The 1968 election resulted in Richard Nixon receiving 301 electoral votes (56% of electors), Hubert Humphrey 191 (35.5%), and George Wallace 46 (8.5%) with 13.5% of the popular vote. However, Nixon had received only 511,944 more popular votes than Humphrey, 43.5% to 42.9%, less than 1% of the national total.[285][non-primary source needed]\nRepresentative Emanuel Celler (D–New York), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, responded to public concerns over the disparity between the popular vote and electoral vote by introducing House Joint Resolution 681, a proposed Constitutional amendment that would have replaced the Electoral College with a simpler plurality system based on the national popular vote. With this system, the pair of candidates (running for president and vice-president) who had received the highest number of votes would win the presidency and vice presidency provided they won at least 40% of the national popular vote. If no pair received 40% of the popular vote, a runoff election would be held in which the choice of president and vice president would be made from the two pairs of persons who had received the highest number of votes in the first election.[286]\nOn April 29, 1969, the House Judiciary Committee voted 28 to 6 to approve the proposal.[287] Debate on the proposal before the full House of Representatives ended on September 11, 1969[288] and was eventually passed with bipartisan support on September 18, 1969, by a vote of 339 to 70.[289]\nOn September 30, 1969, President Nixon gave his endorsement for adoption of the proposal, encouraging the Senate to pass its version of the proposal, which had been sponsored as Senate Joint Resolution 1 by Senator Birch Bayh (D–Indiana).[290]\nOn October 8, 1969, the New York Times reported that 30 state legislatures were "either certain or likely to approve a constitutional amendment embodying the direct election plan if it passes its final Congressional test in the Senate." Ratification of 38 state legislatures would have been needed for adoption. The paper also reported that six other states had yet to state a preference, six were leaning toward opposition, and eight were solidly opposed.[291]\nOn August 14, 1970, the Senate Judiciary Committee sent its report advocating passage of the proposal to the full Senate. The Judiciary Committee had approved the proposal by a vote of 11 to 6. The six members who opposed the plan, Democratic senators James Eastland of Mississippi, John Little McClellan of Arkansas, and Sam Ervin of North Carolina, along with Republican senators Roman Hruska of Nebraska, Hiram Fong of Hawaii, and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, all argued that although the present system had potential loopholes, it had worked well throughout the years. Senator Bayh indicated that supporters of the measure were about a dozen votes shy from the 67 needed for the proposal to pass the full Senate.[292] He called upon President Nixon to attempt to persuade undecided Republican senators to support the proposal.[293] However, Nixon, while not reneging on his previous endorsement, chose not to make any further personal appeals to back the proposal.[294]\nOn September 8, 1970, the Senate commenced openly debating the proposal,[295] and the proposal was quickly filibustered. The lead objectors to the proposal were mostly Southern senators and conservatives from small states, both Democrats and Republicans, who argued that abolishing the Electoral College would reduce their states\' political influence.[294] On September 17, 1970, a motion for cloture, which would have ended the filibuster, received 54 votes to 36 for cloture,[294] failing to receive the then-required two-thirds majority of senators voting.[296] [non-primary source needed] A second motion for cloture on September 29, 1970, also failed, by 53 to 34. Thereafter, the Senate majority leader, Mike Mansfield of Montana, moved to lay the proposal aside so the Senate could attend to other business.[297] However, the proposal was never considered again and died when the 91st Congress ended on January 3, 1971.\nCarter proposal\nOn March 22, 1977, President Jimmy Carter wrote a letter of reform to Congress that also included his expression of abolishing the Electoral College. The letter read in part:\nMy fourth recommendation is that the Congress adopt a Constitutional amendment to provide for direct popular election of the President. Such an amendment, which would abolish the Electoral College, will ensure that the candidate chosen by the voters actually becomes president. Under the Electoral College, it is always possible that the winner of the popular vote will not be elected. This has already happened in three elections, 1824, 1876, and 1888. In the last election, the result could have been changed by a small shift of votes in Ohio and Hawaii, despite a popular vote difference of 1.7 million. I do not recommend a Constitutional amendment lightly. I think the amendment process must be reserved for an issue of overriding governmental significance. But the method by which we elect our President is such an issue. I will not be proposing a specific direct election amendment. I prefer to allow the Congress to proceed with its work without the interruption of a new proposal.[298]\nPresident Carter\'s proposed program for the reform of the Electoral College was very liberal for a modern president during this time, and in some aspects of the package, it went beyond original expectations.[299] Newspapers like The New York Times saw President Carter\'s proposal at that time as "a modest surprise" because of the indication of Carter that he would be interested in only eliminating the electors but retaining the electoral vote system in a modified form.[299]\nNewspaper reaction to Carter\'s proposal ranged from some editorials praising the proposal to other editorials, like that in the Chicago Tribune, criticizing the president for proposing the end of the Electoral College.[300]\nIn a letter to The New York Times, Representative Jonathan B. Bingham (D-New York) highlighted the danger of the "flawed, outdated mechanism of the Electoral College" by underscoring how a shift of fewer than 10,000 votes in two key states would have led to President Gerald Ford winning the 1976 election despite Jimmy Carter\'s nationwide 1.7 million-vote margin.[301]\nRecent proposals to abolish\nSince January 3, 2019, joint resolutions have been made proposing constitutional amendments that would replace the Electoral College with the popular election of the president and vice president.[302][303] Unlike the Bayh–Celler amendment, with its 40% threshold for election, these proposals do not require a candidate to achieve a certain percentage of votes to be elected.[304][305][306][non-primary source needed]\nNational Popular Vote Interstate Compact\nAs of April 2024, seventeen states plus the District of Columbia have joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.[307][308][better source needed] Those joining the compact will, acting together if and when reflecting a majority of electors (at least 270), pledge their electors to the winner of the national popular vote. The compact applies Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which gives each state legislature the plenary power to determine how it chooses electors.\nSome scholars have suggested that Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution requires congressional consent before the compact could be enforceable;[309] thus, any attempted implementation of the compact without congressional consent could face court challenges to its constitutionality. Others have suggested that the compact\'s legality was strengthened by Chiafalo v. Washington, in which the Supreme Court upheld the power of states to enforce electors\' pledges.[310][311]\nThe eighteen adherents of the compact have 209 electors, which is 77% of the 270 required for it to take effect, or be considered justiciable.[307][better source needed]\nLitigation based on the 14th amendment\nIt has been argued by the advocacy group Equal Citizens that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution bars the winner-takes-all apportionment of electors by the states. According to this argument, the votes of the losing party are discarded entirely, thereby leading to an unequal position between different voters in the same state.[312] Lawsuits have been filed to this end in California, Massachusetts, Texas and South Carolina, though all have been unsuccessful.[312]\nSee also\n- Democratic backsliding in the United States\n- List of United States presidential elections by Electoral College margin\n- List of U.S. states and territories by population\n- Lists of United States presidential electors (2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, 2024)\n- Trump fake electors plot\n- Voter turnout in United States presidential elections\nNotes\n- ^ The constitutional convention of 1787 had rejected presidential selection by direct popular vote.[6] That being the case, election mechanics based on an electoral college were devised to render selection of the president independent of both state legislatures and the national legislature.[7]\n- ^ Writing in the policy journal National Affairs, Allen Guelzo argues, "it is worthwhile to deal directly with three popular arguments against the Electoral College. The first, that the Electoral College violates the principle of "one man, one vote". In assigning electoral college votes by winner-take-all, the states themselves violate the one-person-one-vote principle. Hillary Clinton won 61.5% of the California vote, and she received all 55 of California\'s electoral votes as a result. The disparity in Illinois was "even more dramatic". Clinton won that state\'s popular vote 3.1 million to 2.1 million, and that 59.6% share granted her Illinois\'s 20 electoral votes.[8]\n- ^ Although faithless electors have never changed the outcome of a state popular vote, or the national total, that scenario was further weakened by the 2020 court case Chiafalo v. Washington.[13]\n- ^ Arizona, Idaho, Louisiana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee\n- ^ "It was ... peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible [in the election of the President] to tumult and disorder. ... [The] precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of several, to form an intermediate body of Electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community, with any extraordinary or violent movements... [As] the Electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated [to] them [by] the People, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place."\n- ^ Section 1 of the 25th Amendment superseded the text of the Presidential Succession Clause of Article II, Section I that stated "In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President". Instead, Section 1 of the 25th Amendment provides that "In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President." Section 2 of the 25th Amendment authorizes the president to nominate a vice president in the event of a vacancy subject to confirmation by both houses of Congress.[189][190]\n- ^ In 1841, the death of William Henry Harrison as president caused debate in Congress about whether John Tyler had formally succeeded to the Presidency or whether he was an acting president. Tyler took the oath of office and Congress implicitly ratified Tyler\'s decision in documents published subsequent to his ascension that referred to him as "the President of the United States". Tyler\'s ascension set the precedent that the vice president becomes the president in the event of a vacancy until the ratification of the 25th Amendment.[191]\n- ^ For nearly one-fourth of the period of time from 1792 to 1886, the Vice Presidency was vacant due to the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln and James A. Garfield in 1865 and 1881 respectively, the deaths of Presidents William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor in 1841 and 1850 respectively, the deaths of vice presidents George Clinton, Elbridge Gerry, William R. King, Henry Wilson, and Thomas A. Hendricks in 1812, 1814, 1853, 1875, and 1885 respectively, and the resignation of the vice presidency by John C. Calhoun in 1832.[194][195]\n- ^ California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia\n- ^ Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon\n- ^ Americans favored a Constitutional Amendment to elect the president by a nationwide popular vote on average 61% and those for electoral college selection 35%. In 2016 polling, the gap closed to 51% direct election versus 44% electoral college. By 2020, American thinking had again diverged with 58% for direct election versus 40% for the electoral college choosing a president.[250]\nReferences\n- ^ "Article II". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved March 7, 2024.\n- ^ Karimi, Faith (October 10, 2020). "Why the Electoral College has long been controversial". CNN. Retrieved December 31, 2021.\n- ^ Keim, Andy. "Mitch McConnell Defends the Electoral College". The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved December 31, 2021.\n- ^ a b Bolotnikova, Marina N. (July 6, 2020). "Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?". Harvard Magazine.\n- ^ Ziblatt, Daniel; Levitsky, Steven (September 5, 2023). "How American Democracy Fell So Far Behind". The Atlantic. Retrieved September 20, 2023.\n- ^ Beeman 2010, pp. 129–130\n- ^ Beeman 2010, p. 135\n- ^ Guelzo, Allen (April 2, 2018). "In Defense of the Electoral College". National Affairs. Retrieved November 5, 2020.\n- ^ a b Lounsbury, Jud (November 17, 2016). "One Person One Vote? Depends on Where You Live". The Progressive. Madison, Wisconsin: Progressive, Inc. Retrieved August 14, 2020.\n- ^ Neale, Thomas H. (October 6, 2017). "Electoral College Reform: Contemporary Issues for Congress" (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved October 24, 2020.\n- ^ a b Mahler, Jonathan; Eder, Steve (November 10, 2016). "The Electoral College Is Hated by Many. So Why Does It Endure?". The New York Times. Retrieved January 5, 2019.\n- ^ a b West, Darrell M. (2020). "It\'s Time to Abolish the Electoral College" (PDF).\n- ^ a b "Should We Abolish the Electoral College?". Stanford Magazine. September 2016. Retrieved September 3, 2020.\n- ^ a b Tropp, Rachel (February 21, 2017). "The Case Against the Electoral College". Harvard Political Review. Archived from the original on August 5, 2020. Retrieved January 5, 2019.\n- ^ a b Collin, Richard Oliver; Martin, Pamela L. (January 1, 2012). An Introduction to World Politics: Conflict and Consensus on a Small Planet. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9781442218031.\n- ^ Levitsky, Steven; Ziblatt, Daniel (2023). Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point (First ed.). New York: Crown. ISBN 978-0-593-44307-1.\n- ^ Statutes at Large, 28th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 721.\n- ^ Neale, Thomas H. (January 17, 2021). "The Electoral College: A 2020 Presidential Election Timeline". Congressional Research Service. Archived from the original on November 9, 2020. Retrieved November 19, 2020.\n- ^ a b c "What is the Electoral College?". National Archives. December 23, 2019. Retrieved September 27, 2020.\n- ^ "Distribution of Electoral Votes". National Archives. March 6, 2020. Retrieved September 27, 2020.\n- ^ "Faithless Elector State Laws". Fair Vote. July 7, 2020. Retrieved July 7, 2020.\nThere are 33 states (plus the District of Columbia) that require electors to vote for a pledged candidate. Most of those states (16 plus DC) nonetheless do not provide for any penalty or any mechanism to prevent the deviant vote from counting as cast.\n- ^ a b c "S.4573 - Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022". October 18, 2022. Retrieved June 28, 2024.\n- ^ a b Counting Electoral Votes: An Overview of Procedures at the Joint Session, Including Objections by Members of Congress (Report). Congressional Research Service. December 8, 2020. Retrieved April 17, 2024.\n- ^ "Vision 2020: What happens if the US election is contested?". AP NEWS. September 16, 2020. Retrieved September 18, 2020.\n- ^ a b c Neale, Thomas H. (May 15, 2017). "The Electoral College: How It Works in Contemporary Presidential Elections" (PDF). CRS Report for Congress. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service. p. 13. Retrieved July 29, 2018.\n- ^ Elhauge, Einer R. "Essays on Article II: Presidential Electors". The Heritage Guide to The Constitution. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved August 6, 2018.\n- ^ Ross, Tara (2017). The Indispensable Electoral College: How the Founders\' Plan Saves Our Country from Mob Rule. Washington, D.C.: Regenary Gateway. p. 26. ISBN 978-1-62157-707-2.\n- ^ United States Government Printing Office. "Presidential Electors for D.C. – Twenty-third Amendment" (PDF).\n- ^ a b Murriel, Maria (November 1, 2016). "Millions of Americans can\'t vote for president because of where they live". PRI\'s The World. Retrieved September 5, 2019.\n- ^ King, Ledyard (May 7, 2019). "Puerto Rico: At the center of a political storm, but can its residents vote for president?". USA Today. Archived from the original on July 31, 2020. Retrieved September 6, 2019.\n- ^ a b c Levitsky, Steven; Ziblatt, Daniel (2023). "Chapter 5". Tyranny of the Minority: why American democracy reached the breaking point. New York: Crown. ISBN 978-0-593-44307-1.\n- ^ "Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: May 29". Avalon Project. Retrieved April 13, 2011.\n- ^ Senate.gov.\n- ^ "Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: June 2". Avalon Project. Retrieved April 13, 2011.\n- ^ Matt Riffe, "James Wilson," Constitution Center>\n- ^ "Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: September 4". Avalon Project. Retrieved April 13, 2011.\n- ^ Mayer, William G. (November 15, 2008). The Making of the Presidential Candidates 2008. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7425-4719-3 – via Google Books.\n- ^ "James Wilson, popular sovereignty, and the Electoral College". National Constitution Center. November 28, 2016. Retrieved April 9, 2019.\n- ^ "The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 by James Madison" (PDF). Ashland University. Retrieved July 30, 2020.\n- ^ Records of the Federal Convention, p. 57 Farrand\'s Records, Volume 2, A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774–1875, Library of Congress\n- ^ "Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: September 6". Avalon Project. Retrieved April 13, 2011.\n- ^ "September 4, 1787: The Electoral College (U.S. National Park Service)". www.nps.gov.\n- ^ Madison, James (1966). Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787. The Norton Library. p. 294. ASIN B003G6AKX2.\n- ^ Patrick, John J.; Pious, Richard M.; Ritchie, Donald A. (2001). The Oxford Guide to the United States Government. Oxford University Press, USA. p. 208. ISBN 978-0-19-514273-0.\n- ^ "The Federalist 39". Avalon Project. Retrieved April 13, 2011.\n- ^ a b c Hamilton. The Federalist Papers: No. 68 The Avalon Project, Yale Law School. viewed November 10, 2016.\n- ^ The Twelfth Amendment changed this to the top three candidates,\n- ^ The Federalist Papers: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay The New American Library, 1961.\n- ^ "U. S. Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions". archives.gov. September 19, 2019.\n- ^ Chang, Stanley (2007). "Updating the Electoral College: The National Popular Vote Legislation" (PDF). Harvard Journal on Legislation. 44 (205, at 208). Cambridge, MA: President and Fellows of Harvard College. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 4, 2022. Retrieved May 28, 2020.\n- ^ a b Hamilton, Alexander. "The Federalist Papers : No. 68", The Avalon Project, 2008. From the Lillian Goldman Law Library. Retrieved 22 Jan 2022.\n- ^ Hamilton, Alexander. Draft of a Resolution for the Legislature of New York for the Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, 29 January 1802, National Archives, Founders Online, viewed March 2, 2019.\n- ^ Describing how the Electoral College was designed to work, Alexander Hamilton wrote, "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations [decisions regarding the selection of a president]." (Hamilton, Federalist 68). Hamilton strongly believed this was to be done district by district, and when states began doing otherwise, he proposed a constitutional amendment to mandate the district system (Hamilton, Draft of a Constitutional Amendment). Madison concurred, "The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted." (Madison to Hay, 1823 Archived May 25, 2017, at the Wayback Machine)\n- ^ William C. Kimberling, Essays in Elections: The Electoral College (1992).\n- ^ "Ray v. Blair". LII / Legal Information Institute.\n- ^ VanFossen, Phillip J. (November 4, 2020). "Who invented the Electoral College?". The Conversation.\n- ^ "WashU Expert: Electoral College ruling contradicts Founders\' \'original intent\' – The Source – Washington University in St. Louis". The Source. July 6, 2020.\n- ^ Staff, TIME (November 17, 2016). "The Electoral College Was Created to Stop Demagogues Like Trump". TIME.\n- ^ Robert Schlesinger, "Not Your Founding Fathers\' Electoral College," U.S. News and World Report, December 27, 2016.\n- ^ "Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3: [Selection of Electors, 1796—1832], McPherson v. Blacker". press-pubs.uchicago.edu.\n- ^ "Electoral College". history.com. A+E Networks. Retrieved August 6, 2018.\n- ^ Davis, Kenneth C. (2003). Don\'t Know Much About History: Everything You Need to Know About American History but Never Learned (1st ed.). New York: HarperCollins. p. 620. ISBN 978-0-06-008381-6.\n- ^ "Today in History – February 17". Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.\n- ^ Jr, Arthur Schlesinger (March 6, 2002). "Not the People\'s Choice". The American Prospect.\n- ^ Alexander, Robert M. (April 1, 2019). Representation and the Electoral College. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-093944-1 – via Google Books.\n- ^ a b "Federalist No. 68". The Avalon Project.\n- ^ Justice Robert Jackson, Ray v. Blair, dissent, 1952\n- ^ "Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U.S. ___ (2020)". Justia Law.\n- ^ "A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875". memory.loc.gov.\n- ^ a b "Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3: Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1449—52, 1454—60, 1462—67". press-pubs.uchicago.edu.\n- ^ a b "Founders Online: Draft of a Resolution for the Legislature of New York for the ..." founders.archives.gov.\n- ^ a b "James Madison to George Hay, 23 August 1823". May 25, 2017. Archived from the original on May 25, 2017.\n- ^ Michener, James A. (April 15, 2014). Presidential Lottery: The Reckless Gamble in Our Electoral System. Random House Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-8041-5160-3 – via Google Books.\n- ^ a b Senate, United States Congress (November 3, 1961). "Hearings". U.S. Government Printing Office – via Google Books.\n- ^ "Resolves of the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Passed at Their Session, which Commenced on Wednesday, the Thirty First of May, and Ended on the Seventeenth of June, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty. Published Agreeably to Resolve of 16th January, 1812. Boston, Russell & Gardner, for B. Russell, 1820; [repr". Boston Book Company. January 1, 1820 – via Google Books.\n- ^ Nash, Darrel A. (May 1, 2018). A Perspective on How Our Government Was Built And Some Needed Changes. Dorrance Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4809-7915-4 – via Google Books.\n- ^ a b "How the Electoral College Became Winner-Take-All". FairVote. August 21, 2012. Retrieved February 13, 2024.\n- ^ "Electoral College". The Charlatan | The Exposé of Politics & Style.\n- ^ a b "Founders Online: James Madison to George Hay, 23 August 1823". Archived from the original on May 25, 2017.\n- ^ "Founders Online: Draft of a Resolution for the Legislature of New York for the ..." founders.archives.gov.\n- ^ "Founders Online: From James Madison to George Hay, 23 August 1823". founders.archives.gov.\n- ^ "Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to George Hay, 17 August 1823". founders.archives.gov.\n- ^ "1788 Election For the First Term, 1789–1793". U. S. Electoral College. U.S. National Archives. Archived from the original on June 1, 2006. Retrieved April 19, 2017.\n- ^ Stephens, Frank Fletcher. The transitional period, 1788-1789, in the government of the United States, University of Missouri Press, 1909, pp. 67-74.\n- ^ "United States presidential election of 1789". Encyclopedia Britannica. September 19, 2013. Retrieved April 19, 2017.\n- ^ a b Presidential Elections 1789–1996. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 1997, ISBN 978-1-5680-2065-5, pp. 9–10.\n- ^ Presidential Elections 1789–1996. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 1997, ISBN 978-1-5680-2065-5, pp. 10–11.\n- ^ "Batan v. McMaster, No. 19-1297 (4th Cir., 2020), p. 5" (PDF).\n- ^ Presidential Elections 1789–1996. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 1997, ISBN 978-1-5680-2065-5, p. 11.\n- ^ Gore, D\'Angelo (December 23, 2016). "Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote". FactCheck.org.\n- ^ Apportionment by State (PDF), House of Representatives, History, Art & Archives, viewed January 27, 2019. Unlike composition in the College, from 1803 to 1846, the U.S. Senate sustained parity between free-soil and slave-holding states. Later a run of free-soil states, including Iowa, Wisconsin, California, Minnesota, Oregon and Kansas, were admitted before the outbreak of the Civil War.\n- ^ U.S. Constitution Transcript, held at the U.S. National Archives, viewed online on February 5, 2019.\n- ^ Brian D. Humes, Elaine K. Swift, Richard M. Valelly, Kenneth Finegold, and Evelyn C. Fink, "Representation of the Antebellum South in the House of Representatives: Measuring the Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause" in David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Party, Process and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress (2002), Stanford University Press ISBN 978-0-8047-4571-0 p. 453, and Table 15.1, "Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause on Slave and Nonslave Representation (1790–1861)", p. 454.\n- ^ Leonard L. Richards, Slave Power: The Free North and Southern Domination, 1780–1860 (2001), referenced in a review at Humanities and Social Sciences Net Online, viewed February 2, 2019.\n- ^ Brian D. Humes, et al. "Representation of the Antebellum South in the House of Representatives: Measuring the Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause" in David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Party, Process and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress (2002), Stanford University Press, ISBN 978-0-8047-4571-0, pp. 464–65, Table 16.6, "Impact of the Three-fifths Clause on the Electoral College, 1792–1860". The continuing, uninterrupted northern free-soil majority margin in the Electoral College would have been significantly smaller had slaves been counter-factually counted as whole persons, but still the South would have been a minority in the Electoral College over these sixty-eight years.\n- ^ Brian D. Humes, et al. "Representation of the Antebellum South in the House of Representatives: Measuring the Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause" in David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Party, Process and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress (2002), Stanford University Press ISBN 978-0-8047-4571-0, pp. 454–55.\n- ^ Brian D. Humes, Elaine K. Swift, Richard M. Valley, Kenneth Finegold, and Evelyn C. Fink, "Representation of the Antebellum South in the House of Representatives: Measuring the Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause", Chapter 15 in David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Party, Process and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress (2002), Stanford University Press ISBN 978-0-8047-4571-0, p. 453, and Table 15.1, "Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause on Slave and Nonslave Representation (1790–1861)", p. 454.\n- ^ Wills, Garry (2005). Negro President: Jefferson and the Slave Power. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. pp. 1–3. ISBN 978-0618485376.\n- ^ Wilentz, Sean (April 4, 2019). "Opinion | The Electoral College Was Not a Pro-Slavery Ploy". The New York Times. Retrieved May 20, 2020.\n- ^ Brian D. Humes, et al. "Representation of the Antebellum South in the House of Representatives: Measuring the Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause" in David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Party, Process and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress (2002), Stanford University Press, ISBN 978-0-8047-4571-0, p. 464.\n- ^ Constitution of the United States: A Transcription, online February 9, 2019. See Article I, Section 9, and in Article IV, Section 2.\n- ^ First Census of the United States, Chapter III in "A Century of Population Growth from the first Census", volume 900, United States Census Office, 1909 In the 1790, Virginia\'s...population was 747,610, Pennsylvania was 433,633. (p. 8). Virginia had 59.1 percent white and 1.7 percent free black counted whole, and 39.1 percent, or 292,315 counted three-fifths, or a 175,389 number for congressional apportionment. Pennsylvania had 97.5 percent white and 1.6 percent free black, and 0.9 percent slave, or 7,372 persons, p. 82.\n- ^ Amar, Akhil (November 10, 2016). "The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists". Time.\n- ^ Tally of Electoral Votes for the 1800 Presidential Election, February 11, 1801, National Archives, The Center for Legislative Archives, viewed January 27, 2019.\n- ^ Foner, Eric (2010). The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery. W.W. Norton & Company. p. 16. ISBN 978-0393080827.\n- ^ Guelzo, Adam; Hulme, James (November 15, 2016). "In Defense of the Electoral College". The Washington Post.\n- ^ a b c d e Benner, Dave (November 15, 2016). "Blog: Cherry Picking James Madison". Abbeville Institute.\n- ^ The Fourteenth Amendment from America Book 9 (archived from the original on 2011-10-27)\n- ^ The selected papers of Thaddeus Stevens, v. 2, Stevens, Thaddeus, 1792–1868, Palmer, Beverly Wilson, 1936, Ochoa, Holly Byers, 1951, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, Digital Research Library, 2011, pp. 135–36.\n- ^ Dovere, Edward-Isaac (September 9, 2020). "The Deadline That Could Hand Trump the Election". The Atlantic. Retrieved November 9, 2020.\n- ^ "U.S.C. Title 3 - THE PRESIDENT". 2011. Retrieved June 28, 2024.\n- ^ a b c Zak, Dan (November 16, 2016). "The electoral college isn\'t a real place: But someone has to answer all the angry phone calls these days". Washington Post. Retrieved November 21, 2016.\n- ^ 3 U.S.C. § 15\n- ^ "What is the Electoral College?". U.S. Electoral College. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved August 2, 2018.\n- ^ McCarthy, Devin. "How the Electoral College Became Winner-Take-All". Fairvote. Archived from the original on March 10, 2014. Retrieved November 22, 2014.\n- ^ a b "The Electoral College – Maine and Nebraska". FairVote. Archived from the original on October 12, 2011. Retrieved November 16, 2011.\n- ^ "The Electoral College". National Conference of State Legislatures. November 11, 2020. Retrieved November 15, 2020.\n- ^ The present allotment of electors by state is shown in the Electoral vote distribution section.\n- ^ The number of electors allocated to each state is based on Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution, subject to being reduced pursuant to Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment.\n- ^ Table C2. Apportionment Population and Number of Seats in U.S. House of Representatives by State: 1910 to 2020 U.S. 2020 Census.\n- ^ Table 1. Apportionment Population and Number of Representatives by State U.S. 2020 Census.\n- ^ Distribution of Electoral Votes U.S. National Archives.\n- ^ "How is the president elected? Here is a basic guide to the electoral college system". Raw Story. October 25, 2016.\n- ^ Sabrina Eaton (October 29, 2004). "Brown learns he can\'t serve as Kerry elector, steps down" (PDF). Cleveland Plain Dealer (reprint at Edison Research). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 10, 2011. Retrieved January 3, 2008.\n- ^ Darrell J. Kozlowski (2010). Federalism. Infobase Publishing. pp. 33–34. ISBN 978-1-60413-218-2.\n- ^ "Write-in Votes". electoral-vote.com. Retrieved August 3, 2020.\n- ^ "Planning to write in Paul Ryan or Bernie Sanders? It won\'t count in most states". The Washington Post. November 3, 2015.\n- ^ a b "Maine & Nebraska". FairVote. Takoma Park, Maryland. Archived from the original on August 2, 2018. Retrieved August 1, 2018.\n- ^ "About the Electors". U.S. Electoral College. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved August 2, 2018.\n- ^ "Split Electoral Votes in Maine and Nebraska". 270 to Win. Retrieved August 1, 2018.\n- ^ 3 U.S.C. § 1 A uniform national date for presidential elections was not set until 1845, although the Congress always had constitutional authority to do so. — Kimberling, William C. (1992) The Electoral College, p. 7\n- ^ "Electoral College Instructions to State Officials" (PDF). National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved January 22, 2014.\n- ^ District of Columbia Certificate of Ascertainment (archived from the original on 2006-03-05)\n- ^ "Twelfth Amendment". FindLaw. Retrieved August 26, 2010.\n- ^ "Twenty-third Amendment". FindLaw. Retrieved August 26, 2010.\n- ^ "U.S.C. § 7 : US Code – Section 7: Meeting and vote of electors". FindLaw. Retrieved August 26, 2010.\n- ^ "U.S. Electoral College – For State Officials". National Archives and Records Administration. Archived from the original on October 25, 2012. Retrieved November 7, 2012.\n- ^ "Congress meets to count electoral votes". NBC News. Associated Press. January 9, 2009. Retrieved April 5, 2012.\n- ^ Kuroda, Tadahisa (1994). The Origins of the Twelfth Amendment: The Electoral College in the Early Republic, 1787–1804. Greenwood. p. 168. ISBN 978-0-313-29151-7.\n- ^ Johnson, Linda S. (November 2, 2020). "Electors seldom go rogue in casting a state\'s votes for president". Retrieved November 9, 2020.\n- ^ "Faithless Elector State Laws". Fair Vote. Retrieved July 25, 2020.\n- ^ Penrose, Drew (March 19, 2020). "Faithless Electors". Fair Vote. Archived from the original on February 9, 2021. Retrieved March 19, 2020.\n- ^ Chernow, Ron. Alexander Hamilton. New York: Penguin, 2004. p. 514.\n- ^ Bomboy, Scott (December 19, 2016). "The one election where Faithless Electors made a difference". Constitution Daily. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: National Constitution Center. Retrieved March 17, 2020.\n- ^ Barrow, Bill (November 19, 2016). "Q&A: Electors almost always follow the vote in their state". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on November 20, 2016. Retrieved November 19, 2016.\n- ^ Williams, Pete (July 6, 2020). "Supreme Court rules \'faithless electors\' can\'t go rogue at Electoral College". NBC News. Retrieved July 6, 2020.\n- ^ Howe, Amy (July 6, 2020). "Opinion analysis: Court upholds \'faithless elector\' laws". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved July 6, 2020.\n- ^ Guzmán, Natasha (October 22, 2016). "How Are Electors Selected For The Electoral College? This Historic Election Process Decides The Winner". Bustle. Retrieved July 6, 2020.\n- ^ "The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted." Constitution of the United States: Amendments 11–27, National Archives and Records Administration.\n- ^ a b 3 U.S.C. § 15, Counting electoral votes in Congress.\n- ^ "EXPLAINER: How Congress will count Electoral College votes". AP NEWS. December 15, 2020. Retrieved December 19, 2020.\n- ^ David A. McKnight (1878). The Electoral System of the United States: A Critical and Historical Exposition of Its Fundamental Principles in the Constitution and the Acts and Proceedings of Congress Enforcing It. Wm. S. Hein Publishing. p. 313. ISBN 978-0-8377-2446-1.\n- ^ Blakemore, Erin (January 5, 2021). "The 1876 election was the most divisive in U.S. history. Here\'s how Congress responded". National Geographic. Archived from the original on January 6, 2021.\n- ^ Williams, Brenna. "11 times electoral vote count was interrupted". CNN. Retrieved June 28, 2022.\n- ^ "The House just rejected an objection to Pennsylvania\'s electoral vote". CNN. January 6, 2021. Retrieved January 7, 2021.\n- ^ "Objections To Four Swing States\' Electors Fall Flat After Senators Refuse To Participate; Hawley Forces Debate On Pennsylvania". forbes.com. January 7, 2020.\n- ^ "RL30804: The Electoral College: An Overview and Analysis of Reform Proposals, L. Paige Whitaker and Thomas H. Neale, January 16, 2001". Ncseonline.org. Archived from the original on June 28, 2011. Retrieved August 26, 2010.\n- ^ Longley, Lawrence D.; Peirce, Neal R. (1999). "The Electoral College Primer 2000". Yale University Press. New Haven, CT: 13.\n- ^ "Election evolves into \'perfect\' electoral storm". USA Today. December 12, 2000. Archived from the original on May 15, 2006. Retrieved June 8, 2016.\n- ^ "Senate Journal from 1837". Memory.loc.gov. Retrieved August 26, 2010.\n- ^ Rossiter 2003, p. 410.\n- ^ Chiafalo v. Washington, No. 19-465, 591 U.S. ___, slip op. at 16–17 (2020)\n- ^ Shelly, Jacob D. (July 10, 2020). Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Electoral College: States May Restrict Faithless Electors (Report). Congressional Research Service. p. 3. Retrieved July 10, 2023.\n- ^ a b Neale 2020b, p. 4.\n- ^ Senate Journal 42(3), pp. 334–337.\n- ^ Senate Journal 42(3), p. 346.\n- ^ Donald, David Herbert (1996). Lincoln. New York, New York: Simon and Schuster. pp. 273–279. ISBN 978-0-684-82535-9.\n- ^ Holzer, Harold (2008). Lincoln President-elect: Abraham Lincoln and the Great Secession Winter, 1860-1861. Simon & Schuster. p. 378. ISBN 978-0-7432-8947-4.\n- ^ Jeansonne, Glen (2012). The Life of Herbert Hoover: Fighting Quaker, 1928-1933. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 44–45. ISBN 978-1-137-34673-5. Retrieved May 20, 2016.\n- ^ "The Museum Exhibit Galleries, Gallery 5: The Logical Candidate, The President-Elect". West Branch, Iowa: Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and Museum. Archived from the original on March 6, 2016. Retrieved February 24, 2016.\n- ^ Continuity of Government Commission 2009, pp. 31–32.\n- ^ Picchi, Blaise (1998). The Five Weeks of Giuseppe Zangara : The Man Who Would Assassinate FDR. Chicago: Academy Chicago Publishers. pp. 19–20. ISBN 9780897334433. OCLC 38468505.\n- ^ Oliver, Willard; Marion, Nancy E. (2010). Killing the President: Assassinations, Attempts, and Rumored Attempts on U.S. Commanders-in-Chief: Assassinations, Attempts, and Rumored Attempts on U.S. Commanders-in-Chief. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9780313364754.\n- ^ Hunsicker, A. (2007). The Fine Art of Executive Protection: Handbook for the Executive Protection Officer. Universal-Publishers. ISBN 9781581129847.\n- ^ Russo, Gus; Molton, Stephen (2010). Brothers in Arms: The Kennedys, the Castros, and the Politics of Murder. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. ISBN 978-1-60819-247-2.\n- ^ Greene, Bob (October 24, 2010). "The man who did not kill JFK". CNN.\n- ^ "Dirty Bomb parts found in Slain man\'s home". February 10, 2009.\n- ^ Jeff Zeleny; Jim Rutenberg (December 5, 2009). "Threats Against Obama Spiked Early". The New York Times.\n- ^ Piazza, Jo; Meek, James Gordon; Kennedy, Helen (August 27, 2008). "Feds: Trio of would-be Obama assassins not much of "threat"". New York Daily News. Retrieved September 1, 2008.\n- ^ Date, Jack (October 27, 2008). "Feds thwart alleged Obama assassination plot". ABC News. Retrieved October 28, 2008.\n- ^ Herb, Kristen Holmes,Jeremy (November 23, 2020). "First on CNN: Key government agency acknowledges Biden\'s win and begins formal transition | CNN Politics". CNN. Retrieved July 29, 2024.\n{{cite web}}\n: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Winsor, Morgan; Pereira, Ivan; Mansell, William (January 7, 2021). "4 dead after US Capitol breached by pro-Trump mob during \'failed insurrection\'". ABC News.\n- ^ a b Neale 2020b, pp. 5–6.\n- ^ Rossiter 2003, p. 564.\n- ^ Amar, Akhil Reed (1995). "Presidents, Vice Presidents, and Death: Closing the Constitution\'s Succession Gap" (PDF). Arkansas Law Review. 48. University of Arkansas School of Law: 215–221. Retrieved July 3, 2023.\n- ^ Neale 2020b, pp. 2–3.\n- ^ a b Neale 2020b, pp. 3–4.\n- ^ Rossiter 2003, p. 551.\n- ^ Neale 2020a, pp. 6–7.\n- ^ Rossiter 2003, p. 567.\n- ^ Neale 2020a, pp. 3–4.\n- ^ Continuity of Government Commission 2009, pp. 25–26.\n- ^ Neale 2020a, p. 3.\n- ^ Continuity of Government Commission 2009, pp. 66–67.\n- ^ Neale 2020a, pp. 25–26.\n- ^ Continuity of Government Commission 2009, pp. 26–30.\n- ^ Neale 2020a, p. 4.\n- ^ Continuity of Government Commission 2009, pp. 32–33, 64–65.\n- ^ Neale 2020a, pp. 4–6.\n- ^ Continuity of Government Commission 2009, pp. 45–49.\n- ^ Continuity of Government Commission 2009, pp. 39, 47.\n- ^ Rossiter 2003, p. 560.\n- ^ Neale 2020a, pp. 1–7.\n- ^ "2020 Census Apportionment Results". Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau. April 26, 2021. Retrieved April 26, 2021. Each state\'s number of electoral votes is equal to its total congressional representation (its number of Representatives plus its two Senators).\n- ^ "Winners and losers from first release of 2020 census data". Associated Press. April 26, 2021.\n- ^ Moore, John L., ed. (1985). Congressional Quarterly\'s Guide to U.S. Elections (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, Inc. pp. 254–56.\n- ^ Bush v. Gore, (Justice Stevens dissenting) (quote in second paragraph).\n- ^ Moore, John L., ed. (1985). Congressional Quarterly\'s Guide to U.S. Elections (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, Inc. p. 255.\n- ^ a b c d e Kolodny, Robin (1996). "The Several Elections of 1824". Congress & the Presidency. 23 (2): 139–64. doi:10.1080/07343469609507834. ISSN 0734-3469.\n- ^ "Election 101" (PDF). Princeton Press. Princeton University Press. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 2, 2014. Retrieved November 22, 2014.\n- ^ Black, Eric (October 14, 2012). "Our Electoral College system is weird – and not in a good way". MinnPost. Retrieved November 22, 2014.\n- ^ a b c d Moore, John L., ed. (1985). Congressional Quarterly\'s Guide to U.S. Elections (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, Inc. p. 266.\n- ^ "Legislative Action?, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, November 30, 2000". Pbs.org. Archived from the original on January 24, 2001. Retrieved August 26, 2010.\n- ^ Moore, John L., ed. (1985). Congressional Quarterly\'s Guide to U.S. Elections (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, Inc. p. 254.\n- ^ a b c "Fiddling with the Rules". Franklin & Marshall College. March 9, 2005. Archived from the original on September 3, 2006. Retrieved August 26, 2010.\n- ^ Henderson, Nia-Malika; Haines, Errin (January 25, 2013). "Republicans in Virginia, other states seeking electoral college changes". washingtonpost.com. Retrieved January 24, 2013.\n- ^ "Election Reform" (PDF). Dos.state.pa.us. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 1, 2008. Retrieved August 26, 2010.\n- ^ McNulty, Timothy (December 23, 2012). "Pennsylvania looks to alter state\'s electoral vote system". Pittsburgh Post Gazette.\n- ^ Sabato, Larry. "A more perfect Constitution[permanent dead link ]" viewed November 22, 2014. (archived from the original [dead link ] on 2016-01-02).\n- ^ Levy, Robert A., Should we reform the Electoral College? Cato Institute, viewed November 22, 2014.\n- ^ "The Electoral College – Reform Options". Fairvote.org. Archived from the original on February 21, 2015. Retrieved August 14, 2014.\n- ^ Congressional Research Services Electoral College, p. 15, viewed November 22, 2014.\n- ^ "Gaming the Electoral College: Alternate Allocation Methods". www.270towin.com. Archived from the original on January 16, 2022. Retrieved July 31, 2022.\n- ^ "Distribution of Electoral Votes". National Archives. September 19, 2019. Retrieved November 1, 2024.\n- ^ Rembert, Elizabeth (April 3, 2024). "Nebraska and Maine split their electoral vote. Is it a better system than winner-take-all?". Nebraska Public Media.\n- ^ "Methods of Choosing Presidential Electors". Uselectionatlas.org. Retrieved August 26, 2010.\n- ^ Schwartz, Maralee (April 7, 1991). "Nebraska\'s Vote Change". The Washington Post.\n- ^ Skelley, Geoffrey (November 20, 2014). "What Goes Around Comes Around?". Sabato\'s Crystal Ball. Retrieved November 22, 2014.\n- ^ Egan, Paul (November 21, 2014). "Michigan split its electoral votes in 1892 election". Lansing State Journal. Retrieved November 22, 2014.\n- ^ Congressional Quarterly Books, "Presidential Elections: 1789–1996", ISBN 978-1-5680-2065-5, p. 10.\n- ^ Behrmann, Savannah (November 4, 2020). "Nebraska and Maine\'s district voting method could be crucial in this election. Here\'s why". USA Today.\n- ^ Cournoyer, Caroline (December 20, 2016). "In a First Since 1828, Maine Electors Split Their Vote". Governing.\n- ^ Tysver, Robynn (November 7, 2008). "Obama wins electoral vote in Nebraska". Omaha World Herald. Retrieved November 7, 2008.\n- ^ a b Molai, Nabil (October 28, 2008). "Republicans Push to Change Electoral Vote System". KPTM Fox 42. Archived from the original on May 16, 2012. Retrieved November 4, 2008.\n- ^ Ortiz, Jean (January 7, 2010). "Bill targets Neb. ability to split electoral votes". Associated Press. Retrieved September 8, 2011.\n- ^ Kleeb, Jane (March 10, 2011). "Fail: Sen. McCoy\'s Partisan Electoral College Bill". Bold Nebraska. Archived from the original on May 31, 2012. Retrieved August 9, 2011.\n- ^ "Split Electoral Votes in Maine and Nebraska". 270toWin. Retrieved November 1, 2024.\n- ^ Seelye, Katharine Q. (September 19, 2011). "Pennsylvania Republicans Weigh Electoral Vote Changes". The New York Times.\n- ^ Weigel, David (September 13, 2011). "Pennsylvania Ponders Bold Democrat-Screwing Electoral Plan". Slate.\n- ^ GOP Pennsylvania electoral vote plan might be out of steam (November 21, 2011). York Daily Record. (archived from the original on 2012-01-31)\n- ^ Gray, Kathleen (November 14, 2014). "Bill to change Michigan\'s electoral vote gets hearing". Detroit Free Press. Retrieved November 22, 2014.\n- ^ Jacobson, Louis (January 31, 2013). "The Ramifications of Changing the Electoral College". Governing Magazine. Archived from the original on November 29, 2014. Retrieved November 22, 2014.\n- ^ Wilson, Reid (December 17, 2012). "The GOP\'s Electoral College Scheme". National Journal. Archived from the original on January 8, 2013. Retrieved November 22, 2014.\n- ^ "FairVote". FairVote. Archived from the original on February 21, 2015. Retrieved August 14, 2014.\n- ^ a b Kiley, Jocelyn (September 25, 2024). "Majority of Americans continue to favor moving away from Electoral College". Pew Research Center.\n- ^ Bugh, Gary E. (2016). "Representation in Congressional Efforts to Amend the Presidential Election System". In Bugh, Gary (ed.). Electoral College Reform: Challenges and Possibilities. Routledge. pp. 5–18. ISBN 978-1-317-14527-1.\n- ^ Ziblatt, Daniel; Levitsky, Steven (September 5, 2023). "How American Democracy Fell So Far Behind". The Atlantic. Retrieved September 20, 2023.\n- ^ Speel, Robert (November 15, 2016). "These 3 Common Arguments For Preserving the Electoral College Are All Wrong". Time. Retrieved January 5, 2019.\n"Rural states get a slight boost from the 2 electoral votes awarded to states due to their 2 Senate seats\n- ^ FairVote.org. "Problems with the Electoral College – Fairvote". Archived from the original on August 14, 2016.\n- ^ a b Daniller, Andrew (March 13, 2020). "A majority of Americans continue to favor replacing Electoral College with a nationwide popular vote". Fact Tank: news in the numbers. Pew Research Center. Retrieved November 10, 2019.\n- ^ a b c Edwards III, George C. (2011). Why the Electoral College is Bad for America (Second ed.). New Haven and London: Yale University Press. pp. 1, 37, 61, 176–77, 193–94. ISBN 978-0-300-16649-1.\n- ^ Jonathan H. Adler. "Your candidate got more of the popular vote? Irrelevant". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 10, 2016.\n- ^ Ashe Schow. "Why the popular vote is a meaningless statistic". The Washington Examiner. Retrieved November 10, 2016.\n- ^ "Electoral College Mischief, The Wall Street Journal, September 8, 2004". Opinionjournal.com. Retrieved August 26, 2010.\n- ^ "Did JFK Lose the Popular Vote?". RealClearPolitics. October 22, 2012. Retrieved October 23, 2012.\n- ^ Pearson, Christopher; Richie, Rob; Johnson, Adam (November 3, 2005). "Who Picks the President?" (PDF). FairVote – The Center for Voting and Democracy. p. 7.\n- ^ "It\'s Time to End the Electoral College: Here\'s how". The Nation. November 7, 2012.\n- ^ a b c d Collin, Katy (November 17, 2016). "The electoral college badly distorts the vote. And it\'s going to get worse". Washington Post. Retrieved November 17, 2016.\n- ^ "Op-Chart: How Much Is Your Vote Worth? Op-Chart". November 2, 2008 – via The New York Times.\n- ^ Miroff, Bruce; Seidelman, Raymond; Swanstrom, Todd (2001). The Democratic Debate: An Introduction to American Politics (Third ed.). Houghton Mifflin Company. ISBN 0-618-05452-9.\n- ^ Banzhaf, John (1968). "One Man, 3.312 Votes: A Mathematical Analysis of the Electoral College". Villanova Law Review. 13: 306.\n- ^ Livingston, Mark (April 2003). "Banzhaf Power Index". Department of Computer Science. University of North Carolina.\n- ^ Gelman, Andrew; Katz, Jonathan; Tuerlinckx, Francis (2002). "The Mathematics and Statistics of Voting Power" (PDF). Statistical Science. 17 (4): 420–35. doi:10.1214/ss/1049993201.\n- ^ a b Nivola, Pietro (January 2005). "Thinking About Political Polarization". Brookings Policy Brief. 139 (139). Archived from the original on August 20, 2008.\n- ^ Koza, John; et al. (2006). "Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote" (PDF). p. xvii. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 13, 2006.\n- ^ a b Amar, Akhil; Amar, Vikram (September 9, 2004). "The Electoral College Votes Against Equality". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on April 15, 2010.\n- ^ Katrina vanden Heuvel (November 7, 2012). "It\'s Time to End the Electoral College". The Nation. Retrieved November 8, 2012.\nElectoral college defenders offer a range of arguments, from the openly anti-democratic (direct election equals mob rule), to the nostalgic (we\'ve always done it this way), to the opportunistic (your little state will get ignored! More vote-counting means more controversies! The Electoral College protects hurricane victims!). But none of those arguments overcome this one: One person, one vote.\n- ^ "How Jim Crow-Era Laws Suppressed the African American Vote for Generations". history.com. May 13, 2021.\n- ^ Gelman, Andrew; Kremp, Pierre-Antoine (November 22, 2016). "The Electoral College magnifies the power of white voters". Vox. Retrieved February 1, 2021.\n- ^ Hoffman, Matthew M. (1996). "The Illegitimate President: Minority Vote Dilution and the Electoral College". The Yale Law Journal. 105 (4): 935–1021. doi:10.2307/797244. JSTOR 797244.\n- ^ Torruella, Juan R. (1985), The Supreme Court and Puerto Rico: The Doctrine of Separate and Unequal, University of Puerto Rico Press, ISBN 0-8477-3031-X\n- ^ José D. Román. "Puerto Rico and a Constitutional Right to vote". University of Dayton. Retrieved October 2, 2007. (excerpted from: José D. Román, "Trying to Fit an Oval Shaped Island into a Square Constitution: Arguments for Puerto Rican Statehood", 29 Fordham Urban Law Journal 1681–1713, 1697–1713 (April 2002) (316 Footnotes Omitted)).\n- ^ "Guam Legislature Moves General Election Presidential Vote to the September Primary". Ballot-Access.org. July 10, 2008. Retrieved July 24, 2014.\n- ^ "In Guam, \'Non-Binding Straw Poll\' Gives Obama A Commanding Win". NPR. November 12, 2012. Retrieved July 24, 2014.\n- ^ Curry, Tom (May 28, 2008). "Nominating, but not voting for president". NBC News. Retrieved September 5, 2019.\n- ^ Helgesen, Elise (March 19, 2012). "Puerto Rico and Other Territories Vote in Primaries, But Not in General Election". Fair Vote. Retrieved September 7, 2019.\n- ^ Jerry Fresia (February 28, 2006). "Third Parties?". Zmag.org. Archived from the original on January 9, 2009. Retrieved August 26, 2010.\n- ^ a b Kimberling, William C. (May 1992). "Opinion: The Electoral College" (PDF). Federal Election Commission. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 12, 2001. Retrieved January 3, 2008.\n- ^ Sabato, Larry (2007). A More Perfect Constitution (First U.S. ed.). Walker Publishing Company. pp. 151–164. ISBN 978-0-8027-1621-7. Retrieved July 30, 2009.\n- ^ Williams, Norman R. (2012). "Why the National Popular Vote Compact is Unconstitutional". BYU Law Review. 2012 (5). J. Reuben Clark Law School: 1539–1570. Archived from the original on May 6, 2021. Retrieved October 14, 2020.\n- ^ Rossiter 2003, p. 411.\n- ^ Neale, Thomas H.; Nolan, Andrew (October 28, 2019). The National Popular Vote (NPV) Initiative: Direct Election of the President by Interstate Compact (PDF) (Report). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved November 8, 2020.\n- ^ Levitsky, Steven; Ziblatt, Daniel (2023). "Chapter 7". Tyranny of the Minority: why American democracy reached the breaking point (First ed.). New York: Crown. ISBN 978-0-593-44307-1.\n- ^ For a more detailed account of this proposal read The Politics of Electoral College Reform by Lawrence D. Longley and Alan G. Braun (1972).\n- ^ 1968 Electoral College Results, National Archives and Records Administration.\n- ^ "Text of Proposed Amendment on Voting". The New York Times. April 30, 1969. p. 21.\n- ^ "House Unit Votes To Drop Electors". The New York Times. April 30, 1969. p. 1.\n- ^ "Direct Election of President Is Gaining in the House". The New York Times. September 12, 1969. p. 12.\n- ^ "House Approves Direct Election of The President". The New York Times. September 19, 1969. p. 1.\n- ^ "Nixon Comes Out For Direct Vote On Presidency". The New York Times. October 1, 1969. p. 1.\n- ^ "A Survey Finds 30 Legislatures Favor Direct Vote For President". The New York Times. October 8, 1969. p. 1.\n- ^ Weaver, Warren (April 24, 1970). "Senate Unit Asks Popular Election of the President". The New York Times. p. 1.\n- ^ "Bayh Calls for Nixon\'s Support As Senate Gets Electoral Plan". The New York Times. August 15, 1970. p. 11.\n- ^ a b c Weaver, Warren (September 18, 1970). "Senate Refuses To Halt Debate On Direct Voting". The New York Times. p. 1.\n- ^ "Senate Debating Direct Election". The New York Times. September 9, 1970. p. 10.\n- ^ The Senate in 1975 reduced the required vote for cloture from two-thirds of those voting (67 votes) to three-fifths (60 votes). See United States Senate website.\n- ^ "Senate Puts Off Direct Vote Plan". The New York Times. September 30, 1970. p. 1.\n- ^ Jimmy Carter Letter to Congress, Jimmy Carter: "Election reform Message to the Congress", Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.\n- ^ a b "Carter Proposes End Of Electoral College In Presidential Votes", The New York Times, March 23, 1977, pp. 1, 18.\n- ^ "Carter v. The Electoral College", Chicago Tribune, March 24, 1977, Section 3, p. 2.\n- ^ "Letters". The New York Times. March 15, 1979. Retrieved August 18, 2017.\n- ^ Morton, Victor (January 3, 2019). "Rep. Steve Cohen introduces constitutional amendment to abolish Electoral College". The Washington Times. Archived from the original on July 7, 2019. Retrieved January 5, 2019.\n- ^ Morton, Victor (January 3, 2019). "Why Democrats Want to Abolish the Electoral College—and Republicans Want to Keep It". The Washington Times. Retrieved January 5, 2019.\n- ^ Cohen, Steve (January 3, 2019). "Text – H.J.Res. 7 – 116th Congress (2019–2020): Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct election of the president and vice president of the United States".\n- ^ Merkley, Jeff (March 28, 2019). "Text – S.J.Res. 16 – 116th Congress (2019–2020): A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct election of the president and vice President of the United States".\n- ^ Schatz, Brian (April 2, 2019). "Text – S.J.Res. 17 – 116th Congress (2019–2020): A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct election of the President and Vice President of the United States".\n- ^ a b Susan Sun Numamaker (July 9, 2020). "What Is National Popular Vote Bill/National Popular Vote Interstate Compact & Why Is It Important". Windemere Sun. Retrieved July 14, 2020.\n- ^ "Text of the compact" (PDF). National Popular Vote.\n- ^ Neale, Thomas H. Electoral College Reform Congressional Research Service pp. 21–22, viewed November 23, 2014.\n- ^ Fadem, Barry (July 14, 2020). "Supreme Court\'s "faithless electors" decision validates case for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact". Brookings Institution. Archived from the original on July 17, 2020. Retrieved August 4, 2020.\n- ^ Litt, David (July 7, 2020). "The Supreme Court Just Pointed Out the Absurdity of the Electoral College. It\'s Up to Us to End It". Time. Retrieved August 4, 2020.\nAfter all, the same constitutional principles that allow a state to bind its electors to the winner of the statewide popular vote should allow it to bind its electors to the winner of the nationwide popular vote. This means that if states that combine to hold a majority of electoral votes all agree to support the popular-vote winner, they can do an end-run around the Electoral College. America would still have its clumsy two-step process for presidential elections. But the people\'s choice and the electors\' choice would be guaranteed to match up every time.\n- ^ a b "Equal Votes". Equal Citizens. Retrieved December 31, 2020.\nWorks cited\n- Beeman, Richard (2010). Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution. Random House. ISBN 9780812976847.\n- Neale, Thomas H. (October 9, 2020). Presidential Elections: Vacancies in Major-Party Candidacies and the Position of President-Elect (Report). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved July 5, 2023.\n- Neale, Thomas H. (July 14, 2020). Presidential Succession: Perspectives and Contemporary Issues for Congress (Report). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved July 19, 2023.\n- Preserving Our Institutions: The Continuity of the Presidency (PDF) (Report). Continuity of Government Commission. June 2009. Retrieved May 18, 2023.\n- Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (PDF) (Report). U.S. Government Publishing Office. December 22, 2022. Retrieved July 7, 2023.\n- Report on the Electoral Count Act of 1887: Proposals for Reform (PDF) (Report). United States House Committee on House Administration. 2022. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 18, 2023. Retrieved May 18, 2023.\n- Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election, Volume I of II (PDF) (Report). United States Department of Justice. June 19, 2020. Retrieved July 1, 2023.\n- Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election, Volume II of II (PDF) (Report). United States Department of Justice. June 19, 2020. Retrieved July 1, 2023.\n- Report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 1: Russian Efforts Against Election Infrastructure with Additional Views (PDF) (Report). United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. July 25, 2019. Retrieved June 21, 2023.\n- Report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 2: Russia\'s Use of Social Media with Additional Views (PDF) (Report). United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. October 8, 2019. Retrieved June 23, 2023.\n- Report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 5: Counterintelligence Threats and Vulnerabilities (PDF) (Report). United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. August 18, 2020. Retrieved June 23, 2023.\n- Rossiter, Clinton, ed. (2003). The Federalist Papers. Signet Classics. ISBN 9780451528810.\n- Rybicki, Elizabeth; Whitaker, L. Paige (December 8, 2020). Counting Electoral Votes: An Overview of Procedures at the Joint Session, Including Objections by Members of Congress (Report). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved July 5, 2023.\n- "Third Session of the 42nd Congress". United States Senate Journal. 68. Library of Congress: 334–346. February 12, 1873. Retrieved July 1, 2023.\nFurther reading\n- Eric Foner, "The Corrupt Bargain" (review of Alexander Keyssar, Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?, Harvard, 2020, 544 pp., ISBN 978-0674660151; and Jesse Wegman, Let the People Pick the President: The Case for Abolishing the Electoral College, St Martin\'s Press, 2020, 304 pp., ISBN 978-1250221971), London Review of Books, vol. 42, no. 10 (May 21, 2020), pp. 3, 5–6. Foner concludes (p. 6): "Rooted in distrust of ordinary citizens and, like so many other features of American life, in the institution of slavery, the electoral college is a relic of a past the United States should have abandoned long ago."\n- Michael Kazin, "The Creaky Old System: Is the real threat to American democracy one of its own institutions?" (review of Alexander Keyssar, Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?, Harvard, 2020, 544 pp., ISBN 978-0674660151), The Nation, vol. 311, no. 7 (October 5/12, 2020), pp. 42–44. Kazin writes: "James Madison [...] sought to replace [the Electoral College] with a national popular vote [...]. [p. 43.] [W]e endure with the most ridiculous system [on earth] for producing our head of state and government [...]." (p. 44.)\n- Erikson, Robert S.; Sigman, Karl; Yao, Linan (2020). "Electoral College bias and the 2020 presidential election". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 117 (45): 27940–944. Bibcode:2020PNAS..11727940E. doi:10.1073/pnas.2013581117. PMC 7668185. PMID 33106408.\n- George C. Edwards III, Why the Electoral College is Bad for America, second ed., New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 2011, ISBN 978-0300166491.', + "relevant": "United States Electoral College\n| This article is part of a series on the |\n| Politics of the United States |\n|---|\nIn the United States, the Electoral College is the group of presidential electors that is formed every four years during the presidential election for the sole purpose of voting for the president and vice president. This process is described in Article Two of the Constitution.[1] The number of electoral votes exercised by each state is equal to that state's congressional delegation which is the number of Senators (two) plus the number of Representatives for that state. Each state", + }, + { + "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_man,_one_vote", + "content": 'One man, one vote\n"One man, one vote"[a] or "one vote, one value" is a slogan used to advocate for the principle of equal representation in voting. This slogan is used by advocates of democracy and political equality, especially with regard to electoral reforms like universal suffrage, direct elections, and proportional representation.\nMetrics and definitions\n[edit]The violation of equal representation on a seat per vote basis in various electoral systems can be measured with the Loosemore–Hanby index, the Gallagher index, and other measures of disproportionality.[1][2][3]\nHistory\n[edit]The phrase surged in English-language usage around 1880,[4] thanks in part to British trade unionist George Howell, who used the phrase "one man, one vote" in political pamphlets.[5] During the mid-to-late 20th-century period of decolonisation and the struggles for national sovereignty, this phrase became widely used in developing countries where majority populations sought to gain political power in proportion to their numbers.[citation needed] The slogan was notably used by the anti-apartheid movement during the 1980s, which sought to end white minority rule in South Africa.[6][7][8]\nIn the United States, the "one person, one vote" principle was invoked in a series of cases by the Warren Court in the 1960s during the height of related civil rights activities.[9][10][11][12][b]\nBy the second half of the 20th century, many states had neglected to redistrict for decades, because their legislatures were dominated by rural interests. But during the 20th century, population had increased in urban, industrialized areas. In addition to applying the Equal Protection Clause of the constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion (5–4) led by Chief Justice Earl Warren in Reynolds v. Sims (1964) ruled that state legislatures, unlike the U.S. Congress, needed to have representation in both houses that was based on districts containing roughly equal populations, with redistricting as needed after the decennial censuses.[14][15] Some states had established an upper house based on an equal number of representatives to be elected from each county, modelled after the US Senate. Because of changes following industrialization and urbanization, most population growth had been in cities, and the bicameral state legislatures gave undue political power to rural counties. In the 1964 Wesberry v. Sanders decision, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that equality of voting—one person, one vote—means that "the weight and worth of the citizens\' votes as nearly as is practicable must be the same".[16] They ruled that states must draw federal congressional districts containing roughly equal represented populations.\nUnited Kingdom\n[edit]Historical background\n[edit]This phrase was traditionally used in the context of demands for suffrage reform. Historically the emphasis within the House of Commons was on representing areas: counties, boroughs and, later on, universities. The entitlement to vote for the Members of Parliament representing the constituencies varied widely, with different qualifications over time, such as owning property of a certain value, holding an apprenticeship, qualifying for paying the local-government rates, or holding a degree from the university in question. Those who qualified for the vote in more than one constituency were entitled to vote in each constituency, while many adults did not qualify for the vote at all. Plural voting was also present in local government, whereby the owners of business property qualified for votes in the relevant wards.[citation needed]\nReformers argued that Members of Parliament and other elected officials should represent citizens equally, and that each voter should be entitled to exercise the vote once in an election. Successive Reform Acts by 1950 had both extended the franchise eventually to almost all adult citizens (barring convicts, lunatics and members of the House of Lords), and also reduced and finally eliminated plural voting for Westminster elections. Plural voting for local-government elections outside the City of London was not abolished until the Representation of the People Act 1969.[17][18]\nNorthern Ireland\n[edit]When Northern Ireland was established in 1921, it adopted the same political system then in place for the Westminster Parliament and British local government. But the Parliament of Northern Ireland did not follow Westminster in changes to the franchise from 1945. As a result, into the 1960s, plural voting was still allowed not only for local government (as it was for local government in Great Britain), but also for the Parliament of Northern Ireland. This meant that in local council elections (as in Great Britain), ratepayers and their spouses, whether renting or owning the property, could vote, and company directors had an extra vote by virtue of their company\'s status. However, unlike the situation in Great Britain, non-ratepayers did not have a vote in local government elections. The franchise for elections to the Parliament of Northern Ireland had been extended in 1928 to all adult citizens who were not disqualified, at the same time as the franchise for elections to Westminster. But, university representation and the business vote continued for elections to the House of Commons of Northern Ireland until 1969. They were abolished in 1948 for elections to the UK House of Commons (including Westminster seats in Northern Ireland). Historians and political scholars have debated the extent to which the franchise for local government contributed to unionist electoral success in controlling councils in nationalist-majority areas.[19]\nBased on a number of inequities, the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association was founded in 1967. It had five primary demands, and added the demand that each citizen in Northern Ireland be afforded the same number of votes for local government elections (as stated above, this was not yet the case anywhere in the United Kingdom). The slogan "one man, one vote" became a rallying cry for this campaign.[citation needed] The Parliament of Northern Ireland voted to update the voting rules for elections to the Northern Ireland House of Commons, which were implemented for the 1969 Northern Ireland general election, and for local government elections, which was done by the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, passed on 25 November 1969.[citation needed]\nUnited States\n[edit]Historical background\n[edit]The United States Constitution requires a decennial census for the purpose of assuring fair apportionment of seats in the United States House of Representatives among the states, based on their population. Reapportionment has generally been conducted without incident with the exception of the reapportionment that should have followed the 1920 census, which was effectively skipped pending resolution by the Reapportionment Act of 1929. State legislatures, however, initially established election of congressional representatives from districts that were often based on traditional counties or parishes that had preceded founding of the new government. The question then arose as to whether the legislatures were required to ensure that House districts were roughly equal in population and to draw new districts to accommodate demographic changes.[12][10]\nSome U.S. states redrew their House districts every ten years to reflect changes in population patterns; many did not. Some never redrew them, except when it was mandated by reapportionment of Congress and a resulting change in the number of seats to which that state was entitled in the House of Representatives. In many states, both North and South, this inaction resulted in a skewing of influence for voters in some districts over those in others, generally with a bias toward rural districts. For example, if the 2nd congressional district eventually had a population of 1.5 million, but the 3rd had only 500,000, then, in effect – since each district elected the same number of representatives – a voter in the 3rd district had three times the voting power of a 2nd-district voter.\nAlabama\'s state legislature resisted redistricting from 1910 to 1972 (when forced by federal court order). As a result, rural residents retained a wildly disproportionate amount of power in a time when other areas of the state became urbanized and industrialized, attracting greater populations. Such urban areas were under-represented in the state legislature and underserved; their residents had difficulty getting needed funding for infrastructure and services. Such areas paid far more in taxes to the state than they received in benefits in relation to the population.[15]\nThe Constitution incorporates the result of the Great Compromise, which established representation for the U.S. Senate. Each state was equally represented in the Senate with two representatives, without regard to population. The Founding Fathers considered this principle of such importance[citation needed] that they included a clause in the Constitution to prohibit any state from being deprived of equal representation in the Senate without its permission; see Article V of the United States Constitution. For this reason, "one person, one vote" has never been implemented in the U.S. Senate, in terms of representation by states.\nWhen states established their legislatures, they often adopted a bicameral model based on colonial governments or the federal government. Many copied the Senate principle, establishing an upper house based on geography - for instance, a state senate with one representative drawn from each county. By the 20th century, this often resulted in state senators having widely varying amounts of political power, with ones from rural areas having votes equal in power to those of senators representing much greater urban populations.\nActivism in the Civil Rights Movement to restore the ability of African Americans in the South to register and vote highlighted other voting inequities across the country. In 1964–1965, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 were passed, in part to enforce the constitutional voting rights of African Americans.[20] Numerous court challenges were raised, including in Alabama, to correct the decades in which state legislative districts had not been redefined or reapportioned, resulting in lack of representation for many residents.\nCourt cases\n[edit]In Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946) the United States Supreme Court held in a 4–3 plurality decision that Article I, Section 4 left to the legislature of each state the authority to establish the time, place, and manner of holding elections for representatives.\nHowever, in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) the United States Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren overturned the previous decision in Colegrove holding that malapportionment claims under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment were not exempt from judicial review under Article IV, Section 4, as the equal protection issue in this case was separate from any political questions.[12][16] The "one person, one vote" doctrine, which requires electoral districts to be apportioned according to population, thus making each district roughly equal in population, was further affirmed by the Warren Court in the landmark cases that followed Baker, including Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963), which concerned the county unit system in Georgia; Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) which concerned state legislature districts; Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964), which concerned U.S. congressional districts; and Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474 (1968) which concerned local government districts.[16][21][22]\nThe Warren Court\'s decision was upheld in Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989).[23] Evenwel v. Abbott, 578 U.S. 2016, said states may use total population in drawing districts.[22]\nOther uses\n[edit]- The slogan "one man, one vote" has occasionally been misunderstood as requiring plurality voting; however, court cases in the United States have consistently ruled against this interpretation the admissibility of other rules.\n- The constitutionality of non-plurality systems has subsequently been upheld by several federal courts, against challenges.[24][25] In 2018, a federal court ruled on the constitutionality of Maine\'s use of ranked-choice voting, stating that "\'one person, one vote\' does not stand in opposition to ranked voting, so long as all electors are treated equally at the ballot."[26]\n- In 1975, a Michigan state court clarified that one-man, one-vote does not mandate plurality vote, and upheld Instant Runoff as permitted by the state constitution.[27]\n- By contrast, the Federal Constitutional Court in Germany ruled that the overhang mandates at the time did violate the principle of equal voting rights, as they assign some voters a negative voting weight.[28]\n- Training Wheels for Citizenship, a failed 2004 initiative in California, attempted to give minors between 14 and 17 years of age (who otherwise cannot vote) a fractional vote in state elections. Among the criticisms leveled at the proposed initiative was that it violated the "one man, one vote" principle.[29]\n- Courts have established that special-purpose districts must also follow the one person, one vote rule.[30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38]\n- Due to treaties signed by the United States in 1830 and 1835, two Native American tribes (the Cherokee and Choctaw) each hold the right to a non-voting delegate position in the House of Representatives.[39][40] As of 2019, only the Cherokee have attempted to exercise that right.[41][42] Because all tribal governments related to the two in question exist within present-day state boundaries, it has been suggested that such an arrangement could potentially violate the "one man, one vote" principle by granting a "super-vote"; a Cherokee or Choctaw voter would have two House representatives (state and tribal), whereas any other American would only have one.[43]\nAustralia\n[edit]In Australia, one vote, one value is a democratic principle, applied in electoral laws governing redistributions of electoral divisions of the House of Representatives. The principle calls for all electoral divisions to have the same number of enrolled voters (not residents or population), within a specified percentage of variance. The electoral laws of the federal House of Representatives, and of the state and territory parliaments, follow the principle, with a few exceptions. The principle does not apply to the Senate because, under the Australian constitution, each state is entitled to the same number of senators, irrespective of the population of the state.\nMalapportionment\n[edit]Currently, for the House of Representatives, the number of enrolled voters in each division in a state or territory can vary by up to 10% from the average quota for the state or territory, and the number of voters can vary by up to 3.5% from the average projected enrolment three-and-a-half years into the future.[44] The allowable quota variation of the number of electors in each division was reduced from 20% to 10% by the Commonwealth Electoral Act (No. 2) 1973, passed at the joint sitting of Parliament in 1974.[45] The change was instigated by the Whitlam Labor government.\nHowever, for various reasons, such as the constitutional requirement that Tasmania must have at least five lower house members, larger seats like Cowper (New South Wales) comprise almost double the electors of smaller seats like Solomon in the Northern Territory.\nHistorically, all states (other than Tasmania) have had some form of malapportionment, but electoral reform in recent decades has resulted in electoral legislation and policy frameworks based on the "one vote, one value" principle. However, in the Western Australian and Queensland Legislative Assemblies, seats covering areas greater than 100,000 square kilometres (38,600 sq mi) may have fewer electors than the general tolerance would otherwise allow.[46][47]\nThe following chart documents the years that the upper and lower houses of each Australian state parliament replaced malapportionment with the \'one vote, one value\' principle.\n| State | NSW | Qld | SA | Tas | Vic | WA |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| Upper House | 1978[48] | Abolished in 1922[49] | 1973[50] | 1995[51] | 1982[52] | 2021[53] |\n| Lower House | 1979[54] | 1991[55] | 1975[56] | 1906[57] | 1982[52] | 2005[58] |\nProposed constitutional amendment\n[edit]The Whitlam Labor government proposed to amend the Constitution in a referendum in 1974 to require the use of population to determine the size of electorates rather than alternative methods of distributing seats, such as geographical size. The bill was not passed by the Senate and instead the referendum was put to voters using the deadlock provision in Section 128.[59] The referendum was not carried, obtaining a majority in just one State and achieving 47.20% support, an overall minority of 407,398 votes.[60]\nIn 1988, the Hawke Labor government submitted a referendum proposal to enshrine the principle in the Australian Constitution.[61] The referendum question came about due to the widespread malapportionment and gerrymandering which was endemic during Joh Bjelke-Petersen\'s term as the Queensland Premier. The proposal was opposed by both the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia. The referendum proposal was not carried, obtaining a majority in no States and achieving just 37.6% support, an overall minority of 2,335,741.[60]\nSee also\n[edit]- Democracy Index\n- Democratization\n- Electoral College\n- Anonymity (social choice)\n- Proportional representation\n- Universal suffrage\nNotes\n[edit]- ^ Also "one person, one vote" or—in the context of primaries and leadership elections— "one member, one vote".\n- ^ Justice Douglas, Gray v. Sanders (1963): "The conception of political equality from the Declaration of Independence, to Lincoln\'s Gettysburg Address, to the Fifteenth, Seventeenth, and Nineteenth Amendments can mean only one thing—one person, one vote."[13]\nReferences\n[edit]- ^ December 2016, Canada\'s 2016 Special Committee On Electoral Reform, Recommendation 1\n- ^ Read the full electoral reform committee report, plus Liberal and NDP/Green opinions\n- ^ What is the Gallagher Index? The Gallagher Index measures how unfair a voting system is.\n- ^ "Google Books Ngram Viewer". books.google.com. Retrieved 16 December 2022.\n- ^ George Howell (1880). "One man, one vote". Manchester Selected Pamphlets. JSTOR 60239578\n- ^ Peter Duignan; Lewis H. Gann (1991). Hope for South Africa?. Hoover Institution Press. p. 166. ISBN 0817989528.\n- ^ Bond, Larry; Larkin, Patrick (June 1991). Vortex. United States: Little, Brown and Warner Books. p. 37. ISBN 0-446-51566-3. OCLC 23286496.\n- ^ Boam, Jeffrey (July 1989). Lethal Weapon 2. Warner Bros.\n- ^ Richard H. Fallon, Jr. (2013). The Dynamic Constitution. Cambridge University Press, 196.\n- ^ a b Douglas J. Smith (2014). On Democracy\'s Doorstep: The Inside Story of How the Supreme Court Brought "One Person, One Vote" to the United States. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.\n- ^ "One person, one vote", in David Andrew Schultz (2010). Encyclopedia of the United States Constitution. Infobase Publishing, 526.\n- ^ a b c Stephen Ansolabehere, James M. Snyder (2008). The End of Inequality: One Person, One Vote and the Transformation of American Politics. Norton.\n- ^ C. J. Warren, Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 558 (1964) (quoting Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963)), cited in "One-person, one-vote rule", Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School.\n- ^ "Reynolds v. Sims". Oyez. Retrieved 21 September 2019.\n- ^ a b Charlie B. Tyler, "County Government in the Palmetto State", University of South Carolina, 1998, p. 221\n- ^ a b c Goldman, Ari L. (21 November 1986). "ONE MAN, ONE VOTE: DECADES OF COURT DECISIONS". The New York Times.\n- ^ Halsey, Albert Henry (1988). British Social Trends since 1900. Springer. p. 298. ISBN 9781349194667.\n- ^ Peter Brooke (24 February 1999). "City of London (Ward Elections) Bill". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). United Kingdom: House of Commons. col. 452.\n- ^ John H. Whyte. "How much discrimination was there under the unionist regime, 1921-1968?". Conflict Archive on the Internet. Retrieved 30 August 2007.\n- ^ "We Shall Overcome -- The Players". www.nps.gov. Retrieved 5 October 2019.\n- ^ "Reynolds v. Sims". Oyez. Retrieved 17 September 2019.\n- ^ a b Anonymous (19 August 2010). "one-person, one-vote rule". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 17 September 2019.\n- ^ "The Supreme Court: One-Man, One-Vote, Locally". Time. 12 April 1968. Archived from the original on 2 September 2009. Retrieved 20 May 2010.\n- ^ Collins, Steve; Journal, Sun (13 December 2018). "Federal court rules against Bruce Poliquin\'s challenge of ranked-choice voting". Lewiston Sun Journal. Retrieved 19 December 2018.\n- ^ "Dudum v. Arntz, 640 F. 3d 1098 (2011)". United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Retrieved 1 April 2016.\n- ^ U.S. District Judge Lance Walker (13 December 2018). "Read the federal judge\'s decision on Poliquin\'s ranked-choice challenge". Bangor Daily News. p. 21. Retrieved 10 February 2019.\n- ^ Stephenson v Ann Arbor Board of Canvassers, fairvote.org, accessed 6 November 2013.\n- ^ "Provisions of the Federal Electoral Act from which the effect of negative voting weight emerges unconstitutional". Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court). 3 July 2008. Retrieved 19 May 2024.\n- ^ "Should 14-year-olds vote? OK, how about a quarter of a vote?", Daniel B. Wood, Christian Science Monitor, Mar. 12, 2004.\n- ^ Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474, 88 S. Ct. 1114, 20 L. Ed. 2d 45 (1968)\n- ^ Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355, 101 S. Ct. 1811, 68 L. Ed. 2d 150 (1981)\n- ^ Bjornestad v. Hulse, 229 Cal. App. 3d 1568, 281 Cal. Rptr. 548 (1991)\n- ^ Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688, 109 S. Ct. 1433, 103 L. Ed. 2d 717 (1989)\n- ^ Hadley v. Junior College District, 397 U.S. 50, 90 S. Ct. 791, 25 L. Ed. 2d 45 (1970)\n- ^ Hellebust v. Brownback, 824 F. Supp. 1511 (D. Kan. 1993)\n- ^ Kessler v. Grand Central District Management Association, 158 F.3d 92. (2d Cir. 1998)\n- ^ Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S. Ct. 136, 12 L. Ed. 2d 506 (1964)\n- ^ Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, 410 U.S. 719 (1973)\n- ^ Ahtone, Tristan (4 January 2017). "The Cherokee Nation Is Entitled to a Delegate in Congress. But Will They Finally Send One?". YES! Magazine. Bainbridge Island, Washington. Retrieved 4 January 2019.\n- ^ Pommersheim, Frank (2 September 2009). Broken Landscape: Indians, Indian Tribes, and the Constitution. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. p. 333. ISBN 978-0-19-970659-4. Retrieved 4 January 2019.\n- ^ "The Cherokee Nation wants a representative in Congress". www.msn.com.\n- ^ Krehbiel-Burton, Lenzy (23 August 2019). "Citing treaties, Cherokees call on Congress to seat delegate from tribe". Tulsa World. Tulsa, Oklahoma. Retrieved 24 August 2019.\n- ^ Rosser, Ezra (7 November 2005). "The Nature of Representation: The Cherokee Right to a Congressional Delegate". Boston University Public Interest Law Journal. 15 (91): 91–152. SSRN 842647.\n- ^ Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) s 73 Redistribution of State.\n- ^ Commonwealth Electoral Act (No. 2) 1973 (Cth) s 4 Re-distribution.\n- ^ Electoral Act 1907 (WA) s 16G Districts, how State to be divided into.\n- ^ Electoral Act 1992 (Qld) s 45 - Proposed electoral redistribution must be within numerical limits.\n- ^ Constitution and Parliamentary Electorates and Elections (Amendment) Act 1978 (NSW)\n- ^ Constitution Act Amendment Act of 1922 (Qld)\n- ^ Constitution and Electoral Acts Amendment Act 1973 (SA)\n- ^ Legislative Council Electoral Boundaries Act 1995 (Tas)\n- ^ a b Electoral Commission Act 1982 (Vic)\n- ^ Constitutional and Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Equality) Act 2021 (WA)\n- ^ Constitution (Amendment) Act 1979 (NSW)\n- ^ Electoral Districts Act 1991 (Qld). Allows additional nominal voters of 2% per km2 when a district is greater than 100,000 km2. The Electoral Act 1992 (Qld) introduced automatic redistributions.\n- ^ Constitution Act Amendment Act (No 5) 1975 (SA)\n- ^ An Act To Further Amend The Constitution Act 1906 (Tas). Subsequent amendments continue to be made at each Federal redistribution.\n- ^ Electoral Amendment and Repeal Act 2005 (WA). Allows additional nominal voters of 1.5% per km2 when a district is greater than 100,000 km2. This is capped at 20% less than the average enrollment.\n- ^ Richardson, Jack (31 October 2000). "Resolving Deadlocks in the Australian Parliament". Research Paper 9 2000-01. Parliamentary Library. Retrieved 20 October 2021.\n- ^ a b Handbook of the 44th Parliament (2014) "Part 5 - Referendums and Plebiscites - Referendum results". Parliamentary Library of Australia.\n- ^ Singleton, Gwynneth; Don Aitkin; Brian Jinks; John Warhurst (2012). Australian Political Institutions. Pearson Higher Education AU. p. 271. ISBN 978-1442559493. Retrieved 5 August 2015.', + "relevant": 'One man, one vote\n"One man, one vote"[a] or "one vote, one value" is a slogan used to advocate for the principle of equal representation in voting. This slogan is used by advocates of democracy and political equality, especially with regard to electoral reforms like universal suffrage, direct elections, and proportional representation.\nMetrics and definitions\n[edit]The violation of equal representation on a seat per vote basis in various electoral systems can be measured with the Loosemore–Hanby index, the Gallagher index, and other measures of disproportionality.[1][2][3]\nHistory\n[edit]The ph', + }, + { + "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause", + "content": 'Equal Protection Clause\nThe Equal Protection Clause is part of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law.[1][2][3]\nA primary motivation for this clause was to validate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that all citizens would have the right to equal protection by law. As a whole, the Fourteenth Amendment marked a large shift in American constitutionalism, by applying substantially more constitutional restrictions against the states than had applied before the Civil War.\nThe meaning of the Equal Protection Clause has been the subject of much debate, and inspired the well-known phrase "Equal Justice Under Law". This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision that helped to dismantle racial segregation. The clause has also been the basis for Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriages, along with many other decisions rejecting discrimination against, and bigotry towards, people belonging to various groups.\nWhile the Equal Protection Clause itself applies only to state and local governments, the Supreme Court held in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment nonetheless requires equal protection under the laws of the federal government via reverse incorporation.\nText\n[edit]The Equal Protection Clause is located at the end of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment:\nAll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [emphasis added]\nBackground\n[edit]Though equality under the law is an American legal tradition arguably dating to the Declaration of Independence,[4] formal equality for many groups remained elusive. Before passage of the Reconstruction Amendments, which included the Equal Protection Clause, American law did not extend constitutional rights to black Americans.[5] Black people were considered inferior to white Americans, and subject to chattel slavery in the slave states until the Emancipation Proclamation and the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment.\nEven black Americans that were not enslaved lacked many crucial legal protections.[5] In the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, the Supreme Court rejected abolitionism and determined black men, whether free or in bondage, had no legal rights under the U.S. Constitution at the time.[6] Currently, a plurality of historians believe that this judicial decision set the United States on the path to the Civil War, which led to the ratifications of the Reconstruction Amendments.[7]\nBefore and during the Civil War, the Southern states prohibited speech of pro-Union citizens, anti-slavery advocates, and northerners in general, since the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states during such times. During the Civil War, many of the Southern states stripped the state citizenship of many whites and banished them from their state, effectively seizing their property. Shortly after the Union victory in the American Civil War, the Thirteenth Amendment was proposed by Congress and ratified by the states in 1865, abolishing slavery. Subsequently, many ex-Confederate states then adopted Black Codes following the war, with these laws severely restricting the rights of blacks to hold property, including real property (such as real estate), and many forms of personal property, and to form legally enforceable contracts. Such codes also established harsher criminal consequences for blacks than for whites.[8]\nBecause of the inequality imposed by Black Codes, a Republican-controlled Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Act provided that all persons born in the United States were citizens (contrary to the Supreme Court\'s 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford), and required that "citizens of every race and color ... [have] full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens."[9]\nPresident Andrew Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 amid concerns (among other things) that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to enact such a bill. Such doubts were one factor that led Congress to begin to draft and debate what would become the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[10][11] Additionally, Congress wanted to protect white Unionists who were under personal and legal attack in the former Confederacy.[12] The effort was led by the Radical Republicans of both houses of Congress, including John Bingham, Charles Sumner, and Thaddeus Stevens. It was the most influential of these men, John Bingham, who was the principal author and drafter of the Equal Protection Clause.\nThe Southern states were opposed to the Civil Rights Act, but in 1865 Congress, exercising its power under Article I, Section 5, Clause 1 of the Constitution, to "be the Judge of the ... Qualifications of its own Members", had excluded Southerners from Congress, declaring that their states, having rebelled against the Union, could therefore not elect members to Congress. It was this fact—the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted by a "rump" Congress—that permitted the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment by Congress and subsequently proposed to the states. The ratification of the amendment by the former Confederate states was imposed as a condition of their acceptance back into the Union.[13]\nRatification\n[edit]With the return to originalist interpretations of the Constitution, many wonder what was intended by the framers of the reconstruction amendments at the time of their ratification. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery but to what extent it protected other rights was unclear.[14] After the Thirteenth Amendment the South began to institute Black Codes which were restrictive laws seeking to keep black Americans in a position of inferiority. The Fourteenth amendment was ratified by nervous Republicans in response to the rise of Black Codes.[14] This ratification was irregular in many ways. First, there were multiple states that rejected the Fourteenth Amendment, but when their new governments were created due to reconstruction, these new governments accepted the amendment.[15] There were also two states, Ohio and New Jersey, that accepted the amendment and then later passed resolutions rescinding that acceptance. The nullification of the two states\' acceptance was considered illegitimate and both Ohio and New Jersey were included in those counted as ratifying the amendment.[15]\nMany historians have argued that Fourteenth Amendment was not originally intended to grant sweeping political and social rights to the citizens but instead to solidify the constitutionality of the 1866 Civil rights Act.[16] While it is widely agreed that this was a key reason for the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, many historians adopt a much wider view. It is a popular interpretation that the Fourteenth Amendment was always meant to ensure equal rights for all those in the United States.[17] This argument was used by Charles Sumner when he used the Fourteenth Amendment as the basis for his arguments to expand the protections afforded to black Americans.[18]\nAlthough the equal protection clause is one of the most cited ideas in legal theory, it received little attention during the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.[19] Instead the key tenet of the Fourteenth Amendment at the time of its ratification was the Privileges or Immunities Clause.[16] This clause sought to protect the privileges and immunities of all citizens which now included black men.[20] The scope of this clause was substantially narrowed following the Slaughterhouse Cases in which it was determined that a citizen\'s privileges and immunities were only ensured at the Federal level and that it was government overreach to impose this standard on the states.[17] Even in this halting decision the Court still acknowledged the context in which the Amendment was passed, stating that knowing the evils and injustice the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to combat is key in our legal understanding of its implications and purpose.[21] With the abridgment of the Privileges or Immunities clause, legal arguments aimed at protecting black American\'s rights became more complex and that is when the equal protection clause started to gain attention for the arguments it could enhance.[16]\nDuring the debate in Congress, more than one version of the clause was considered. Here is the first version: "The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to secure ... to all persons in the several states equal protection in the rights of life, liberty, and property."[22] Bingham said about this version: "It confers upon Congress power to see to it that the protection given by the laws of the States shall be equal in respect to life and liberty and property to all persons."[22] The main opponent of the first version was Congressman Robert S. Hale of New York, despite Bingham\'s public assurances that "under no possible interpretation can it ever be made to operate in the State of New York while she occupies her present proud position."[23]\nHale ended up voting for the final version, however. When Senator Jacob Howard introduced that final version, he said:[24]\nIt prohibits the hanging of a black man for a crime for which the white man is not to be hanged. It protects the black man in his fundamental rights as a citizen with the same shield which it throws over the white man. Ought not the time to be now passed when one measure of justice is to be meted out to a member of one caste while another and a different measure is meted out to the member of another caste, both castes being alike citizens of the United States, both bound to obey the same laws, to sustain the burdens of the same Government, and both equally responsible to justice and to God for the deeds done in the body?\nThe 39th United States Congress proposed the Fourteenth Amendment on June 13, 1866. A difference between the initial and final versions of the clause was that the final version spoke not just of "equal protection" but of "the equal protection of the laws". John Bingham said in January 1867: "no State may deny to any person the equal protection of the laws, including all the limitations for personal protection of every article and section of the Constitution ..."[25] By July 9, 1868, three-fourths of the states (28 of 37) ratified the amendment, and that is when the Equal Protection Clause became law.[26]\nEarly history following ratification\n[edit]Bingham said in a speech on March 31, 1871 that the clause meant no State could deny anyone "the equal protection of the Constitution of the United States ... [or] any of the rights which it guarantees to all men", nor deny to anyone "any right secured to him either by the laws and treaties of the United States or of such State."[27] At that time, the meaning of equality varied from one state to another.[28]\nFour of the original thirteen states never passed any laws barring interracial marriage, and the other states were divided on the issue in the Reconstruction era.[29] In 1872, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that the state\'s ban on mixed-race marriage violated the "cardinal principle" of the 1866 Civil Rights Act and of the Equal Protection Clause.[30] Almost a hundred years would pass before the U.S. Supreme Court followed that Alabama case (Burns v. State) in the case of Loving v. Virginia. In Burns, the Alabama Supreme Court said:[31]\nMarriage is a civil contract, and in that character alone is dealt with by the municipal law. The same right to make a contract as is enjoyed by white citizens, means the right to make any contract which a white citizen may make. The law intended to destroy the distinctions of race and color in respect to the rights secured by it.\nAs for public schooling, no states during this era of Reconstruction actually required separate schools for blacks.[32] However, some states (e.g. New York) gave local districts discretion to set up schools that were deemed separate but equal.[33] In contrast, Iowa and Massachusetts flatly prohibited segregated schools ever since the 1850s.[34]\nLikewise, some states were more favorable to women\'s legal status than others; New York, for example, had been giving women full property, parental, and widow\'s rights since 1860, but not the right to vote.[35] No state or territory allowed women\'s suffrage when the Equal Protection Clause took effect in 1868.[36] In contrast, at that time African American men had full voting rights in five states.[37]\nGilded Age interpretation and the Plessy decision\n[edit]In the United States, 1877 marked the end of Reconstruction and the start of the Gilded Age. The first truly landmark equal protection decision by the Supreme Court was Strauder v. West Virginia (1880). A black man convicted of murder by an all-white jury challenged a West Virginia statute excluding blacks from serving on juries. Exclusion of blacks from juries, the Court concluded, was a denial of equal protection to black defendants, since the jury had been "drawn from a panel from which the State has expressly excluded every man of [the defendant\'s] race." At the same time, the Court explicitly allowed sexism and other types of discrimination, saying that states "may confine the selection to males, to freeholders, to citizens, to persons within certain ages, or to persons having educational qualifications. We do not believe the Fourteenth Amendment was ever intended to prohibit this. ... Its aim was against discrimination because of race or color."[38]\nThe next important postwar case was the Civil Rights Cases (1883), in which the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was at issue. The Act provided that all persons should have "full and equal enjoyment of ... inns, public conveyances on land or water, theatres, and other places of public amusement." In its opinion, the Court explicated what has since become known as the "state action doctrine", according to which the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause apply only to acts done or otherwise "sanctioned in some way" by the state. Prohibiting blacks from attending plays or staying in inns was "simply a private wrong". Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented alone, saying, "I cannot resist the conclusion that the substance and spirit of the recent amendments of the Constitution have been sacrificed by a subtle and ingenious verbal criticism." Harlan went on to argue that because (1) "public conveyances on land and water" use the public highways, and (2) innkeepers engage in what is "a quasi-public employment", and (3) "places of public amusement" are licensed under the laws of the states, excluding blacks from using these services was an act sanctioned by the state.\nA few years later, Justice Stanley Matthews wrote the Court\'s opinion in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886).[39] In it the word "person" from the Fourteenth Amendment\'s section has been given the broadest possible meaning by the U.S. Supreme Court:[40]\nThese provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.\nThus, the clause would not be limited to discrimination against African Americans, but would extend to other races, colors, and nationalities such as (in this case) legal aliens in the United States who are Chinese citizens.\nIn its most contentious Gilded Age interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause, Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court upheld a Louisiana Jim Crow law that required the segregation of blacks and whites on railroads and mandated separate railway cars for members of the two races.[41] The Court, speaking through Justice Henry B. Brown, ruled that the Equal Protection Clause had been intended to defend equality in civil rights, not equality in social arrangements. All that was therefore required of the law was reasonableness, and Louisiana\'s railway law amply met that requirement, being based on "the established usages, customs and traditions of the people." Justice Harlan again dissented. "Every one knows," he wrote,\nthat the statute in question had its origin in the purpose, not so much to exclude white persons from railroad cars occupied by blacks, as to exclude colored people from coaches occupied by or assigned to white persons ... [I]n view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.\nSuch "arbitrary separation" by race, Harlan concluded, was "a badge of servitude wholly inconsistent with the civil freedom and the equality before the law established by the Constitution."[42] Harlan\'s philosophy of constitutional colorblindness would eventually become more widely accepted, especially after World War II.\nRights of Corporations\n[edit]In the decades after ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the vast majority of Supreme Court cases interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment dealt with the rights of corporations, not with the rights of African Americans. In the period 1868–1912 (from ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the first known published count by a scholar), the Supreme Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment in 312 cases dealing with the rights of corporations but in only 28 cases dealing with the rights of African Americans. Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment was used primarily by corporations to attack laws that regulated corporations, not to protect the formerly enslaved people from racial discrimination.[43] Granting rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to business corporations was introduced into Supreme Court jurisprudence through a series of sleights of hands. Roscoe Conkling, a skillful lawyer and former powerful politicians who had served as a member of the United States Congressional Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which had drafted the Fourteenth Amendment, was the lawyer who argued an important case known as San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific Railroad before the Supreme Court in 1882. In this case, the issue was whether corporations are "persons" within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[44] Conkling argued that corporations were included in the meaning of the term person and thus entitled to such rights. He told the Court that he, as a member of the Committee that drafted this amendment to the Constitutional, knew that this is what the Committee had intended. Legal historians in the 20th Century examined the history of the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment and found that Conkling had fabricated the notion that the Committee had intended the term "person" of the Fourteenth Amendment to encompass corporations.[45] This San Mateo case was settled by the parties without the Supreme Court issuing an opinion however the Court\'s misunderstanding of the intention of the Amendment\'s drafters that had been created by Conkling\'s likely deliberate deception was never corrected at the time.\nA second fraud occurred a few years later in the case of Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad, which left a written legacy of corporate rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. J. C. Bancroft Davis, an attorney and the Reporter of Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, drafted the "syllabus" (summary) of Supreme Court decisions and the "headnotes" that summarized key points of law held by the Court. These were published before each case as part of the official court publication communicating the law of the land as held by the Supreme Court. A headnote that Davis as court reporter published immediately preceding the court opinion in Santa Clara case stated:\n"The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment…, which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."\nDavis added before the opinion of the Court:\n"MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE said: \'The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question of whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.\'"\nIn fact, the Supreme Court decided the case on narrower grounds and had specifically avoided this Constitutional issue.[46][47]\nThe Supreme Court holding\n[edit]Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field seized on this deceptive and incorrect published summary by the court reporter Davis in Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad and cited that case as precedent in the 1889 case Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company v. Beckwith in support of the proposition that corporations are entitled to equal protection of the law within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Writing the opinion for the Court in Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company v. Beckwith, Justice Field reasoned that a corporation is an association of its human shareholders and thus has rights under the Fourteenth Amendment just as the members of the association.[48]\nIn this Supreme Court case Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company v. Beckwith, Justice Field, writing for the Court, thus took this point as established Constitutional law. In the decades that followed, the Supreme Court often continued to cite and to rely on Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad as established precedent that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed equal protection of the law and due process rights for corporations, even though in the Santa Clara case the Supreme Court held or stated no such thing.[49] In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the clause was used to strike down numerous statutes applying to corporations. Since the New Deal, however, such invalidations have been rare.[50]\nBetween Plessy and Brown\n[edit]In Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada (1938), Lloyd Gaines was a black student at Lincoln University of Missouri, one of the historically black colleges in Missouri. He applied for admission to the law school at the all-white University of Missouri, since Lincoln did not have a law school, but was denied admission due solely to his race. The Supreme Court, applying the separate-but-equal principle of Plessy, held that a State offering a legal education to whites but not to blacks violated the Equal Protection Clause.\nIn Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), the Court showed increased willingness to find racial discrimination illegal. The Shelley case concerned a privately made contract that prohibited "people of the Negro or Mongolian race" from living on a particular piece of land. Seeming to go against the spirit, if not the exact letter, of The Civil Rights Cases, the Court found that, although a discriminatory private contract could not violate the Equal Protection Clause, the courts\' enforcement of such a contract could; after all, the Supreme Court reasoned, courts were part of the state.\nThe companion cases Sweatt v. Painter and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, both decided in 1950, paved the way for a series of school integration cases. In McLaurin, the University of Oklahoma had admitted McLaurin, an African-American, but had restricted his activities there: he had to sit apart from the rest of the students in the classrooms and library, and could eat in the cafeteria only at a designated table. A unanimous Court, through Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson, said that Oklahoma had deprived McLaurin of the equal protection of the laws:\nThere is a vast difference—a Constitutional difference—between restrictions imposed by the state which prohibit the intellectual commingling of students, and the refusal of individuals to commingle where the state presents no such bar.\nThe present situation, Vinson said, was the former. In Sweatt, the Court considered the constitutionality of Texas\'s state system of law schools, which educated blacks and whites at separate institutions. The Court (again through Chief Justice Vinson, and again with no dissenters) invalidated the school system—not because it separated students, but rather because the separate facilities were not equal. They lacked "substantial equality in the educational opportunities" offered to their students.\nAll of these cases, as well as the upcoming Brown case, were litigated by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. It was Charles Hamilton Houston, a Harvard Law School graduate and law professor at Howard University, who in the 1930s first began to challenge racial discrimination in the federal courts. Thurgood Marshall, a former student of Houston\'s and the future Solicitor General and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, joined him. Both men were extraordinarily skilled appellate advocates, but part of their shrewdness lay in their careful choice of which cases to litigate, selecting the best legal proving grounds for their cause.[52]\nBrown and its consequences\n[edit]In 1954 the contextualization of the equal protection clause would change forever. The Supreme Court itself recognized the gravity of the Brown v Board decision acknowledging that a split decision would be a threat to the role of the Supreme Court and even to the country.[53] When Earl Warren became Chief Justice in 1953, Brown had already come before the Court. While Vinson was still Chief Justice, there had been a preliminary vote on the case at a conference of all nine justices. At that time, the Court had split, with a majority of the justices voting that school segregation did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Warren, however, through persuasion and good-natured cajoling—he had been an extremely successful Republican politician before joining the Court—was able to convince all eight associate justices to join his opinion declaring school segregation unconstitutional.[54] In that opinion, Warren wrote:\nTo separate [children in grade and high schools] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone ... We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.\nWarren discouraged other justices, such as Robert H. Jackson, from publishing any concurring opinion; Jackson\'s draft, which emerged much later (in 1988), included this statement: "Constitutions are easier amended than social customs, and even the North never fully conformed its racial practices to its professions".[55][56] The Court set the case for re-argument on the question of how to implement the decision. In Brown II, decided in 1954, it was concluded that since the problems identified in the previous opinion were local, the solutions needed to be so as well. Thus the court devolved authority to local school boards and to the trial courts that had originally heard the cases. (Brown was actually a consolidation of four different cases from four different states.) The trial courts and localities were told to desegregate with "all deliberate speed".\nPartly because of that enigmatic phrase, but mostly because of self-declared "massive resistance" in the South to the desegregation decision, integration did not begin in any significant way until the mid-1960s and then only to a small degree. In fact, much of the integration in the 1960s happened in response not to Brown but to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court intervened a handful of times in the late 1950s and early 1960s, but its next major desegregation decision was not until Green v. School Board of New Kent County (1968), in which Justice William J. Brennan, writing for a unanimous Court, rejected a "freedom-of-choice" school plan as inadequate. This was a significant decision; freedom-of-choice plans had been very common responses to Brown. Under these plans, parents could choose to send their children to either a formerly white or a formerly black school. Whites almost never opted to attend black-identified schools, however, and blacks rarely attended white-identified schools.\nIn response to Green, many Southern districts replaced freedom-of-choice with geographically based schooling plans; because residential segregation was widespread, little integration was accomplished. In 1971, the Court in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education approved busing as a remedy to segregation; three years later, though, in the case of Milliken v. Bradley (1974), it set aside a lower court order that had required the busing of students between districts, instead of merely within a district. Milliken basically ended the Supreme Court\'s major involvement in school desegregation; however, up through the 1990s many federal trial courts remained involved in school desegregation cases, many of which had begun in the 1950s and 1960s.[57]\nThe curtailment of busing in Milliken v. Bradley is one of several reasons that have been cited to explain why equalized educational opportunity in the United States has fallen short of completion. In the view of various liberal scholars, the election of Richard Nixon in 1968 meant that the executive branch was no longer behind the Court\'s constitutional commitments.[58] Also, the Court itself decided in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973) that the Equal Protection Clause allows—but does not require—a state to provide equal educational funding to all students within the state.[59] Moreover, the Court\'s decision in Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) allowed families to opt out of public schools, despite "inequality in economic resources that made the option of private schools available to some and not to others", as Martha Minow has put it.[60]\nAmerican public school systems, especially in large metropolitan areas, to a large extent are still de facto segregated. Whether due to Brown, or due to Congressional action, or due to societal change, the percentage of black students attending majority-black school districts decreased somewhat until the early 1980s, at which point that percentage began to increase. By the late 1990s, the percentage of black students in mostly minority school districts had returned to about what it was in the late 1960s.[61] In Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007), the Court held that, if a school system became racially imbalanced due to social factors other than governmental racism, then the state is not as free to integrate schools as if the state had been at fault for the racial imbalance. This is especially evident in the charter school system where parents of students can pick which schools their children attend based on the amenities provided by that school and the needs of the child. It seems that race is a factor in the choice of charter school.[62]\nApplication to federal government\n[edit]By its terms, the clause restrains only state governments. However, the Fifth Amendment\'s due process guarantee, beginning with Bolling v. Sharpe (1954), has been interpreted as imposing some of the same restrictions on the federal government: "Though the Fifth Amendment does not contain an equal protection clause, as does the Fourteenth Amendment which applies only to the States, the concepts of equal protection and due process are not mutually exclusive."[63] In Lawrence v. Texas (2003) the Supreme Court added: "Equality of treatment and the due process right to demand respect for conduct protected by the substantive guarantee of liberty are linked in important respects, and a decision on the latter point advances both interests"[64] Some scholars have argued that the Court\'s decision in Bolling should have been reached on other grounds. For example, Michael W. McConnell has written that Congress never "required that the schools of the District of Columbia be segregated."[65] According to that rationale, the segregation of schools in Washington D.C. was unauthorized and therefore illegal.\nThe federal government has at times shared its power to discriminate against noncitizens with states through cooperative federalism. It has done so in the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 and the Children\'s Health Insurance Program.[66]\nTiered scrutiny\n[edit]Despite the undoubted importance of Brown, much of modern equal protection jurisprudence originated in other cases, though not everyone agrees about which other cases. Many scholars assert that the opinion of Justice Harlan Stone in United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938)[67] contained a footnote that was a critical turning point for equal protection jurisprudence,[68] but that assertion is disputed.[69]\nWhatever its precise origins, the basic idea of the modern approach is that more judicial scrutiny is triggered by purported discrimination that involves "fundamental rights" (such as the right to procreation), and similarly more judicial scrutiny is also triggered if the purported victim of discrimination has been targeted because he or she belongs to a "suspect classification" (such as a single racial group). This modern doctrine was pioneered in Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942), which involved depriving certain criminals of the fundamental right to procreate:[70]\nWhen the law lays an unequal hand on those who have committed intrinsically the same quality of offense and sterilizes one and not the other, it has made as invidious a discrimination as if it had selected a particular race or nationality for oppressive treatment.\nUntil 1976, the Supreme Court usually ended up dealing with discrimination by using one of two possible levels of scrutiny: what has come to be called "strict scrutiny" (when a suspect class or fundamental right is involved), or instead the more lenient "rational basis review". Strict scrutiny means that a challenged statute must be "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling" government interest, and must not have a "less restrictive" alternative. In contrast, rational basis scrutiny merely requires that a challenged statute be "reasonably related" to a "legitimate" government interest.\nHowever, in the 1976 case of Craig v. Boren, the Court added another tier of scrutiny, called "intermediate scrutiny", regarding gender discrimination. The Court may have added other tiers too, such as "enhanced rational basis" scrutiny,[71] and "exceedingly persuasive basis" scrutiny.[72]\nAll of this is known as "tiered" scrutiny, and it has had many critics, including Justice Thurgood Marshall who argued for a "spectrum of standards in reviewing discrimination", instead of discrete tiers.[73] Justice John Paul Stevens argued for only one level of scrutiny, given that "there is only one Equal Protection Clause".[73] The whole tiered strategy developed by the Court is meant to reconcile the principle of equal protection with the reality that most laws necessarily discriminate in some way.[74]\nChoosing the standard of scrutiny can determine the outcome of a case, and the strict scrutiny standard is often described as "strict in theory and fatal in fact".[75] In order to select the correct level of scrutiny, Justice Antonin Scalia urged the Court to identify rights as "fundamental" or identify classes as "suspect" by analyzing what was understood when the Equal Protection Clause was adopted, instead of based upon more subjective factors.[76]\nDiscriminatory intent and disparate impact\n[edit]Because inequalities can be caused either intentionally or unintentionally, the Supreme Court has decided that the Equal Protection Clause itself does not forbid governmental policies that unintentionally lead to racial disparities, though Congress may have some power under other clauses of the Constitution to address unintentional disparate impacts. This subject was addressed in the seminal case of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp. (1977). In that case, the plaintiff, a housing developer, sued a city in the suburbs of Chicago that had refused to re-zone a plot of land on which the plaintiff intended to build low-income, racially integrated housing. On the face, there was no clear evidence of racially discriminatory intent on the part of Arlington Heights\'s planning commission. The result was racially disparate, however, since the refusal supposedly prevented mostly African-Americans and Hispanics from moving in. Justice Lewis Powell, writing for the Court, stated, "Proof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose is required to show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause." Disparate impact merely has an evidentiary value; absent a "stark" pattern, "impact is not determinative."[77]\nThe result in Arlington Heights was similar to that in Washington v. Davis (1976), and has been defended on the basis that the Equal Protection Clause was not designed to guarantee equal outcomes, but rather equal opportunities; if a legislature wants to correct unintentional but racially disparate effects, it may be able to do so through further legislation.[78] It is possible for a discriminating state to hide its true intention, and one possible solution is for disparate impact to be considered as stronger evidence of discriminatory intent.[79] This debate, though, is currently academic, since the Supreme Court has not changed its basic approach as outlined in Arlington Heights.\nFor an example of how this rule limits the Court\'s powers under the Equal Protection Clause, see McClesky v. Kemp (1987). In that case a black man was convicted of murdering a white police officer and sentenced to death in the state of Georgia. A study found that killers of whites were more likely to be sentenced to death than were killers of blacks.[80] The Court found that the defense had failed to prove that such data demonstrated the requisite discriminatory intent by the Georgia legislature and executive branch.\nThe "Stop and Frisk" policy in New York allows officers to stop anyone who they feel looks suspicious. Data from police stops shows that even when controlling for variability, people who are black and those of Hispanic descent were stopped more frequently than white people, with these statistics dating back to the late 1990s. A term that has been created to describe the disproportionate number of police stops of black people is "Driving While Black." This term is used to describe the stopping of innocent black people who are not committing any crime.\nIn addition to concerns that a discriminating statute can hide its true intention, there have also been concerns that facially neutral evaluative and statistical devices that are permitted by decision-makers can be subject to racial bias and unfair appraisals of ability.\'[81] As the equal protection doctrine heavily relies on the ability of neutral evaluative tools to engage in neutral selection procedures, racial biases indirectly permitted under the doctrine can have grave ramifications and result in \'uneven conditions.\' \'[81][82] These issues can be especially prominent in areas of public benefits, employment, and college admissions, etc.\'[81]\nVoting rights\n[edit]The Supreme Court ruled in Nixon v. Herndon (1927) that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited denial of the vote based on race. The first modern application of the Equal Protection Clause to voting law came in Baker v. Carr (1962), where the Court ruled that the districts that sent representatives to the Tennessee state legislature were so malapportioned (with some legislators representing ten times the number of residents as others) that they violated the Equal Protection Clause.\nIt may seem counterintuitive that the Equal Protection Clause should provide for equal voting rights; after all, it would seem to make the Fifteenth Amendment and the Nineteenth Amendment redundant. Indeed, it was on this argument, as well as on the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, that Justice John M. Harlan (the grandson of the earlier Justice Harlan) relied on in his dissent from Reynolds. Harlan quoted the congressional debates of 1866 to show that the framers did not intend for the Equal Protection Clause to extend to voting rights, and in reference to the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments, he said:\nIf constitutional amendment was the only means by which all men and, later, women, could be guaranteed the right to vote at all, even for federal officers, how can it be that the far less obvious right to a particular kind of apportionment of state legislatures ... can be conferred by judicial construction of the Fourteenth Amendment? [Emphasis in the original.]\nHarlan also relied on the fact that Section Two of the Fourteenth Amendment "expressly recognizes the States\' power to deny \'or in any way\' abridge the right of their inhabitants to vote for \'the members of the [state] Legislature.\'"[83] Section Two of the Fourteenth Amendment provides a specific federal response to such actions by a state: reduction of a state\'s representation in Congress. However, the Supreme Court has instead responded that voting is a "fundamental right" on the same plane as marriage (Loving v. Virginia); for any discrimination in fundamental rights to be constitutional, the Court requires the legislation to pass strict scrutiny. Under this theory, equal protection jurisprudence has been applied to voting rights.\nA recent use of equal protection doctrine came in Bush v. Gore (2000). At issue was the controversial recount in Florida in the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election. There, the Supreme Court held that the different standards of counting ballots across Florida violated the equal protection clause. The Supreme Court used four of its rulings from 1960s voting rights cases (one of which was Reynolds v. Sims) to support its ruling in Bush v. Gore. It was not this holding that proved especially controversial among commentators, and indeed, the proposition gained seven out of nine votes; Justices Souter and Breyer joined the majority of five—but only for the finding that there was an Equal Protection violation. Much more controversial was the remedy that the Court chose, namely, the cessation of a statewide recount.[84]\nSex, disability, and romantic orientation\n[edit]Originally, the Fourteenth Amendment did not forbid sex discrimination to the same extent as other forms of discrimination. On the one hand, Section Two of the amendment specifically discouraged states from interfering with the voting rights of "males", which made the amendment anathema to many women when it was proposed in 1866.[85] On the other hand, as feminists like Victoria Woodhull pointed out, the word "person" in the Equal Protection Clause was apparently chosen deliberately, instead of a masculine term that could have easily been used instead.[86]\nIn 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Reed v. Reed, extending the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect women from sex discrimination, in situations where there is no rational basis for the discrimination.[citation needed] That level of scrutiny was boosted to an intermediate level in Craig v. Boren (1976).[87]\nThe Supreme Court has been disinclined to extend full "suspect classification" status (thus making a law that categorizes on that basis subject to greater judicial scrutiny) for groups other than racial minorities and religious groups. In City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. (1985), the Court refused to make the developmentally disabled a suspect class. Many commentators have noted, however—and Justice Thurgood Marshall so notes in his partial concurrence—that the Court did appear to examine the City of Cleburne\'s denial of a permit to a group home for intellectually disabled people with a significantly higher degree of scrutiny than is typically associated with the rational-basis test.[88]\nThe Court\'s decision in Romer v. Evans (1996) struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment aimed at denying homosexuals "minority status, quota preferences, protected status or [a] claim of discrimination." The Court rejected as "implausible" the dissent\'s argument that the amendment would not deprive homosexuals of general protections provided to everyone else but rather would merely prevent "special treatment of homosexuals."[89] Much as in City of Cleburne, the Romer decision seemed to employ a markedly higher level of scrutiny than the nominally applied rational-basis test.[90]\nIn Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Court struck down a Texas statute prohibiting homosexual sodomy on substantive due process grounds. In Justice Sandra Day O\'Connor\'s opinion concurring in the judgment, however, she argued that by prohibiting only homosexual sodomy, and not heterosexual sodomy as well, Texas\'s statute did not meet rational-basis review under the Equal Protection Clause; her opinion prominently cited City of Cleburne, and also relied in part on Romer. Notably, O\'Connor\'s opinion did not claim to apply a higher level of scrutiny than mere rational basis, and the Court has not extended suspect-class status to sexual orientation.\nWhile the courts have applied rational-basis scrutiny to classifications based on sexual orientation, it has been argued that discrimination based on sex should be interpreted to include discrimination based on sexual orientation, in which case intermediate scrutiny could apply to gay rights cases.[91] Other scholars disagree, arguing that "homophobia" is distinct from sexism, in a sociological sense, and so treating it as such would be an unacceptable judicial shortcut.[92]\nIn 2013, the Court struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, in United States v. Windsor. No state statute was in question, and therefore the Equal Protection Clause did not apply. The Court did employ similar principles, however, in combination with federalism principles. The Court did not purport to use any level of scrutiny more demanding than rational basis review, according to law professor Erwin Chemerinsky.[93] The four dissenting justices argued that the authors of the statute were rational.[94]\nIn 2015, the Supreme Court held in Obergefell v. Hodges that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and required all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions.\nAffirmative action\n[edit]Affirmative action is the consideration of race, gender, or other factors, to benefit an underrepresented group or to address past injustices done to that group. Individuals who belong to the group are preferred over those who do not belong to the group, for example in educational admissions, hiring, promotions, awarding of contracts, and the like.[95] Such action may be used as a "tie-breaker" if all other factors are inconclusive, or may be achieved through quotas, which allot a certain number of benefits to each group.\nDuring Reconstruction, Congress enacted programs primarily to assist newly freed slaves who had personally been denied many advantages earlier in their lives, based on their former slave status, not necessarily their race or ethnicity. Such legislation was enacted by many of the same people who framed the Equal Protection Clause, though that clause did not apply to such federal legislation, and instead only applied to state legislation.[96] However, now the Equal Protection Clause does apply to private universities and possibly other private businesses (particularly those who accept federal funds), in accordance with Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023).\nSeveral important affirmative action cases to reach the Supreme Court have concerned government contractors—for instance, Adarand Constructors v. Peña (1995) and City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1989). But the most famous cases have dealt with affirmative action as practiced by public universities: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), and two companion cases decided by the Supreme Court in 2003, Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger.\nIn Bakke, the Court held that racial quotas are unconstitutional, but that educational institutions could legally use race as one of many factors to consider in their admissions process. In Grutter and Gratz, the Court upheld both Bakke as a precedent and the admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School. In dicta, however, Justice O\'Connor, writing for the Court, said she expected that in 25 years, racial preferences would no longer be necessary. In Gratz, the Court invalidated Michigan\'s undergraduate admissions policy, on the grounds that unlike the law school\'s policy, which treated race as one of many factors in an admissions process that looked to the individual applicant, the undergraduate policy used a point system that was excessively mechanistic.\nIn these affirmative action cases, the Supreme Court has employed, or has said it employed, strict scrutiny, since the affirmative action policies challenged by the plaintiffs categorized by race. The policy in Grutter, and a Harvard College admissions policy praised by Justice Powell\'s opinion in Bakke, passed muster because the Court deemed that they were narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest in diversity. On one side, critics have argued—including Justice Clarence Thomas in his dissent to Grutter—that the scrutiny the Court has applied in some cases is much less searching than true strict scrutiny, and that the Court has acted not as a principled legal institution but as a biased political one.[97] On the other side, it is argued that the purpose of the Equal Protection Clause is to prevent the socio-political subordination of some groups by others, not to prevent classification; since this is so, non-invidious classifications, such as those used by affirmative action programs, should not be subjected to heightened scrutiny.[98]\nIn Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), and its companion case Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina (2023), the Supreme Court held that race and ethnicity cannot be used in admissions decisions. In other words, preferential treatment based on race or ethnicity violates The Equal Protection Clause. Although "nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant\'s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise," Chief Justice Roberts made it clear that "universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today." Moreover, "what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly." These opinions effectively ended affirmative action in schools. Although the scope and reach of these opinions are unknown, it is not uncommon for Supreme Court cases\' rationale to be applied to similar or analogous facts or circumstances.[citation needed]\nSee also\n[edit]- Economic egalitarianism\n- Egalitarianism\n- Equal consideration of interests\n- Equal opportunity\n- Equal Rights Amendment\n- Equality before the law\n- Equality feminism\n- Equality of autonomy\n- Equality of outcome\n- Equality of sacrifice\n- Racial equality\n- Social equality\n- Uniform Parental Rights Enforcement and Protection Act\n- McDonald v. Board of Election Commissioners of Chicago\nReferences\n[edit]- ^ Failinger, Marie (2009). "Equal protection of the laws". In Schultz, David Andrew (ed.). The Encyclopedia of American Law. Infobase. pp. 152–53. ISBN 978-1-4381-0991-6. Archived from the original on July 24, 2020.\nThe equal protection clause guarantees the right of "similarly situated" people to be treated the same way by the law.\n- ^ "Fair Treatment by the Government: Equal Protection". GeorgiaLegalAid.org. Carl Vinson Institute of Government at University of Georgia. July 30, 2004. Archived from the original on March 20, 2020. Retrieved July 24, 2020.\nThe basic intent of equal protection is to make sure that people are treated as equally as possible under our legal system. For example, it is to see that everyone who gets a speeding ticket will face the samEpocedures [sic!]. A further intent is to ensure that all Americans are provided with equal opportunities in education, employment, and other areas. [...] The U.S. Constitution makes a similar provision in the Fourteenth Amendment. It says that no state shall make or enforce any law that will "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law." These provisions require the government to treat persons equally and impartially.\n- ^ "Equal Protection". Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School. Archived from the original on June 22, 2020. Retrieved July 24, 2020.\nEqual Protection refers to the idea that a governmental body may not deny people equal protection of its governing laws. The governing body state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.\n- ^ Antieau, Chester James (1952). "Equal Protection outside the Clause". California Law Review. 40 (3): 362–377. doi:10.2307/3477928. JSTOR 3477928. Archived from the original on 2019-10-13. Retrieved 2019-07-08.\n- ^ a b "Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2018-11-10.\n- ^ "Dred Scott, 150 Years Ago". The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (55): 19. 2007. JSTOR 25073625.\n- ^ Swisher, Carl Brent (1957). "Dred Scott One Hundred Years After". The Journal of Politics. 19 (2): 167–183. doi:10.2307/2127194. JSTOR 2127194. S2CID 154345582.\n- ^ For details on the rationale for, and ratification of, the Fourteenth Amendment, see generally Foner, Eric (1988). Reconstruction: America\'s Unfinished Revolution, 1863—1877. New York: Harper & Row. ISBN 978-0-06-091453-0., as well as Brest, Paul; et al. (2000). Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking. Gaithersburg: Aspen Law & Business. pp. 241–242. ISBN 978-0-7355-1250-4.\n- ^ See Brest et al. (2000), pp. 242–46.\n- ^ Rosen, Jeffrey. The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America, p. 79 (MacMillan 2007).\n- ^ Newman, Roger. The Constitution and its Amendments, Vol. 4, p. 8 (Macmillan 1999).\n- ^ Hardy, David. "Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment As Reflected in the Print Media of 1866-68", Whittier Law Review, Vol. 30, p. 695 (2008-2009).\n- ^ See Foner (1988), passim. See also Ackerman, Bruce A. (2000). We the People, Volume 2: Transformations. Cambridge: Belknap Press. pp. 99–252. ISBN 978-0-674-00397-2.\n- ^ a b Zuckert, Michael P. (1992). "Completing the Constitution: The Fourteenth Amendment and Constitutional Rights". Publius. 22 (2): 69–91. doi:10.2307/3330348. JSTOR 3330348.\n- ^ a b "Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2018-11-30.\n- ^ a b c Perry, Michael J. (1979). "Modern Equal Protection: A Conceptualization and Appraisal". Columbia Law Review. 79 (6): 1023–1084. doi:10.2307/1121988. JSTOR 1121988.\n- ^ a b Boyd, William M. (1955). "The Second Emancipation". Phylon. 16 (1): 77–86. doi:10.2307/272626. JSTOR 272626.\n- ^ Sumner, Charles, and Daniel Murray Pamphlet Collection. . Washington: S. & R. O. Polkinhorn, Printers, 1874. Pdf. https://www.loc.gov/item/12005313/ .\n- ^ Frank, John P.; Munro, Robert F. (1950). "The Original Understanding of "Equal Protection of the Laws"". Columbia Law Review. 50 (2): 131–169. doi:10.2307/1118709. JSTOR 1118709.\n- ^ "Constitution of the United States - We the People". launchknowledge.com. 10 September 2020.\n- ^ "Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2018-11-10.\n- ^ a b Kelly, Alfred. "Clio and the Court: An Illicit Love Affair[permanent dead link ]", The Supreme Court Review at p. 148 (1965) reprinted in The Supreme Court in and of the Stream of Power (Kermit Hall ed., Psychology Press 2000).\n- ^ Bickel, Alexander. "The Original Understanding and the Segregation Decision", Harvard Law Review, Vol. 69, pp. 35-37 (1955). Bingham was speaking on February 27, 1866. See transcript.\n- ^ Curtis, Michael. "Resurrecting the Privileges or Immunities Clause and Revising the Slaughter-House Cases Without Exhuming Lochner: Individual Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment", Boston College Law Review, Vol. 38 (1997).\n- ^ Glidden, William. Congress and the Fourteenth Amendment: Enforcing Liberty and Equality in the States, p. 79 (Lexington Books 2013).\n- ^ Mount, Steve (January 2007). "Ratification of Constitutional Amendments". Retrieved February 24, 2007.\n- ^ Flack, Horace. The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, p. 232 (Johns Hopkins Press, 1908). For Bingham\'s full speech, see Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 42d Congress, 1st Sess., p. 83 (March 31, 1871).\n- ^ requires citation\n- ^ Wallenstein, Peter. Tell the Court I Love My Wife: Race, Marriage, and Law--An American History, p. 253 (Palgrave Macmillan, Jan 17, 2004). The four of the original thirteen states are New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. Id.\n- ^ Pascoe, Peggy. What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America, p. 58 (Oxford U. Press 2009).\n- ^ Calabresi, Steven and Matthews, Andrea. "Originalism and Loving v. Virginia", Brigham Young University Law Review (2012).\n- ^ Foner, Eric. Reconstruction: America\'s Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877, pp. 321–322 (HarperCollins 2002).\n- ^ Bickel, Alexander. "The Original Understanding and the Segregation Decision", Harvard Law Review, Vol. 69, pp. 35–37 (1955).\n- ^ Finkelman, Paul. "Rehearsal for Reconstruction: Antebellum Origins of the Fourteenth Amendment", in The Facts of Reconstruction: Essays in Honor of John Hope Franklin, p. 19 (Eric Anderson and Alfred A. Moss, eds., LSU Press, 1991).\n- ^ Woloch, Nancy. Women and the American Experience, p. 185 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984).\n- ^ Wayne, Stephen. Is This Any Way to Run a Democratic Election?, p. 27 (CQ PRESS 2013).\n- ^ McInerney, Daniel. A Traveller\'s History of the USA, p. 212 (Interlink Books, 2001).\n- ^ Kerber, Linda. No Constitutional Right to Be Ladies: Women and the Obligations of Citizenship, p. 133 (Macmillan, 1999).\n- ^ Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886).\n- ^ "Annotation 18 - Fourteenth Amendment: Section 1 – Rights Guaranteed: Equal Protection of the Laws: Scope and application state action". FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Law & Legal Information by FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business. Retrieved 23 November 2013.\n- ^ For a summary of the social, political and historical background to Plessy, see Woodward, C. Vann (2001). The Strange Career of Jim Crow. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 6 and pp. 69–70. ISBN 978-0-19-514690-5.\n- ^ For a skeptical evaluation of Harlan, see Chin, Gabriel J. (1996). "The Plessy Myth: Justice Harlan and the Chinese Cases". Iowa Law Review. 82: 151. ISSN 0021-0552. SSRN 1121505.\n- ^ Adam Winkler, "We the Corporations, How American Businesses Won Their Corporate Rights" (New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2018) p. xv\n- ^ However, the legal concept of corporate personhood predates the Fourteenth Amendment. See Providence Bank v. Billings, 29 U.S. 514 (1830), in which Chief Justice Marshall wrote: "The great object of an incorporation is to bestow the character and properties of individuality on a collective and changing body of men." Nevertheless, the concept of corporate personhood remains controversial. See Mayer, Carl J. (1990). "Personalizing the Impersonal: Corporations and the Bill of Rights". Hastings Law Journal. 41: 577. ISSN 0017-8322. Archived from the original on 2007-02-06. Retrieved 2007-02-24.\n- ^ Adam Winkler, "We the Corporations, How American Businesses Won Their Corporate Rights" (New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2018) pp. 128-136\n- ^ Adam Winkler, "We the Corporations, How American Businesses Won Their Corporate Rights" (New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2018) pp. 150-152\n- ^ Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886). John C. Bancroft was a former railway company president. In the summary of the case Bancroft wrote that the Court declared that it did not need to hear argument on whether the Equal Protection Clause protected corporations, because "we are all of the opinion that it does." Id. at 396. Chief Justice Morrison Waite announced from the bench that the Court would not hear argument on the question whether the equal protection clause applied to corporations: "We are all of the opinion that it does." The background and developments from this utterance are treated in H. Graham, Everyman\'s Constitution--Historical Essays on the Fourteenth Amendment, the Conspiracy Theory, and American Constitutionalism (1968), chs. 9, 10, and pp. 566-84. Justice Hugo Black, in Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 303 U.S. 77, 85 (1938), and Justice William O. Douglas, in Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Glander, 337 U.S. 562, 576 (1949), have disagreed that corporations are persons for equal protection purposes.\n- ^ Adam Winkler, "We the Corporations, How American Businesses Won Their Corporate Rights" (New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2018) pp. 154-156. Justice Field was a friend of railroad magnate Leland Stanford, owner of Southern Pacific Railroad, the corporation that had filed these lawsuits, and, as a Supreme Court justice and federal appellate judge for years, had a pro-corporationist agenda. (Adam Winkler, "We the Corporations, How American Businesses Won Their Corporate Rights" (New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2018) pp. 140-143.) Justice Field must have known that in the Santa Clara case the Supreme Court explicitly declined to address the Constitutional issue because, in a companion case to Santa Clara, Justice Field had urged the Court to address precisely this issue by endorsing such corporate rights on Fourteenth Amendment grounds, and he harshly criticized his fellow justices for failing to do so. (Adam Winkler, "We the Corporations, How American Businesses Won Their Corporate Rights" (New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2018) pp. 156-157)\n- ^ Adam Winkler, "We the Corporations, How American Businesses Won Their Corporate Rights" (New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2018) pp. 156-157\n- ^ See Currie, David P. (1987). "The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The New Deal, 1931–1940". University of Chicago Law Review (Submitted manuscript). 54 (2): 504–555. doi:10.2307/1599798. JSTOR 1599798.\n- ^ Feldman, Noah. Scorpions: The Battles and Triumphs of FDR\'s Great Supreme Court Justices, p. 145 (Hachette Digital 2010).\n- ^ See generally Morris, Aldon D. (1986). Origin of the Civil Rights Movements: Black Communities Organizing for Change. New York: Free Press. ISBN 978-0-02-922130-3.\n- ^ Karlan, Pamela S. (2009). "What Can Brown® do for You?: Neutral Principles and the Struggle over the Equal Protection Clause". Duke Law Journal. 58 (6): 1049–1069. JSTOR 20684748.\n- ^ For an exhaustive history of the Brown case from start to finish, see Kluger, Richard (1977). Simple Justice. New York: Vintage. ISBN 978-0-394-72255-9.\n- ^ Shimsky, MaryJane. "Hesitating Between Two Worlds": The Civil Rights Odyssey of Robert H. Jackson, p. 468 (ProQuest, 2007).\n- ^ I Dissent: Great Opposing Opinions in Landmark Supreme Court Cases, pp. 133–151 (Mark Tushnet, ed. Beacon Press, 2008).\n- ^ For a comprehensive history of school desegregation from Brown through Milliken (one on which this article relies for its assertions), see Brest et al. (2000), pp. 768–794.\n- ^ For the history of the American political branches\' engagement with the Supreme Court\'s commitment to desegregation (and vice versa), see Powe, Lucas A. Jr. (2001). The Warren Court and American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. ISBN 978-0-674-00683-6., and Kotz, Nick (2004). Judgment Days: Lyndon Baines Johnson, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Laws That Changed America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 978-0-618-08825-6. For more on the debate summarized in the text, see, e.g., Rosenberg, Gerald N. (1993). The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change?. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-72703-5., and Klarman, Michael J. (1994). "Brown, Racial Change, and the Civil Rights Movement". Virginia Law Review. 80 (1): 7–150. doi:10.2307/1073592. JSTOR 1073592.\n- ^ Reynolds, Troy. "Education Finance Reform Litigation and Separation of Powers: Kentucky Makes Its Contribution," Kentucky Law Journal, Vol. 80 (1991): 309, 310.\n- ^ Minow, Martha. "Confronting the Seduction of Choice: Law, Education and American Pluralism", Yale Law Journal, Vol. 120, p. 814, 819-820 (2011)(Pierce "entrenched the pattern of a two-tiered system of schooling, which sanctions private opt-outs from publicly run schools").\n- ^ For data and analysis, see Orfield (July 2001). "Schools More Separate" (PDF). Harvard University Civil Rights Project. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-06-28. Retrieved 2008-07-16.\n- ^ Jacobs, Nicholas (8 August 2011). "Racial, Economic, and Linguistic Segregation: Analyzing Market Supports in the District of Columbia\'s Public Charter Schools". Education and Urban Society. 45 (1): 120–141. doi:10.1177/0013124511407317. S2CID 144814662. Retrieved 28 October 2013.\n- ^ "FindLaw | Cases and Codes". Caselaw.lp.findlaw.com. 1954-05-17. Retrieved 2012-08-13.\n- ^ Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 598 (2003), at page 2482\n- ^ Balkin, J. M.; Bruce A. Ackerman (2001). "Part II". What Brown v. Board of Education should have said : the nation\'s top legal experts rewrite America\'s landmark civil rights decision. et al. New York University Press. p. 168.\n- ^ Ayers, Ava (2020). "Discriminatory Cooperative Federalism". Villanova Law Review. 65 (1).\n- ^ 304 U.S. 144, 152 n.4 (1938). For a theory of judicial review based on Stone\'s footnote, see Ely, John Hart (1981). Democracy and Distrust. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-19637-6.\n- ^ Goldstein, Leslie. "Between the Tiers: The New(est) Equal Protection and Bush v. Gore Archived 2016-03-04 at the Wayback Machine", University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 4, p. 372 (2002) .\n- ^ Farber, Daniel and Frickey, Philip. "Is Carolene Products Dead--Reflections on Affirmative Action and the Dynamics of Civil Rights Legislation", California Law Review, Vol. 79, p. 685 (1991). Farber and Frickey point out that "only Chief Justice Hughes, Justice Brandeis, and Justice Roberts joined Justice Stone\'s footnote", and in any event "It is simply a myth ... that the process theory of footnote four in Carolene Products is, or ever has been, the primary justification for invalidating laws embodying prejudice against racial minorities."\n- ^ Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942). Sometimes the "suspect" classification strand of the modern doctrine is attributed to Korematsu v. United States (1944), but Korematsu did not involve the Fourteenth Amendment, and moreover it came later than the Skinner opinion (which clearly stated that both deprivation of fundamental rights as well as oppression of a particular race or nationality were invidious).\n- ^ See City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. (1985)\n- ^ See United States v. Virginia (1996).\n- ^ a b Fleming, James. "\'There is Only One Equal Protection Clause\': An Appreciation of Justice Stevens\'s Equal Protection Jurisprudence", Fordham Law Review, Vol. 74, p. 2301, 2306 (2006).\n- ^ See Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631 (1996): "the equal protection of the laws must coexist with the practical necessity that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, with resulting disadvantage to various groups or persons."\n- ^ Curry, James et al. Constitutional Government: The American Experience, p. 282 (Kendall Hunt 2003) (attributing the phrase to Gerald Gunther).\n- ^ Domino, John. Civil Rights & Liberties in the 21st Century, pp. 337-338 (Pearson 2009).\n- ^ Kroll, Joshua (2017). "Accountable Algorithms (Ricci v. DeStefano: The Tensions Between Equal Protection, Disparate Treatment, and Disparate Impact)". University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 165: 692.\n- ^ Herzog, Don (March 22, 2005). "Constitutional Rights: Two". Left2Right. Note that the Court has put significant limits on the congressional power of enforcement. See City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett (2001), and United States v. Morrison (2000). The Court has also interpreted federal statutory law as limiting the power of states to correct disparate effects. See Ricci v. DeStefano (2009).\n- ^ See Krieger, Linda Hamilton (1995). "The Content of Our Categories: A Cognitive Bias Approach to Discrimination and Equal Protection Opportunity". Stanford Law Review. 47 (6): 1161–1248. doi:10.2307/1229191. hdl:10125/66110. JSTOR 1229191., and Lawrence, Charles R. III (1987). "Reckoning with Unconscious Racism". Stanford Law Review. 39 (2): 317–388. doi:10.2307/1228797. hdl:10125/65975. JSTOR 1228797.\n- ^ Baldus, David C.; Pulaski, Charles; Woodworth, George (1983). "Comparative Review of Death Sentences: An Empirical Study of the Georgia Experience". Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Submitted manuscript). 74 (3): 661–753. doi:10.2307/1143133. JSTOR 1143133.\n- ^ a b c Feingold, Jonathon (2019). "Equal Protection Design Defects". Temple Law Review. 91.\n- ^ Barocas, Solon (2016). "Big Data\'s Disparate Impact". California Law Review. 104 (3): 671–732. JSTOR 24758720.\n- ^ Van Alstyne, William. "The Fourteenth Amendment, the Right to Vote, and the Understanding of the Thirty-Ninth Congress", Supreme Court Review, p. 33 (1965).\n- ^ For criticisms as well as several defenses of the Court\'s decision, see Bush v. Gore: The Question of Legitimacy, edited by Ackerman, Bruce A. (2002). Bush v. Gore: the question of legitimacy. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-09379-7. Another much-cited collection of essays is Sunstein, Cass; Epstein, Richard (2001). The Vote: Bush, Gore, and the Supreme Court. Chicago: Chicago University Press. ISBN 978-0-226-21307-1.\n- ^ Cullen-Dupont, Kathryn. Encyclopedia of Women\'s History in America, pp. 91-92 (Infobase Publishing, Jan 1, 2009).\n- ^ Hymowitz, Carol and Weissman, Michaele. A History of Women in America, p. 128 (Random House Digital, 2011).\n- ^ Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976).\n- ^ See Pettinga, Gayle Lynn (1987). "Rational Basis with Bite: Intermediate Scrutiny by Any Other Name". Indiana Law Journal. 62: 779. ISSN 0019-6665.; Wadhwani, Neelum J. (2006). "Rational Reviews, Irrational Results". Texas Law Review. 84: 801, 809–811. ISSN 0040-4411.\n- ^ Kuligowski, Monte. "Romer v. Evans: Judicial Judgment or Emotive Utterance?," Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development, Vol. 12 (1996).\n- ^ Joslin, Courtney (1997). "Equal Protection and Anti-Gay Legislation". Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review. 32: 225, 240. ISSN 0017-8039.\nThe Romer Court applied a more \'active,\' Cleburne-like rational basis standard ...\n; Farrell, Robert C. (1999). "Successful Rational Basis Claims in the Supreme Court from the 1971 Term Through Romer v. Evans". Indiana Law Review. 32: 357. ISSN 0019-6665. - ^ See Koppelman, Andrew (1994). "Why Discrimination against Lesbians and Gay Men is Sex Discrimination". New York University Law Review. 69: 197. ISSN 0028-7881.; see also Fricke v. Lynch, 491 F.Supp. 381, 388, fn. 6 (1980), vacated 627 F.2d 1088 [case decided on First Amendment free-speech grounds, but "This case can also be profitably analyzed under the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth amendment. In preventing Aaron Fricke from attending the senior reception, the school has afforded disparate treatment to a certain class of students those wishing to attend the reception with companions of the same sex."]\n- ^ Gerstmann, Evan. Same Sex Marriage and the Constitution, p. 55 (Cambridge University Press, 2004).\n- ^ Chemerinsky, Erwin. "Justice Kennedy\'s World Archived 2013-07-09 at the Wayback Machine", The National Law Journal (July 1, 2013): "There is another similarity between his opinion in Windsor and his earlier ones in Romer and Lawrence: the Supreme Court invalidated the law without using heightened scrutiny for sexual-orientation discrimination ... A law based on animus fails to meet even rational-basis review so there was no need to adopt a higher level of scrutiny."\n- ^ United States v. Windsor Archived 2015-04-27 at the Wayback Machine, No. 12-307, 2013 BL 169620, 118 FEP Cases 1417 (U.S. June 26, 2013).\n- ^ "Affirmative Action". Stanford University. Retrieved April 6, 2012.\n- ^ See Schnapper, Eric (1985). "Affirmative Action and the Legislative History of the Fourteenth Amendment" (PDF). Virginia Law Review. 71 (5): 753–798. doi:10.2307/1073012. JSTOR 1073012.\n- ^ See Schuck, Peter H. (September 5, 2003). "Reflections on Grutter". Jurist. Archived from the original on 2005-09-09.\n- ^ See Siegel, Reva B. (2004). "Equality Talk: Antisubordination and Anticlassification Values in Constitutional Struggles over Brown". Harvard Law Review (Submitted manuscript). 117 (5): 1470–1547. doi:10.2307/4093259. JSTOR 4093259.; Carter, Stephen L. (1988). "When Victims Happen to Be Black". Yale Law Journal. 97 (3): 420–447. doi:10.2307/796412. JSTOR 796412.\nExternal links\n[edit]- Original Meaning of Equal Protection of the Laws Archived 2011-07-09 at the Wayback Machine, Federalist Blog\n- Equal Protection: An Overview, Cornell Law School\n- Equal Protection, Heritage Guide to the Constitution\n- Equal Protection (U.S. law), Encyclopædia Britannica\n- Naderi, Siavash. "The Not So Definite Article", Brown Political Review (November 16, 2012).', + "relevant": 'Equal Protection Clause\nThe Equal Protection Clause is part of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law.[1][2][3]\nA primary motivation for this clause was to validate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that all citizens would have the right to equal protection by law. As a whole', + }, + ] ] From b378699bb0a36cb73c0cf7b74c6ade151510c207 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: richwardle Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 10:42:00 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 15/16] fix unittest --- tests/scripts/test_autoupdater.py | 9 +++++++-- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/tests/scripts/test_autoupdater.py b/tests/scripts/test_autoupdater.py index 96c9a372b..ce4ad6114 100644 --- a/tests/scripts/test_autoupdater.py +++ b/tests/scripts/test_autoupdater.py @@ -5,7 +5,6 @@ import pytest - def test_autoupdater_script(): current_dir = os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__)) project_root = os.path.dirname(os.path.dirname(current_dir)) @@ -19,6 +18,13 @@ def test_autoupdater_script(): os.makedirs(test_dir, exist_ok=True) try: + subprocess.run(["git", "config", "--global", "user.name", "AutoUpdater"], check=True) + subprocess.run(["git", "config", "--global", "user.email", "autoupdater@example.com"], check=True) + + remote_dir = os.path.join(project_root, "updater_test_remote") + if os.path.exists(remote_dir): + shutil.rmtree(remote_dir) + shutil.copy2(autoupdater_path, os.path.join(test_dir, "autoupdater.sh")) process = subprocess.Popen( [test_script_path], @@ -38,7 +44,6 @@ def test_autoupdater_script(): stdout, stderr = process.communicate() - # Assert that the script ran successfully assert process.returncode == 0, f"Script failed with error: {stderr}" assert "✅ Test passed!" in stdout, "The test did not pass as expected." From e94e0d03bfc3881bc51a9af479fb91c1cf57b0b3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: richwardle Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 10:50:26 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 16/16] linter changes --- neurons/miners/epistula_miner/miner.py | 1 + tests/scripts/test_autoupdater.py | 1 + 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/neurons/miners/epistula_miner/miner.py b/neurons/miners/epistula_miner/miner.py index fcb331eec..7ed556f9f 100644 --- a/neurons/miners/epistula_miner/miner.py +++ b/neurons/miners/epistula_miner/miner.py @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ SHOULD_SERVE_LLM: bool = False LOCAL_MODEL_ID = "casperhansen/llama-3-8b-instruct-awq" + class OpenAIMiner: def __init__(self): self.should_exit = False diff --git a/tests/scripts/test_autoupdater.py b/tests/scripts/test_autoupdater.py index ce4ad6114..a20127690 100644 --- a/tests/scripts/test_autoupdater.py +++ b/tests/scripts/test_autoupdater.py @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ import pytest + def test_autoupdater_script(): current_dir = os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__)) project_root = os.path.dirname(os.path.dirname(current_dir))