Relationships with State Institutions - AP Government and Politics

When the national government provides a state with a categorical grant, it attaches many rules as to how the money can be spent: it comes with "strings attached." Block grants, however, can be provided with very few rules; the state decides how it will use the money. None of the other answers are true.

Congress has threatened to withhold various types of funds in order to gain leverage in legal areas granted to states under the Tenth Amendment. One famous case was held up by the Supreme Court: the Reagan administration threatened to withhold ten percent of highway funds until states changed their legal drinking age to 21. This is part of a long history of power struggles between states and the federal government. Students should be familiar with the most notable cases of these power struggles throughout American history, and in that way be familiar with Federalism (including Dual Federalism and Cooperative Federalism).

According to Article Two, Section Two, Clause One of the Constitution, the President is "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." However, Article One, Section Eight, Clause Eleven, specifically empowers Congress to declare war. While this has always been legally upheld, the line between "war" and a "conflict" has often been blurred, with Presidents of both parties launching military operations with no or little congressional approval.

Article IV (4) of the United States Constitution is concerned with addressing the relationship between the states, as well as between the states and the Federal government.

This is should be a fairly simply question, as long as you remember the difference between inter and intra: inter means “between” and intra means “within.” Thus, interstate commerce refers to business in between the states, while intrastate commerce refers to business solely within the state. The former falls under the powers of the federal government and the latter belongs to the states (this has been . . . tweaked . . . slightly by the Supreme Court and the “dormant commerce clause” but that is far beyond the scope of your course).

All of the other powers belong to the federal government, for somewhat obvious reasons: you don’t want individual states attempting to represent the US as a whole to foreign countries—that would be horribly disjointed; in order to have uniform bankruptcy laws, those laws cannot be formed in each individual state (again, oversimplified); to maintain a nation-wide defense, there has to be nationwide oversight.

When the national government provides a state with a categorical grant, it attaches many rules as to how the money can be spent: it comes with "strings attached." Block grants, however, can be provided with very few rules; the state decides how it will use the money. None of the other answers are true.

Congress has threatened to withhold various types of funds in order to gain leverage in legal areas granted to states under the Tenth Amendment. One famous case was held up by the Supreme Court: the Reagan administration threatened to withhold ten percent of highway funds until states changed their legal drinking age to 21. This is part of a long history of power struggles between states and the federal government. Students should be familiar with the most notable cases of these power struggles throughout American history, and in that way be familiar with Federalism (including Dual Federalism and Cooperative Federalism).

According to Article Two, Section Two, Clause One of the Constitution, the President is "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." However, Article One, Section Eight, Clause Eleven, specifically empowers Congress to declare war. While this has always been legally upheld, the line between "war" and a "conflict" has often been blurred, with Presidents of both parties launching military operations with no or little congressional approval.

Article IV (4) of the United States Constitution is concerned with addressing the relationship between the states, as well as between the states and the Federal government.

This is should be a fairly simply question, as long as you remember the difference between inter and intra: inter means “between” and intra means “within.” Thus, interstate commerce refers to business in between the states, while intrastate commerce refers to business solely within the state. The former falls under the powers of the federal government and the latter belongs to the states (this has been . . . tweaked . . . slightly by the Supreme Court and the “dormant commerce clause” but that is far beyond the scope of your course).

All of the other powers belong to the federal government, for somewhat obvious reasons: you don’t want individual states attempting to represent the US as a whole to foreign countries—that would be horribly disjointed; in order to have uniform bankruptcy laws, those laws cannot be formed in each individual state (again, oversimplified); to maintain a nation-wide defense, there has to be nationwide oversight.

When the national government provides a state with a categorical grant, it attaches many rules as to how the money can be spent: it comes with "strings attached." Block grants, however, can be provided with very few rules; the state decides how it will use the money. None of the other answers are true.

Congress has threatened to withhold various types of funds in order to gain leverage in legal areas granted to states under the Tenth Amendment. One famous case was held up by the Supreme Court: the Reagan administration threatened to withhold ten percent of highway funds until states changed their legal drinking age to 21. This is part of a long history of power struggles between states and the federal government. Students should be familiar with the most notable cases of these power struggles throughout American history, and in that way be familiar with Federalism (including Dual Federalism and Cooperative Federalism).

According to Article Two, Section Two, Clause One of the Constitution, the President is "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." However, Article One, Section Eight, Clause Eleven, specifically empowers Congress to declare war. While this has always been legally upheld, the line between "war" and a "conflict" has often been blurred, with Presidents of both parties launching military operations with no or little congressional approval.

Article IV (4) of the United States Constitution is concerned with addressing the relationship between the states, as well as between the states and the Federal government.

This is should be a fairly simply question, as long as you remember the difference between inter and intra: inter means “between” and intra means “within.” Thus, interstate commerce refers to business in between the states, while intrastate commerce refers to business solely within the state. The former falls under the powers of the federal government and the latter belongs to the states (this has been . . . tweaked . . . slightly by the Supreme Court and the “dormant commerce clause” but that is far beyond the scope of your course).

All of the other powers belong to the federal government, for somewhat obvious reasons: you don’t want individual states attempting to represent the US as a whole to foreign countries—that would be horribly disjointed; in order to have uniform bankruptcy laws, those laws cannot be formed in each individual state (again, oversimplified); to maintain a nation-wide defense, there has to be nationwide oversight.

When the national government provides a state with a categorical grant, it attaches many rules as to how the money can be spent: it comes with "strings attached." Block grants, however, can be provided with very few rules; the state decides how it will use the money. None of the other answers are true.

Congress has threatened to withhold various types of funds in order to gain leverage in legal areas granted to states under the Tenth Amendment. One famous case was held up by the Supreme Court: the Reagan administration threatened to withhold ten percent of highway funds until states changed their legal drinking age to 21. This is part of a long history of power struggles between states and the federal government. Students should be familiar with the most notable cases of these power struggles throughout American history, and in that way be familiar with Federalism (including Dual Federalism and Cooperative Federalism).

According to Article Two, Section Two, Clause One of the Constitution, the President is "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." However, Article One, Section Eight, Clause Eleven, specifically empowers Congress to declare war. While this has always been legally upheld, the line between "war" and a "conflict" has often been blurred, with Presidents of both parties launching military operations with no or little congressional approval.

Article IV (4) of the United States Constitution is concerned with addressing the relationship between the states, as well as between the states and the Federal government.

This is should be a fairly simply question, as long as you remember the difference between inter and intra: inter means “between” and intra means “within.” Thus, interstate commerce refers to business in between the states, while intrastate commerce refers to business solely within the state. The former falls under the powers of the federal government and the latter belongs to the states (this has been . . . tweaked . . . slightly by the Supreme Court and the “dormant commerce clause” but that is far beyond the scope of your course).

All of the other powers belong to the federal government, for somewhat obvious reasons: you don’t want individual states attempting to represent the US as a whole to foreign countries—that would be horribly disjointed; in order to have uniform bankruptcy laws, those laws cannot be formed in each individual state (again, oversimplified); to maintain a nation-wide defense, there has to be nationwide oversight.