Congress: how it is built and what it can do

Grade 12 Social Studies Worksheet

Circle the best answer.

1. Read this first

   Use this

   Cards A to E on how far the commerce power reaches (the excerpts are exact; card E is made up). Card A, "Article I, Section 8". Who made it: the Constitutional Convention. When: September 17, 1787. For whom: the states and the people. Why: to list the powers of Congress. Excerpt 1: "The Congress shall have Power … To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" Excerpt 2: "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." Card B, "McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)". Who made it: Chief Justice John Marshall, for the Supreme Court. When: 1819. For whom: the parties, other courts and the public. Why: to decide whether Congress could charter a national bank. Excerpt: "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional." Card C, "Wickard v. Filburn (1942)". Who made it: Justice Robert Jackson, for the Supreme Court. When: 1942. For whom: the parties, other courts and the public. Why: to decide whether a federal wheat quota could reach wheat grown for use on the farm where it grew. Excerpt 1: "But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'" Excerpt 2: "That appellee's own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial." Card D, "United States v. Lopez (1995)". Who made it: Chief Justice William Rehnquist, for a 5 to 4 Supreme Court. When: 1995. For whom: the parties, other courts and the public. Why: to decide whether Congress could make it a federal crime to possess certain items in a school zone (Section 922(q)). Excerpt 1: "First, we have upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity where we have concluded that the activity substantially affected interstate commerce. Examples include … production and consumption of home-grown wheat, Wickard v. Filburn … (1942). These examples are by no means exhaustive, but the pattern is clear. Where economic activity substantially affects interstate commerce, legislation regulating that activity will be sustained." Excerpt 2: "Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with 'commerce' or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms. … Section 922(q) is not an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under our cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce." Excerpt 3: "To uphold the Government's contentions here, we would have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States." Card E, "Three made-up laws". Who made it: written for this sheet. Summary in our words, not a quotation: Case 1: As part of a national plan to steady honey prices, Congress caps the honey each household may produce, counting honey a family keeps for its own table. Case 2: Congress makes it a federal crime to shout at a referee at a youth soccer game in a town park, finding that rowdy games keep families from spending on tickets and travel. Case 3: Congress sets label rules for vegetable seeds sold across the country and, finding that unlabeled gifts would undercut those rules, also bars giving unlabeled seeds to a neighbor.

2. 1.

   Congress defends Case 2 by pointing to lost ticket and travel spending. Esme weighs cards C and D. Which conclusion is best supported?

   • It stands: Wickard adds up small acts, and many rowdy games together cost real ticket sales
   • It falls: shouting is not economic activity, and tying it to ticket sales piles inference upon inference
   • It stands: card B leaves the choice of means to Congress once Congress names a legitimate economic goal
   • It falls: each game takes place within one state, and the commerce power stops at the state's borders
3. 2.

   Critics say Case 3 bans gifts, not commerce. Noah compares the cards. Which line gives Case 3 its strongest defense after Lopez?

   • Card A's commerce clause: seeds are sold among the several States, so a rule about seeds is covered
   • Card C's first excerpt: gifts, whatever their nature, can be reached because seeds affect national markets
   • Card D's second excerpt: unlike Section 922(q), the gift ban is part of a larger economic rule it protects
   • Card B's test: a means that Congress thinks helpful to a legitimate end is for that reason constitutional
4. 3.

   Ari sums up cards B to D in one claim for a class debate. Which claim do the three cards best support together?

   • Lopez replaced McCulloch's test with a rule that a law must be the one means a power cannot do without
   • Wickard decides commerce cases by asking whether a local activity's effect is direct or indirect
   • Lopez overruled Wickard and returned the commerce power to goods that actually cross state lines
   • The Court reads the power broadly for economic activity but drew a line at noneconomic conduct in 1995

5. Use this

   Cards A to E on Senate rules (the excerpt is exact; cards B and C are summaries, card D is data, card E is made up). Card A, "Article I, Section 5". Who made it: the Constitutional Convention. When: September 17, 1787. For whom: the states and the people. Why: to let each house run itself. Excerpt: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, …" Card B, "Cloture under Senate Rule XXII". Who made it: written for this sheet from Senate and Congressional Research Service pages. Summary in our words, not a quotation: Cloture ends debate. On a bill it takes three fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn, which is 60 when no seat is empty; the bill then passes by a simple majority. In 1969–1970 cloture took two thirds of the senators present and voting; in 1975 the Senate lowered it to three fifths. In November 2013 a Senate majority set a new precedent letting a majority of those voting end debate on nominations other than to the Supreme Court; in April 2017 it did the same for the Supreme Court. Bills still need 60. Card C, "Budget reconciliation". Who made it: written for this sheet from Congressional Research Service pages. Summary in our words, not a quotation: Under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, Senate debate on a budget reconciliation bill is limited to 20 hours, so it cannot be filibustered and passes by a simple majority. Under the Byrd rule, any senator may object to a provision that does not change spending or revenue, or changes them only incidentally; the provision is struck unless three fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn vote to waive the rule. Card D, "Senate action on cloture motions". Who made it: the United States Senate (senate.gov), read November 14, 2026. Table, columns Congress | Years | Motions filed | Cloture votes | Cloture invoked: 91st | 1969–1970 | 7 | 6 | 0; 103rd | 1993–1994 | 80 | 46 | 14; 110th | 2007–2008 | 139 | 112 | 61; 113th | 2013–2014 | 252 | 218 | 187; 117th | 2021–2022 | 336 | 289 | 270. Note in our words: a cloture motion may be filed on a bill, an amendment or a nomination, and leaders sometimes file one before any delay begins, so the table counts motions and votes, not filibusters. Card E, "Bills M and N (made up)". Who made it: written for this sheet. Summary in our words, not a quotation: The Senate has 52 majority-party senators and 48 in the minority, with no empty seats. Bill M has 55 firm yes votes: the 52 in the majority and 3 in the minority. Bill M sets national rules for school sports seasons and changes no spending or revenue. Bill N cuts a tax and also renames a national park; the renaming changes no spending or revenue.

6. 4.

   The majority puts Bill N from card E into a budget reconciliation bill. Luz applies card C. What is the likely result?

   • Both parts need 60 votes, because card B's cloture rule still governs any bill that changes the law
   • Both parts can pass by a simple majority, because a reconciliation bill cannot be filibustered in the Senate
   • Neither part can pass by a simple majority, because one non-budget part opens the entire bill to a filibuster
   • The tax cut can pass by a simple majority, but a senator can have the renaming struck unless 60 vote to waive
7. 5.

   Tala compares the 110th and 113th rows of card D with card B's 2013 change. Which account of the shift fits the evidence best?

   • The minority filibustered less after 2013, since a far larger share of cloture votes then succeeded on the floor
   • Ending debate became harder after 2013, since the number of cloture votes taken nearly doubled
   • Cloture succeeded far more often, 187 of 218 votes against 61 of 112, once most nominations needed a majority
   • The 2013 change let a majority end debate on bills, so cloture votes on bills began to succeed
8. 6.

   Jun writes one claim from card D for a report on the Senate since 1969. Which claim does the card support best?

   • Bills needed fewer votes to pass in 2021–2022, since most cloture votes that Congress succeeded
   • Most cloture motions filed in 2021–2022 were dropped, with fewer than half reaching a vote
   • The minority filibustered about fifty times as often in 2021–2022 as it did in 1969–1970
   • Cloture went from a rare step to a routine one: 6 votes in 1969–1970 and 289 in 2021–2022
9. 7.

   Bill M on card E has 55 firm yes votes. Pia applies cards B and C. Who holds the most leverage over its fate?

   • The minority leader, who must keep 48 minority votes against cloture to block Bill M on the floor
   • The majority leader, who can move Bill M through reconciliation and pass it with the 52 majority votes
   • The 3 minority senators already voting yes, since their votes are what bring the total to 55
   • The undecided minority senators, since cloture needs 5 more yes votes and reconciliation cannot carry Bill M

10. Use this

    Cards A to D on representation in the two houses (the excerpts are exact; card C gives Census figures in our words; card D is made up). Card A, "Madison on the Senate's equal vote". Who made it: James Madison, writing as Publius. When: February 1788. For whom: the people of New York. Why: to defend the Senate in the proposed Constitution. Excerpt (The Federalist No. 62): "In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty." Card B, "Reynolds v. Sims (1964)". Who made it: Chief Justice Earl Warren, for the Supreme Court. When: 1964. For whom: the parties, other courts and the public. Why: to decide how seats in Alabama's legislature must be divided. Excerpt 1: "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests." Excerpt 2: "The system of representation in the two Houses of the Federal Congress is one ingrained in our Constitution, as part of the law of the land." Excerpt 3: "Political subdivisions of States—counties, cities, or whatever—never were and never have been considered as sovereign entities." Card C, "The 2020 Census". Who made it: the US Census Bureau. When: April 26, 2021. For whom: the President, Congress and the public. Why: to report state populations for dividing House seats. Figures in our words: the five most populous states held 37.2 percent of the US resident population (123,425,864 people); the five least populous (Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota and South Dakota) held 1.0 percent (3,619,080 people). Each House member represents 761,169 people on average; Delaware has the largest average district (990,837) and Montana the smallest (542,704). Card D, "Marlen, a made-up state". Who made it: written for this sheet. Summary in our words, not a quotation: Marlen has 1,000,000 people in five counties: Ash 600,000; Birch 200,000; Cedar 100,000; Dell 60,000; Elm 40,000. A proposal would copy the US Senate by giving each county one seat in Marlen's 5-seat state senate.

11. 8.

    Milo sets card A beside card C. Which statement best captures the trade-off the two cards show together?

    • The equal vote has lost its purpose, since a vote for 1.0 percent of residents no longer protects sovereignty
    • Equal votes protect the states as units, so 10 senators for 1.0 percent of residents match 10 for 37.2 percent
    • The House is unequal too, since Delaware's average district is nearly twice the size of Montana's
    • Card B's rule that legislators represent people requires the Senate itself to be redrawn by population
12. 9.

    Suppose a court applies card B to Marlen's 5-seat senate on card D. Zee traces how power in that senate would shift.

    • Birch would gain the most, rising from 1 seat to 2, since it holds 200,000 people
    • Cedar, Dell and Elm would gain, since a population rule protects the counties with fewer voters in them
    • Ash would fill the senate by itself, since a county with most of the people elects each seat
    • Ash, with 60 percent of the people, would hold about 3 of 5 seats instead of 1, a majority by itself
13. 10.

    Kira drafts one claim about both houses from cards A to C. Which claim do the cards best support?

    • Both houses depart from equal population, but the Senate far more, by a design the Constitution protects
    • The House matches population closely, since the census sets each district at 761,169 people
    • Card B shows that the Senate's equal state votes violate the rule that legislators represent people
    • Small states gain in both houses, as Montana's districts are the smallest in the country