Search the archive.

DHAKA, Bangladesh, 21 June 2023 (IDN) — When analysts ask, what does the Ukraine war have to do with Bangladesh or Brazil, most of the people may say, perhaps not much. But in reality, Western sanctions on Russia following the outbreak of the Ukraine war is causing tremendous suffering to all countries in the world—even to the United States and its Western allies. Meanwhile, leaders of the Global South, pleading to an end to the ongoing war. But in vain.

Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has been repeatedly calling for an end to the Ukraine crisis, also requesting the United States to lift sanctions on Russia arguing that such sanctions are causing tremendous sufferings to the people of Bangladesh and several countries in world. During her recent phone call with Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina called for resolving all disputes peacefully, saying this principle should be followed universally.

After the end of the Cold War, the world bid farewell to the era of bipolarity. With a fresh wave of globalization and the advent of the internet and information age, the world has been moving toward multipolarization instead of the dominance of one country.

Globalization has contributed to a more rational and efficient allocation of world resources, as well as enabling different countries and civilizations to give full play to their resource endowments and advantages and develop rapidly. Even countries that are lacking in natural resources have achieved development by investing in and tapping human resources.

But, even if Biden were in a stronger position in relation to his reelection possibilities, his so-called “Foreign Policy for the Middle Class” and his “Build Back Better” program, contain streaks of nativism and protectionism that worry many abroad. Managing international affairs as an extension to domestic politics and domestic economic policy, as these policies propose, echoes some of Trump’s misunderstandings on how modern economy works. Biden’s administration, as a result, has retained many of his predecessor trade initiatives, including the aluminium and steel tariffs on American allies. Meanwhile, the current White House has shown little interest in strengthening the World Trade Organization or in joining the TPP successor, the CPTPP. To win Rust Belt voters for his party, Biden seems unwilling to depart from Trump’s legacy in this area. On top of that, Biden’s decisions to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan without consulting its allies, or of imposing against their wishes a tight deadline for leaving Kabul, was seen as reminiscent of the unilateralism of Bush and Trump. Not surprisingly, this brought fresh doubts in relation to the trustworthiness of the United States and renewed calls for a European strategic autonomy. The European Union foreign policy chief, Josep Borell, talked about a wake-up call for Europe, and about their need to think and act in their own strategic terms. On a similar note, the Biden administration’s nuclear submarine deal with Australia, secretly bypassing a diesel submarine deal between France and Australia, was resented by the former and by other of its European partners as a new manifestation of America’s unilateralism. It would seem that although Biden has formally called for a liberal internationalist crusade against authoritarianism, and asserted his commitment to a “rules based international order”, many of his actions have created doubts about his true convictions in this matter. This has led Richard Hass to assert that the United States wants the benefit of international order without the hard work needed for building and maintaining it. In sum, the possibility of the United States getting a “third chance” looks, indeed, ever more distant and uphill (Dorsey, 2021; Hass, 2021; Karni, 2021; McGee, 2021; Menon, 2021; Schake, 2021).

The United States faces now an extremely difficult assignment in gathering an alliance base, even more difficult when directed against the golden goose that China represents. In 2020 the European Union’s trade with China reached US$709 billion versus US$671 with the United States, a gap in China’s favor that will increase with every passing year. Not surprisingly, the European Union members, with Germany at their head, have been reluctant to confront the Asian country, claiming a strategic autonomy in its relationship with it. Although timidly supporting Biden’s proposition in the June 2021 G7 Summit—to keep a firmer stand in relation to China- European countries were squeamish about getting dragged by the United States in this contest. Germany, Italy, and France made it clear that the G7 should not be hostile to China (Brands, 2021; Collison, 2021; Deutsche Welle, 2021; Mahbubani, 2020a).

The Trump administration followed through on the candidate’s provocative campaign rhetoric and targeted longstanding U.S. global commitments. He questioned the value of NATO and consistently badgered members to pay more to collective defense (Birnbaum and Kim 2018). Trump also attacked East Asian allies Japan and South Korea, even demanding that they pay for the protection they receive from the United States (Flynn 2019). At the same time, coordination with these allies was generally poor as Trump embarked on an idiosyncratic and (at times) erratic policies toward Moscow and Beijing, further straining relations with America’s oldest friends (Blake 2017b). Dismissing the concerns of friends and adversaries alike, he withdrew the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear program, undermining years of painstaking diplomacy that had produced an important multilateral agreement during the Obama administration’s second term (Hudson 2018). He also engaged in bouts of highly personal diplomacy with Kim Jong Un seeking an agreement on North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and embraced human rights violators like Crown Prince Muhammad bin-Salman (Dawsey 2018, Nakamura 2018, Gearan 2021). Finally, Trump followed through on campaign rhetoric against free trade and international cooperation more broadly, forcing Canada and Mexico to re-write the North American Free Trade Agreement (Stein 2020a), placing a host of tariffs on Asian and European imports (Gearan and Demirjian 2018) including a high profile contentious trade war with China (Long 2020), and attacked international organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Health Organization (WHO), from which he announced the United States’ withdrawal at the height of the global Covid-19 pandemic (Paletta and Swanson 2017, Lynch and Rauhala 2020).

The logical result of a Trump’s ‘America First’ foreign policy, prioritizing unilateralism, economic nationalism, and sovereignty, implies an international system in which interdependence and cooperation are highly circumscribed (Gallarotti 2022). In such a world, cooperation is entirely transactional, and unipolarity is more likely to give way to multipolarity, as the United States essentially abdicates its leadership position and hegemony (Haass 2020). Competition, and certainly a great power conflict, is not inevitable. But it is extremely difficult to find a historical analogue that would predict a stable and peaceful international system in the long term (Kennedy 1987).

Gone are thus the days when the United States could outspend its foe, leading it into bankruptcy. In not a distant future, just the opposite may be happening. The United States will be hard-pressed if it tries to follow suit on Chinese deeper pockets’ spending. As Paul Kennedy asserted, the need to divert investment away from butter toward guns, leads any great power to the downward spiral of slower growth, heavier taxes and deepening domestic splits over spending priorities. As previous “number one” have experienced, he argues, when their relative economic strength ebbs, the growing foreign challenges to their receding position have compelled them to allocate more and more of their resources into the military sector, thus accelerating its decay. Hence, America’s obvious danger in following the Soviets’ footsteps. Moreover, in order to be effective a containment policy requires to be on the winning side of the budgetary competition. Otherwise, any measure taken in pursuit of that purpose could be outmatched and outspent by the counterpart. A good example of this was given by the 1977 Soviet deployment of the SS-20 intermediate missiles in Europe, which was met by America’s counter-deployment of the Pershing II missiles, reputed to be fifteen times more accurate than the SS-20s (Gaddis, 2005 [4, Chapter 6]; Kennedy, 1989 [2, p. 689]).

As mentioned, Michael Pillsbury believes that once China attains economic predominance, it shall be forced to protect its new status through military force and that would translate into increasing military expenditure. This would be in tune with Paul Kennedy’s idea that although many nations have wealth at their focus in the beginning, once they attain prosperity their priority switches to the protection of said wealth. China’s increasing military expenditure is already in sight. By 2025 China could be allocating up to US$585 billion to the official budget of the People’s Liberation Army. However, it is estimated that the real defense expending could be fifteen to 20 percent higher than that, as military-related expenditure would be also included in other budgets (such as the State’s science and technology budget) or allocated to other forces (the People’s Armed Police, the Coast Guard, the naval militia, and the civil defense forces). Not surprisingly, in a key conclave of the Chinese Communist Party held in November of 2020, it was unveiled that the plans to attain a fully modern military on par with that of the United States by 2027 had already been drawn. This date commemorates the centennial of the founding of the People’s Liberation Army. The United States can expect to be subjected from that year on to an increasing budgetary competition in this area (Buttler-Bowdon, 2015, p. 145; Pillsbury, 2015, Chapter 9; Shambaugh, 2020, p. 348; The Economic Times, 2020).

China has an image problem, and Xi Jinping’s "wolf warrior" diplomacy is largely to blame. At least that’s how most in the United States and Europe see it. But this narrative fails to recognize the headway Beijing is making in other parts of the world. What many fail to realize is that Beijing is conducting an effective diplomatic offensive in the developing world, and it poses a real challenge to U.S. global leadership.

To be sure, the abrasive tone China has presented to the international community has caused serious problems in Beijing’s relations with much of the developed world. Even many of China’s most important trading partners are increasingly aligning with the U.S., undoing decades of painstaking efforts by a smoother generation of diplomats. This is a weakness in Xi’s diplomacy, and Washington should capitalize on it.

Nevertheless, last week the world’s attention was fixated on the twists and turns of another round of the perennial Democrat-Republican rivalry. Europe and Asia, Latin America, and Africa closely followed the election, recording any shifts in the mood of certain groups of the American electorate, noting the emergence of new potential leaders and making predictions about the likely future of the American political system. They were not watching out of idle curiosity—the future of the rest of the world depends to some extent on the political dynamics within the US.

Not only in America itself, but far beyond, there is an endless debate about the fate of US leadership and the limits of its international influence. Is it fair to say that, at the beginning of the third decade of the 21st century, we are witnessing the beginning of the revival of the former American hegemony in world affairs, or is the perceived restoration of a unipolar world nothing more than a delusion created by the efforts of skillful illusionists from the White House and the State Department?

Chinese President Xi Jinping meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin via video link on December 30, which drew alarm from certain Western media outlets. The New York Times, for example, concluded that the call came amid a "weak moment" for both leaders. Readers were led to believe that both China and Russia find themselves "isolated and desperate." However, the assertion conceals a more difficult truth. That is, the U.S.-led unipolar order has experienced a number of challenges to its stability over the course of 2022 that show no sign of letting up in the new year.

The signs of decay are both external and internal. Geopolitically, the United States finds itself playing a profitable yet unsustainable role in the Ukraine crisis. The United States has provided tens of billions worth of arms and assistance to Ukraine in contravention of the UN Charter since the conflict began in February 2022. U.S. leadership in the Joe Biden administration continues to reject diplomacy or peace talks in large part because weapons contractors have massively profited from the conflict. The U.S.'s pursuit of strengthening NATO's role in Ukraine has played an essential part in leading Russian leadership to conclude that it is in open conflict with the West.

In the United States, government consists of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches in addition to administrative agencies. In a broader sense, includes the federal government and all its agencies and bureaus, state and county governments, and city and township governments. 

The: Used before a noun, and generally stressed, to emphasize one of a group or type as the most outstanding or prominent: considered Lake Shore Drive to be the neighborhood to live in these days.

Three other points merit mention in this discussion of collective decision-making. First, both the formal and the secret constitutions allocate power over foreign relations and defense to the central government, to, that is, the United States of America visualized as a single entity. What, however, is "the" United States? The question has never been definitively answered; and indeed has seldom been asked in judicial opinion or scholarly discourse.42 Asked another way, the question is this: Where does sovereignty lie in the American polity? The formal constitution is supposedly based on popular sovereignty, with ultimate power resting in the people. That, however, is far from accurate. Proof positive that sovereignty lies in the "state" came when General Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox: "the people" of the South were not to be permitted to exercise their "sovereignty." The powers of the national government are supposedly only those delegated to it, either expressly or impliedly. But that is scarcely accurate, as 200 years of constitutional development attest. The Framers of the formal constitution established a governmental system that, as Justice Robert Jackson commented, would ensure that the dispersed powers of the federal government would be integrated into a workable government. "Separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity" was the constitutional command.43 The meaning is unmistakable: "the" United States is a single metaphysical entity, encompassing state, society, and government in one artificial being. These terms are not synonymous. The state is the fundamental entity; government its apparatus; and society is composed of the individuals and groups governed. Much like the business corporation, the state-"the" United States-is an artificial construct, more a method than a thing. It exists in constitutional theory-in, for example, the state secrets privilege in litigation-even though judges and commentators alike often confuse the term with government and with society. A legal fiction that by itself can do no act, speak no work, and think no thought, the state (like the corporation) has "no anatomical parts to be kicked or consigned to the calaboose; no soul for whose salvation the parson may struggle; no body to be roasted in hell or purged for celestial enjoyment." 44 Despite loose language to the contrary from executive branch lawyers and even the Supreme Court, "the" state or "the" government-or "the" United States-is not to be equated with the executive branch. Nor with any one branch, for that matter; each branch is part of an indivisible whole.

C. ‘Government’ is a collective noun, meaning the whole body

The Medicare program is primarily funded through a combination of payroll taxes, general revenues and premiums paid by beneficiaries. Other sources of revenues include taxes on Social Security benefits, payments from states and interest on payments and investments. Overview of Medicare funding Part A funding Part B funding Part C funding Part D funding Medicare Supplement funding Medicare's treasury accounts Will Medicare funding run out? Overview of Medicare funding The disparate parts of Medicare are funded in different ways. Medicare Part A, which covers hospital and inpatient care, receives most of its funding, 89%, from payroll taxes. Medicare Part B, which covers outpatient services, obtains most of its funding, 74%, from general revenue. General revenue is money taken in by the federal government from taxes and nontax sources to fund government programs. Medicare Part D, an optional benefit that covers prescription drug costs, also receives most of its funding, 73%, from general revenue. Medicare Part C — also known as Medicare Advantage — is funded by Medicare Parts A, B and D as well as monthly premiums enrollees pay for their plan. A Medicare Advantage plan is an alternative to Original Medicare that enables the beneficiary to receive a bundle of Medicare coverage through a private health insurance plan. How is Medicare funded? Overall Part A Part B Part D Overall #1 Overall (Parts A, B and D) Part A Part B Part D General revenue 46% 0.4% 74% 73% Payroll taxes 34% 89% N/A N/A Monthly fees paid by enrollees (premiums) 15% 1% 25% 15% Taxation of Social Security benefits 3% 8% N/A N/A Transfers from states (for dual eligible Medicare-Medicaid) 1% N/A N/A 11% Interest 0.6% 1% 0.4% N/A Other 0.7% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% Total income (billions) $899.9 $341.7 $452.3 $105.8 May not sum 100% due to rounding. Source: 2021 Medicare Trustees Report Find Cheap Medicare Plans in Your Area Medicare Zip Code Age Currently insured? Yes Find Plans How is Medicare Part A funded? Medicare Part A derives most of its funding from a payroll tax of 2.9% on earnings, with employers and employees each paying 1.45%. High-income earners pay a slightly higher percentage, and the self-employed pay the full 2.9% tax with their quarterly filings. All workers in the United States are required to pay the tax on their wages, and the tax itself is grouped under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA). The tax, also known as the Medicare tax, is deducted automatically as part of the payroll process. Medicare Part A spent $341.7 billion in 2020, the majority of funds — 89% — coming from payroll taxes. An additional 8% came from the taxation of Social Security benefits, while smaller sources of income came from general revenue and beneficiary premiums. Most Medicare enrollees don't pay anything for Part A while they're enrolled in Medicare. For recipients over age 65, that's because of the Medicare taxes paid on income while working. Similarly, those who qualify for Medicare through a disability or medical condition also do not have to pay for Medicare Part A while enrolled. How is Medicare Part B funded? Nearly 75% of the $452.3 billion annual budget for Medicare Part B comes from general revenues, which are primarily raised through federal income taxes and other government taxes. Another 25% of funding comes from the monthly premiums that Medicare Part B enrollees pay. Interest on Social Security payments accounts for a very small portion, less than 1%, of Part B funding. The amount that Part B enrollees pay is adjusted annually. And in 2022, the standard monthly cost of Medicare Part B is $170.10, which is automatically deducted from Social Security payments. Enrollees with an income higher than $91,000 per year pay higher rates. How is Medicare Advantage (Part C) funded? Medicare pays private insurers administering Medicare Advantage plans a fixed amount every month for each beneficiary enrolled in their plans. These funds are taken from Medicare Parts A and B treasury accounts to cover the costs of providing Medicare Parts A and B services under the policies. This usually amounts to more than $1,000 a month distributed to the insurance companies for each beneficiary enrolled in an Advantage plan. In total, Medicare spends more than $348 billion on Medicare Part C funding each year. The program also pays plans an additional amount for providing drug coverage. In 2021, these funds covered more than 26 million beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage, which is 42% of the entire Medicare population. The method for determining the costs of each beneficiary is based on a bidding process as well as a risk adjustment assessment that gauges the health of each beneficiary to better ascertain expenses. Medicare Advantage plans submit bids that estimate the costs to insure each beneficiary, costs that are then compared to a benchmark rate that Medicare uses to determine health care costs in each county of the country. If a plan or plans bid higher than the benchmark, beneficiaries pay the difference in the form of monthly premiums. If the plan or plans bid lower than the benchmark, the plan and Medicare split the difference between the bid and the benchmark rate. The plan’s share, known as a rebate, is then used to provide supplemental benefits to beneficiaries enrolled in the plan. After the bidding process is complete, Medicare uses risk adjustments to gauge the health status of each beneficiary, and to thus modify the monthly fee to better reflect the cost of providing care to each beneficiary. Like their counterparts in Original Medicare, Medicare Advantage beneficiaries are also required to pay monthly Medicare Part B premiums. Plus, there's the cost of the Medicare Part C plan, which averages $33 per month but could be $0 per month depending on the plan. Plans also charge deductibles and copays, bringing in additional revenues to pay for medical care. How is Medicare Part D funded? About 73% of the $105.8 billion in Medicare D spending is derived from general revenue. An additional 15% is generated by beneficiary premiums, while another 11% in funding comes from payments from the state for dual eligible beneficiaries who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid because of having a low income. Medicare Part D is an optional benefit that helps beneficiaries enrolled in Original Medicare pay for prescription drug coverage. Private insurance companies administer Part D prescription drug plans, charging beneficiaries premiums, deductibles and copays as part of the policies’ coverage of prescription drugs. How are Medicare Supplement plans funded? Unlike other parts of Medicare, supplemental plans are entirely supported by beneficiary premiums and coinsurance costs. The plans do not receive money from the federal government. Because Medicare Parts A and B cover only about 80% of medical costs, a supplemental plan is used to fill in the coverage gaps and reduce the amount that enrollees pay for medical care. Beneficiaries buy supplemental plans, which are also known as Medigap policies, from insurance companies such as Aetna, Cigna and UnitedHealthcare. What are the two treasury accounts used to pay for Medicare? The federal government relies on two trust funds to finance Medicare services provided through Medicare Part A and Medicare Parts B and D, respectively. One trust fund, known as the Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund, supplies money for Part A services. The other trust fund, known as the Supplemental Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund, provides money for Parts B and D. In other words, Part A draws funding from the HI Trust Fund, while Medicare Parts B and D derive funding from the SMI Trust Fund. The HI Trust Fund is funded through the following sources that finance Part A: Payroll taxes from employers and employees Part A premiums from people who don’t qualify for premium-free Part A Income from taxes from Social Security benefits Interest from trust fund investments The SMI Trust Fund is funded through sources that provide money for Parts B and D: Funds authorized by Congress Beneficiary premiums Interest accrued from trust fund investments Will Medicare funding run out? Congress allocates money for the SMI Trust Fund based on estimated need each year, thereby averting any potential funding shortfalls. Unlike the SMI Trust Fund, the HI Trust Fund does not receive an annual appropriation from Congress, making the trust fund susceptible to economic conditions — downturns, for example, that diminish revenues from payroll taxes while health care costs and Medicare enrollments continue to increase. As a result, Medicare Part A spending is outpacing Medicare Part A revenues, leading to a slow but sure depletion of funds. In 2021, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), predicted that the HI Trust Fund would run out of funds by 2026. The CBO predictions, like other predictions, are based, in large part, on economic forecasts. When Medicare Part A has faced projected shortfalls in the past, Congress has stepped in to avert the deficits. The CBO estimates that a total of $517 billion in spending reductions, additional revenues or a combination of both will be needed to cover the difference between Part A spending and revenues from 2026 to 2031. Frequently asked questions Who pays for Medicare? Medicare is funded through multiple sources: 46% comes from general federal revenue such as income taxes, 34% comes from Medicare payroll taxes and 15% comes from the monthly premiums paid by Medicare enrollees. Other sources of funding included taxation of Social Security benefits and earned interest.

The issue of institutional competence is closely related to protection of individual freedoms. In the words of Justice Brennan, "The requirement that government articulate its aims with a reasonable degree of clarity ensures that state power will be exercised on half of policies reflecting an authoritative choice among competing social values." The vagueness doctrine often reflects a balancing of interests, in which the decision whether or not to find a statute unconstitutionally vague depends on the type of conduct that the legislature is seeking to prevent. For example, in Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, the Court invalidated a vagrancy ordinance on vagueness grounds because the ordinance criminalized "activities [that] are historically part of the amenities of life as we have known them,” including strolling, wandering and walking at night. In contrast, in Grayned v. City of Rockford, an antinoise ordinance that pro making noise near a school in session that "tended to disturb” the school's functioning was upheld against a vagueness challenge because the law's purpose was to prevent the disruption of normal school activity. In general, statutes restricting conduct seen by the Court as within the legitimate realm of government regulation tend to survive vagueness challenges, while statutes exceeding the legitimate reach of government control tend to fall as overly vague.

The rulemaking orders have tied administrative agencies up in knots for years and have trapped them in a cross fire between the Congress that adopted statutes requiring regulations to be issued and presidents who tried to measure their success by the number of rulemaking processes they could block. Reagan's NSD 84 and other related directives seeking to impose dramatically intensified controls on access to information and control over communication during and after government employment incited a mini rebellion even among a number of cabinet level officials and conveyed a sense of the tenor of leadership being exercised in the executive branch that drew fire from many sources. The Clinton ethics order was meant to make a very public and political point, but it was one of the factors contributing to the administration's inability to staff many of its key positions for months.

The vagueness doctrine is a judicial response to legislative abdication of responsibility for setting standard of conduct. When a legislature drafts vague statutory language, it cedes vast authority to the judiciary to determine what conduct has been prohibited, an authority the courts may be loath to assume. The vagueness doctrine demonstrates that "attempts of the legislative authority to pass to the courts … the awesome task of making … the criminal and the constitutional law understandably meet[ing] substantial judicial opposition.

Considerable discussion has focused on the word normal, most observers concluding that the intended meaning is "legal religious activities.” In other words, normal means whatever the state or its representatives allow.

Mashaw's allocation of responsibility is wrong-headed on many levels. It is not as if voters get to choose between candidates who delegate and those who do not. When the Republicans in Congress think environmental regulation is too aggressive, they do not replace the Clean Air Act with a regulatory regime in which Congress takes responsibility or even use the Congressional Review Act to challenge regulations such as the new ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter. Instead, they introduce legislation that would delegate in ways that would make it harder to regulate strictly. Indeed, the Washington Post took exception to a recent Republican environmental bill on the basis that the way for Congress to change the EPA's priorities is to stop delegating and start taking some responsibility.

That will not happen readily, however, because delegation gives the electoral advantage to those who duck the hard choices. As I said before, delegation is not so much an issue of left versus right as insiders versus outsiders.

Many of my colleagues seeking social justice have deliberately avoided legislatures in recent decades, both because of the difficulty of making change there and because of the perception that politicians will not be receptive to their claims. They have turned by and large to the courts. While applauding the changes these lawyer-activists have helped to bring about, and while acknowledging the shortcomings and frustrations of legislative change, I submit that those of us in the business of "culture-shifting" should upend our traditional preference for judicial activity and embrace the special advantages of legislative change.

E.M. Forster appended to the title page of his novel Howard's End the enigmatic aphorism: "Only connect...- 46 It is an apt injunction to lawyers like me. If we lawyer-activists truly seek deep, lasting change, we have to "connect" with the public. We have to accord as much attention to public attitudes as we do to the formal rules that purport to guide or mold those attitudes. That means thinking as concertedly about process as we do about substance. Process matters. How a new rule comes about may, in the end, be as important as what it says.

the (thēbefore a vowel; thəbefore a consonant). Used before singular or plural nouns and noun phrases that denote particular, specified persons or things: the baby; the dress I wore. Used before a noun, and generally stressed, to emphasize one of a group or type as the most outstanding or prominent: considered Wicker Park to be the neighborhood to live in these days. Used to indicate uniqueness: the Prince of Wales; the moon. Used before nouns that designate natural phenomena or points of the compass: the weather; a wind from the south. Used as the equivalent of a possessive adjective before names of some parts of the body: grab him by the neck; an infection of the hand. Used before a noun specifying a field of endeavor: the law; the film industry; the stage. Used before a proper name, as of a monument or ship: the Alamo; the Titanic.

The Constitution is the founding document for the United States federal government. It is the basic and “supreme law of the land.” It defines the structure of the federal government, provides the legal foundation on which all its actions must rest, and guarantees the rights due to its citizens. No laws may contradict any of the Constitution’s principles. The federal courts have jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution and evaluate the constitutionality of federal and state laws.