Every branch of the government has its role and should not politically intervene into a section of another branch.

The Supreme Court’s role is to deal with legal issues and not answer political questions. The Supreme Court states that defining government is not its role. Therefore, it refused to do so.

The **Supreme Court** did not define Republican Form of Government because it **deals with legal issues** and **not defining political questions**.

All states legally accept the Constitution to create a union, or we can say federation with its singular states that have their own identity. If the federal government wanted to turn all states into one state, it would technically be **redefining states’ territory that would cross the boundaries of another state**. Which is **not legally allowed and under the Constitution**.

The process of doing such a thing is a very complex and lengthy one. People in the territory of a state would have to draft a new Constitution because of *popular sovereignty*. Furthermore, even if that happened, which is hardly possible for all the states to draft the new constitution, then the constitution would have to go through legal approval and admittance of Congress.

It would **not be legal** because it is not aligned with the U.S. Constitution.

The change was to improve people’s lives by making the states stronger and giving them the advantage to better their economies so that the federation can be solid. To do that, states in the federation had to be stable as well.

When the federal government was formed with the ideas and principles of the Declaration of Independence, it **took time for the federation and states to progress and come closer to its goals**. Attempt to shift the economic situation in the state to a better place can be seen in this question.

The **government granted lands to help build up states as a whole** because the given lands were sold, and the money was used to build an educational system and infrastructure.

The purpose of the federation was not to make the states depending on it. However, the **federal government did help states** until they “stood on their own feet”, which can be observed with the federal grants of land and cash grants-in-aid.

As the federal government slowly progressed, it started implementing cash grants-in-aid. It allowed the **federal government to help other states in the funding of projects financially with no return**. The only return is to better the nation as a whole. The New Deal program implemented during Roosevelt’s presidency intended to do just that.

Categorical grant-in-aid are the funds given to a state with a specific intention and oversight of the federal government on the funds and how they are spent. There are strings attached because a categorical grant demands a state to comply with the rules and regulations of the given grant.

The categorical grant-in-aid makes a **state give up some of its control and authority to the federal government**, which sometimes seems unacceptable to a state.

Citizens should be protected by the government that ensures civic liberties and personal property as well. Since the U.S. is based on a federal system in which everyone is equal as citizens, and according to Article IV, Wilma should have no legal problem of renting or buying a home in another state.

**Wilma was correct** because everyone **has the right to legally buy or rent a property** whether they are a resident of a state or not. According to the Constitution, a state can not forbid citizens of a federation to buy property in another state.