StudySpace: We the People ed. 6

The First Founding: Interests and Conflicts

The decision of the framers to break away from England was due in large part to the nature of colonial society and the pressures placed on it by England. American colonial society was divided into several competing interests. British tax and trade policy radicalized elements of these groups and sent into motion a chain of events that led to the American Revolution.

I. What conflicts are apparent and what interests prevailed during the American Revolution and the drafting of the Articles of Confederation?

• Many, including George Washington, doubted that the Constitution would last more than 20 years.
• The Constitution has survived and it should be viewed as a document that was produced out of self-interest and high principle.
• The final product was the result of heated debate and compromise over the size, makeup and scope of the new national government that the framers hoped would be an effective government.
• Five sectors of society had interests that were important in colonial politics:
• The New England merchants
• The Southern planters
• The Royalists
• Shopkeepers, artisans, and laborers
• Small farmers
• The New England merchants, Southern planters, and royalists made up the colonial elite and generally cooperated during the colonial period.
• However, changes in tax and trade policies split the colonial elite, and the merchants and planters joined forces with their former opposition to organize demonstrations and boycotts of British goods, setting into motion the chain of events leading to Revolution.
• Radicals like Samuel Adams began calling for independence from what they saw as tyranny.
• After much debate and numerous attempts at reconciliation, the colonies declared their independence on July 4, 1776.

 

The Second Founding: From Compromise to Constitution

I. Why were the Articles of Confederation unable to hold the nation together?

• In November of 1777, the Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation—the United States’ first written constitution.
• The Articles of Confederation provided for strong state governments and a very weak, almost nonexistent federal government. Each state retained its “sovereignty, freedom and independence.”
• The Articles gave Congress little power; there was no Executive branch (the states were to carry out the laws); finally, Congress could not raise taxes or regulate interstate commerce.
• The weakness of the national government under the Articles of Confederation prevented the new government from resolving or assisting in the political and economic strife that dominated American politics after independence.
• A meeting was held in Annapolis in 1786 to discuss amending the Articles, but only five states attended. However, the Annapolis Convention did pass a resolution calling for another convention in Philadelphia to revise the Articles. This was the first step toward a new constitution.
• Shay’s Rebellion convinced the propertied class that change was essential for the preservation of the new nation.

II. In what ways is the U.S. Constitution a marriage of interest and principle?

• Delegates selected by the state governments convened in Philadelphia in May 1787 to remedy the flaws in the Articles of Confederation.
• The delegates in attendance represented the social and economic elite of the states, which has led Charles Beard to argue that the Constitution reflects the economic interests of the time.
• Others contend that philosophical and ethical principles dominated the motivations of the Founders.
• In actuality, both views may coexist in explaining the nature of the political agreements reached in Philadelphia that summer.

III. How did the framers of the Constitution reconcile their competing interests and principles?

• The Virginia Plan proposed a government that would benefit states with large populations.
• The New Jersey Plan proposed a government that would essentially retain the one state one vote rule, thereby favoring states with small populations.
• The Connecticut Plan, or Great Compromise, proposed a bicameral Congress with one chamber based on population and a second chamber in which each state would have an equal voice.
• Slavery was the most difficult issue the framers faced and nearly prevented agreement on a common constitution. Representation based on free populations would give northern (free) states an edge in the Congress. Hence, the Three-Fifths Compromise, in which five slaves would count as three people for the purpose of the census.
• This compromise allowed the United States to ratify a constitution, but the issues put on the back burner resurfaced again nearly 100 years later.

 

The Constitution

I. What principles does the Constitution embody?

• The Constitution attempts to create a government that would be strong enough to protect commerce and property rights yet weak enough not to threaten individual liberties.
• Accordingly, the framers created a system of separation of powers, checks and balances, different means of selection for officeholders, a federal system, and a Bill of Rights.

II. What was the intent of the framers of the Constitution regarding the legislative, executive, and judicial branches?

• The bicameral legislature was designed so that only the House of Representatives was directly chosen by the people
• To prevent “excessive democracy,” the Senators were appointed by the State Legislators to staggered six-year terms.
• In part to reassure citizens of their voice in government, the (relatively democratic) legislative branch was designed to be the most powerful branch. Furthermore, the powers of the government were limited by the Constitution to only those powers given to Congress by the Constitution.
• The executive branch was designed to be independent of both Congress and the people through his indirect selection. This powerful, independent executive lessened the fears of an overly powerful government that would cater to the whims of the people.
• The judicial branch was designed to be independent of the legislative and executive branches (life-time appointment, salaries) to permit the courts the autonomy to make difficult decisions on the basis of law and not politics.
• The Constitution also restricts the states from engaging in behavior that interferes with other states (Article IV) or the national government (Article VI).
• The Constitution can be amended by a proposal presented by Congress (approved by a two-thirds vote of both chambers) or a national convention called by two-thirds of the states and then ratified by three-quarters of the state legislatures or three-quarters of the state conventions called for the purpose of ratifying the amendment.
• The Constitution uses separation of powers, checks and balances, different methods of selection, and federalism to limit the powers of government.

 

The Fight for Ratification

I. What sides did the Federalists and the Antifederalists represent in the fight over ratification?

• The Federalists favored a strong national government and supported ratification of the Constitution.
• The Antifederalists opposed the Constitution because they feared that a strong national government would revert to tyranny. Accordingly, the Antifederalists favored a decentralized or state-based government.
• The debate over ratification centered around a series of essays written in support of the Constitution—The Federalist Papers—which were written by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay under the name “Publius.”
• The Antifederalists responded with essays from “Brutus” (Robert Yates) and “The Federal Farmer” (Richard Henry Lee).

II. Over what key principles did the Federalists and Antifederalists disagree?

• The Antifederalists argued that the nation was too large to effectively represent all citizens—which they argued was suitable in small republics, like the states. Madison and other Federalists argued that having a large, indirect democracy would prevent tyranny of the majority by having a large, diverse country from which we would elect wise leaders.
• Both the Federalists and the Antifederalists feared tyranny—the Federalists feared tyranny of the majority, whereas the Antifederalists feared tyranny of the elite.
• The Federalists argued that separation of power, checks and balances and the division of powers between the national governments and the states would effectively limit the power of the government. The Antifederalists feared that the Constitution did not go far enough in limiting the power of government, and as a result, tyranny would inevitably occur. They pushed for (and got) a Bill of Rights to further limit the powers of the national government.

 

The Citizen’s Role and the Changing Constitution

I. Why is the Constitution difficult to amend?

• The realities of American politics demonstrate the difficulties in amending the Constitution.
• The framers created an amendment process that would prevent changes from occurring on a whim or being based on unreasonable propaganda.
• Congress has considered approximately 11,000 proposals, submitted twenty-nine to the states, and the states have ratified twenty-seven amendments

II. What purposes do the amendments to the Constitution serve?

• The First Amendment places limits on Congress.
• The Second through Fourth Amendments place limits on the Executive Branch.
• The Fifth through Eighth Amendments place limits on the Judiciary Branch.
• The Tenth Amendment reserves any powers not granted to the national government to the states and the people.
• The remaining amendments alter how we treat citizens, voting rights, and the way certain elected offices are chosen.
• A constitution is a framework, and almost never deals with social issues. In fact, the only amendment which attempted to legislate a social issue, the Eighteenth, was later repealed.

 

Reflections on Liberty, Equality, and Democracy

I. Did the framers value liberty, equality, and democracy? Why or why not?

• The Constitutional framers placed individual liberty above all other political values.
• They feared that democracy would degenerate into majority tyranny.
• They also feared that a call for equality would lead to a call for equal distribution of property, infringing on the liberty of property-owners
• Yet, by stressing liberty the framers virtually guaranteed that democracy and even a measure of equality would evolve.
• However, liberty in economic affairs produces economic inequality, which in turns leads to political inequality. Creating a society of equals requires more than just liberty.
• Finally, liberty can also limit effective government. The Bush Administration argues that it needs to take measures that appear to contradict our constitution in order to guarantee our security.

Section Menu

• Progress Report

Organize

• Study Plan
• Chapter Outline
• Preview Quiz

Learn

• eBook
• Chapter Review
• Flashcards
• Diagnostic Quiz

Connect

• Interactive Politics Simulation
• You Decide Exercise
• Questions for Discussion and Thought
• What Government Does Exercise
• Get Involved Exercise