Constitutional Underpinnings

Transcription

1 Constitutional Underpinnings

2 Why Does Government Exist?

3 Who has the POWER in government?

4 What is the difference between POWER and INFLUENC E?

5 Power Power is the ability of one person to get another person to act in accordance with the first person s intentions Power is found in all human relationships, but we will focus power and how it is used to influence governmental offices and how the government will behave.

6 If you have POWER do you have AUTHORITY?

7 Authority Authority is the right to use power Formal Authority is that right to exercise power which is vested in a government office. A president, senator, and federal judge all have formal authority In the US we usually say that a person had political authority if his or her right to act a certain way is granted by a law or constitution

8 What makes AUTHORITY LEGITIMATE?

9 Legitimacy Legitimacy is the political authority conferred by law or by state or national constitution. In the US the constitution is widely accepted as a source of legitimate authority, but that was not always the case. Examples: 1) Civil War was a struggle over the legitimacy of the federal government 2) The New Deal was debated over whether the fact the federal government should intervene in the economy 3) Today people argue over the thought of an amendment that bans gay marriage. The MA Attorney General Martha Coakley even sued the federal government over the Defense of Marriage Act stating that the determination of marriages have been a state issue not a national issue.

10 DEMOCRATIC THEORY At the time of the founding of the United States almost all other political systems in the world were authoritarian regimes in which rulers fully controlled the government, and often held sway over economic and social institutions as well. Ironically, the European country with the most controls on the power of its monarchs was England, the very political system that the Americans so protested for its oppressiveness. In fact, democratic theory has very strong roots in British history, although it may be traced back to much earlier civilizations, such as Ancient Greece. Democracy is a form of government that places ultimate political authority in the hands of the people. Democratic theory has two basic models:

11 Direct Democracy Direct democracy - In this form of democracy, citizens debate and vote directly on all laws. In Ancient Athens, the legislature was composed of all of the citizens, although women, slaves, and foreigners were excluded because they were not citizens. Direct democracy requires a high level of participation, and is based on a high degree of confidence in the judgment of ordinary people. Many of the Founders of the United States were skeptical about the ability of the masses to govern themselves, being too prone to the influence of demagogues (charismatic leaders who manipulate popular beliefs) and too likely to overlook the rights of those with minority opinion. The latter leads to majoritarianism, or the tendency for government to do what the majority of people want.

12 Representative or Indirect Democracy Representative Democracy - The Founders chose to establish a republic, or an indirect democracy in which people elect representatives to govern them and to make laws and set policies. This form is also referred to as an indirect democracy. In the United States, the people came to hold the ultimate power through the election process, but all policy decisions were to be made by elected officials or those that they appoint. A representative democracy, then, is a compromise between a direct democracy and an authoritarian rule, and has become the most accepted form of democracy in the world today

13 How has political power been distributed in America s representative democracy?

14 ELITE THEORY How can a republic claim to be a democracy if only a few people actually make political decisions, even if they are elected by the people? Elite theory holds that a representative democracy is not really based on the will of the people, but that there is a relatively small, cohesive elite class that makes almost all the important decisions for the nation. Another version of elite theory argues that voters choose from among competing elites. New members of the elite are recruited through a merit-based education system, so that the best and brightest young people join the ranks of the elite. Elite theorists argue that the founders believed that a privileged majority should rule in the name of the people with a controlled amount of input from citizens.

15 PLURALIST THEORY Another theoretical perspective is pluralism, the argument that representative democracies are based on group interests that protect the individual s interests by representing him or her to the government. The theory is grounded in the notion that in a diverse society such as the United States, too many interests exist to allow any one coherent group of elites to rule. Government decisions are made in an arena of competing interests, all vying for influence and struggling to speak for the people that they represent. Some pluralists have argued that the founding fathers represented different interests (such as rural vs. urban, or north vs. south), and that many points of view were actually represented. The model still works today, as pluralists argue, creating strong links between government officials and their popular base.

16 THE INFLUENCE OF THE EUROPEAN ENLIGHTENMENT The European Enlightenment grew out of the Scientific Revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, a time of amazing discoveries that form the basis of modern science. Scientific success created confidence in the power of reason, which enlightenment thinkers believed could be applied to human nature in the form of natural laws. Every social, political, and economic problem could be solved through the use of reason.

17 THE SOCIAL CONTRACT A seventeenth century English thinker of the 1600s - John Locke - believed that in the "state of nature people are naturally free and equal, but that freedom led inevitably to inequality, and eventually to chaos. Locke agreed with other philosophers of the day (such as Thomas Hobbes) that the state of nature changes because humans are basically self-centered. However, he believed that they could be rational and even moral. Even though people serve self-interests first, they fear violence, particularly violent death. He argued that people have natural rights from the state of nature that include the right to "life, liberty, and property."

18 LOCKE IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE The founders generally were educated men who had read Locke and Hobbes, as well as French philosophers, such as Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Rousseau, who were concerned with freedom, equality, and justice. John Locke, in particular, directly influenced the thinking of the founders, as reflected in the Declaration of Independence. Compare the words of Jefferson with those of John Locke:

19 Second Treatise of Government In his Second Treatise of Government, Locke stated that people form governments to protect these natural rights, giving up their freedom to govern themselves through a social contract between government and the governed. The only valid government is one based on the consent of the governed. This consent creates a social contract - an agreement between rulers and citizens - that both sides are obligated to honor. If for any reason the government breaks the contract through neglect of natural rights, the people have the right to dissolve the government

20 LOCKE IN SECOND TREATISE OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT "When any one, or more, shall take upon them to make laws whom the people have not appointed so to do, they make laws without authority, which the people are not therefore bound to obey; by which means they come again to be out of subjection, and may constitute to themselves a new legislature." Whosoever uses force without right...puts himself into a state of war with those against whom he so uses it, and in that state all former ties are canceled, all other rights cease, and every one has a right to defend himself, and to resist the aggressor..." JEFFERSON IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands that have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them..." But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government..."

21 LOCKE IN SECOND TREATISE OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT "A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another..." JEFFERSON IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal;" "[men] have a mind to unite for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties, and...property. " To great and chief end, therefore, of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property..." " that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." " that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

22 Constitutional Underpinnings The Founders created the Constitution during the late 18 th century, an era when European philosophers were strongly criticizing governments dominated by imperialism and monarchy. The design of the Constitution reflected the influence of the European Enlightenment and the newly emerging beliefs in democracy, liberty for more individuals in society, and the importance of checking the self-interest inherent in ordinary human interactions. At the same time, the founders were far from unanimous in their admiration for direct democracy, and the Constitution they created reflects restraints on democracy. While they believed that monarchies were repressive, they knew that complete freedom would lead to disorder. Their main challenge was to fashion a government that struck a balance between liberty and order.

23 THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES John Locke and other Enlightenment thinkers, such as Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Jean Jacques Rousseau, created theories of democracy, republican government, pluralism, and elitism that guided the Founders as they shaped the new government of the United States in the late 18 th century.

24 The Constitution The Constitution reflects the founders' attempt to balance order with freedom. They generally did not believe that people were fully capable of ruling themselves, but they also wanted to check any tendency toward monarchy. The Constitution is based on five great principles designed to achieve this balance.

25 5 Principals Popular Sovereignty - the basic principle that the power to govern belongs to the people and that government must be based on the consent of the governed. Separation of Powers - the division of government s powers into three separate branches: executive, legislative, and judicial Checks and Balances - a political system in which branches of government have some authority over the actions of the others. Limited Government - the basic principle that government is not allpowerful, and that it does only those things that citizens allow it to do. Federalism - the division of governmental powers between a central government and the states. These principles resulted from the agreements and compromises made at the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

26 Articles of Confederation During the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress wrote the Articles of Confederation to provide unity for the separate states that loosely formed the new country. The Articles allowed state governments to retain their powers, and the newly formed central government had severe limitations: 1. The central government consisted only of a Congress in which each state was represented equally. 2. No executive or judiciary branches were created. 3. The central government could not levy taxes. It could only request money from the states. 4. The central government could not regulate commerce between states. The states taxed each other's goods and negotiated trade agreements with other countries. 5. No law enforcing powers were granted to Congress. 6. No process for amending the Articles was provided. 7. States retained all powers not specifically granted to Congress

27 Shay s Rebellion When the war was over, the immediate need for unity was past, and chaos threatened to undo the new nation. States quarreled over borders and tariffs, the country was badly in debt, and foreign countries saw the lack of a strong central government as weakness that could easily be exploited. Many leaders began to push for a government strong enough to settle disputes, to regulate commerce, and levy limited taxes. An important turning point occurred when farmers in western Massachusetts, in debt and unable to pay their taxes, rebelled against foreclosures, forcing judges out of court and freeing debtors from jails. Shay's Rebellion was eventually controlled, but it encouraged leaders to seek a stronger central government.

28 Constitutional Convention Fifty-five delegates arrived from the thirteen states in May Most were important men in their states: planters, bankers, businessmen, and lawyers. Many were governors and/or Congressional representatives, and most had read works by Hobbes, Locke, and French philosophers, such as Voltaire and Montesquieu.

29 Important Delegates Alexander Hamilton, the leading proponent of a strong, centralized government. George Washington, the chairman of the Convention, and the most prestigious member, who also was a strong supporter of a centralized government. James Madison, a young, well-read delegate from Virginia, who is usually credited with writing large parts of the Constitution Benjamin Franklin, the 81-year-old delegate from Pennsylvania, who had also attended the Continental Congress in 1776

30 Missing Delegates Absent were Thomas Jefferson, serving as ambassador to France, and John Adams, ambassador to England. Other absent leaders were Patrick Henry, who refused to come because he who smelt a rat and Samuel Adams, who was not selected by Massachusetts to attend. The absence of Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams almost certainly tilted the balance of the convention toward order and freed the delegates from criticism as they created a stronger central government

31 Voting Requirement The founders' common belief in a balanced government led them to construct a government in which no single interest dominated. They were concerned with the "excesses of democracy" (Elbridge Gerry, delegate from Massachusetts), demonstrated by Shay's Rebellion, and they agreed with Locke that government should protect property. Benjamin Franklin - a strong proponent of liberty and equality - proposed that all white males have the right to vote, but most delegates believed that only property owners should have the franchise. In their view, ordinary people would either scheme to deprive property owners of their rights or become the "tools of demagogues." In the end the founders did not include specific voting requirements in the Constitution, leaving each state to decide voter qualifications for its citizens.

32 Small vs. Large States A major issue at the convention was the balance of power between the large states and the small. The large states favored a strong national government that they believed they could dominate, and the small states wanted stronger state governments that could avert domination by the central government. These different interests are apparent in the first discussions of representation in Congress. Most favored a bicameral, or two-house, legislature, similar to the organization of most state legislatures since colonial times.

33 Virginia Plan The delegates from Virginia opened the Convention with their Virginia Plan that called for a strong central government. Although proposed by James Randolph, the plan was almost certainly the work of James Madison, who, along with Alexander Hamilton, reasoned that a suggestion as boldly different from the current government would not be accepted, but might at least inspire major revisions. Their plan succeeded beyond their hopes. The delegates took the plan seriously, and began the debate with the assumption that the central government would be strengthened greatly. The plan called for a bicameral legislature: the larger house with members elected by popular vote and the smaller, more aristocratic house selected by the larger house from nominees from state legislatures. Representation in both houses was to be based on wealth or numbers, giving the large states a majority in the legislature. The Virginia Plan also called for a national executive and a national judiciary.

34 New Jersey Plan Delegates from the small states countered with the New Jersey Plan, presented by William Paterson. Just as Madison and Hamilton had hoped, the counter plan did not argue with the need for a stronger central government, giving Congress the right to tax, regulate, and coerce states. The legislature would be unicameral, and each state would have the same vote. The delegates from small states were determined that the new legislature would not be dominated by the large states, and the debate between large and small states deadlocked the Convention. Finally, a committee was elected to devise a compromise, which they presented on July 5.

35 The Great Compromise The Great Compromise (also called the Connecticut Compromise) called for one house in which each state would have an equal vote (The Senate) and a second house (The House of Representatives) in which representation would be based on population. Unlike the Virginia Plan, the Senate would not be chosen by the House of Representatives, but would be chosen by the state legislatures. The House of Representatives would be directly elected by all voters, whose eligibility to vote would be determined by the states. The Compromise was accepted by a very slim margin, and the Convention was able to successfully agree on other controversial issues.

36 Three-Fifths Compromise Another disagreement at the Convention was based on North/South differences, particularly regarding the counting of slaves for purposes of apportioning seats in the House. The South wanted to count slaves in order to increase its number of representatives, and the North resisted. The delegates finally agreed on the Three-fifths Compromise, which allowed southern states to count a slave as three-fifths of a person, allowing a balance of power between North and South.

37 Selection of the President Another debate concerned the selection of the president. The initial decision was for the president to be selected by Congress, but the delegates were concerned about too much concentration of power in the legislature. On the other hand, they feared direct election by the people, especially since the House of Representatives were to be popularly elected. The Compromise was to leave the selection of the president to an electoral college - people selected by each state legislature to formally cast their ballots for the presidency.

38 Signing the Constitution All but three of the delegates signed the document on September 17, 1787, with others who opposed it leaving before that. The drafting of the Constitution took about three months, but the document has lasted for more than two hundred years, making it the longest lasting Constitution in world history.

39 Amending the Constitution The Founders designed the amendment process to be difficult enough that Congress could not add so many amendments that the original document would end up with little meaning. The process requires action by BOTH the national government and the states before an amendment may be passed.

40 Formal Amendments The Constitution may be formally amended in four ways: 1. Amendments may be proposed by a 2/3 vote of each house of Congress and ratified by at least 3/4 of the state legislatures. All but one of the amendments have been added through this process. 2. Amendments may be proposed by a 2/3 vote of each house of Congress and ratified by specially called conventions in at least 3/4 of the states. This method was used once for the 21 st Amendment that repealed Prohibition because Congress believed that many state legislatures would not vote for it. 3. Amendments may be proposed by a national constitutional convention requested by at least 2/3 of state legislatures and ratified by at least 3/4 of the state legislatures. 4. Amendments may be proposed by a national constitutional convention and ratified by specially called conventions in at least 3/4 of the states.

41 Informal Amendments The Constitution is written broadly enough that change can occur within our political system through interpreting the words to fit changing needs and events. All three branches have contributed to informal amendment of the Constitution.

42 Informal Amendment Executive Branch Executive Branch - Presidents may negotiate executive agreements with other countries, an authority not mentioned in the Constitution. The Constitution requires that foreign treaties be ratified by the Senate, but executive agreements do not. These agreements are used to circumvent the formal process, especially for routine matters that might simply slow the work of the Senate down.

43 Informal Amendments Legislature Legislature - Congress has passed laws that reinterpret and expand Constitutional provisions. For example, the Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate and promote interstate and international commerce. Over time, Congress has passed many laws that define the Commerce Clause, including regulations on forms of commerce that didn t exist in 1789, such as railroad lines, air routes, and internet traffic.

44 Informal Branch Judicial Branch Judicial Branch - Of all the branches, the judiciary has been the most influential in interpreting the Constitution. Article III defines the power of the judiciary very broadly, but does not specifically mention judicial review - the power of the courts to declare statutes unconstitutional and interpret the Constitution when disputes arise. That power was first established in Madison v. Marbury in 1803, when Chief Justice John Marshall claimed judicial review as a prerogative of the court in his famous majority opinion issued in the case.

45 Beard s Criticism of the Founders The founders' interest in protection of property has led some scholars to question their personal interests as motives in writing the Constitution. Charles Beard argued in An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, written in 1913, that the founders created a constitution that benefited their economic interests. According to Beard, the major conflicts and compromises resulted from the clash of owners of land as property, and owners of business or commercial interests. Many scholars today disagree with Beard because voting at the Convention did not follow these divisions closely. For example, Elbridge Gerry, a wealthy Massachusetts merchant and politician, refused to sign the Constitution. James Madison and James Wilson, men of modest means, were two of its biggest proponents. However, the founders did tend to base their votes on the economic interests of their states, as reflected in the famous compromises at the convention.

46 Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist The delegates agreed that the Constitution would go into effect as soon as popularly elected conventions in nine states approved it. The debate over ratification or the formal approval of the Constitution by the states raged throughout the country, with supporters of the new government calling themselves Federalists, and their opponents, the Anti-Federalists. Federalists supported the greatly increased powers of the central government and believed that the Constitution adequately protected individual liberties. The Anti-Federalists believed that the proposed government would be oppressive and that more individual freedoms and rights should be explicitly guaranteed. Pamphlets, newspapers, and speeches supported one view or the other.

47 Federalist Papers Ratification of the Constitution was defended by the Federalist Papers, written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. These documents contain some of the most basic and brilliantly argued philosophical underpinnings of American government. Two famous papers are Federalist #10 and Federalist #51

48 Federalist #10 The Federalist #10 argued that separation of powers and federalism check the growth of tyranny: If "factious leaders...kindle a flame within their particular states..." leaders can check the spread of the "conflagration through the other states." Likewise, each branch of the government keeps the other two from gaining a concentration of power. Federalist #10 also argues that Constitutional principles guard against the dangers of a direct democracy, or the common passion or interest-felt by a majority of the whole-such [direct] democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention. Madison argues that a long-lived democracy must manage its interest groups, even though these factions can never be eliminated.

49 Federalist #51 The Federalist #51 explained why strong government is necessary: If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary

50 Bill of Rights A compromise between Federalists and Anti-Federalists was reached with the agreement to add ten amendments that guaranteed individual freedoms and rights. With this agreement, the Constitution was finally ratified by all the states in 1789, and the Bill of Rights was added in Without these crucial additions, the Constitution would not have been ratified in several key states. Many of the recommendations from state ratifying conventions were considered by James Madison as he wrote the Bill, and he and a specially appointed committee submitted seventeen amendments to Congress. Congress eliminated five of them, and two were not immediately ratified by the states. These two did not become part of the original Bill of Rights, with one (dealing with apportionment of representatives) later clarified by Supreme Court decisions, and one (addressing salaries of members of Congress), added as an amendment 203 years later in 1992.

51 Caitlin Annicelli Teaching American History The Constitution and Liberty Federalist Anti-Federalist Debate In 1787, fifty-five delegates came together in Philadelphia to amend the Articles of Confederation. Instead a group led by James Madison proposed a stronger national government. After four months of heated debate and compromise the Constitution was created. Just as independence was not a guarantee there was no guarantee that the Constitution would successfully unify this fragile nation. The stage then turned to the ratification process. After the Constitutional Convention a more difficult question needed to be answered and that was whether the Constitution created a system of government that would respect personal liberties. That question was debated in the states when the document was presented for ratification. The debate continued and two sides emerged as proponents and opponents of the new document.

52 National Standards (Based on Advanced Placement Government) I. Constitutional Underpinnings of the United States Objectives 1. Place Federalist No. 10 and No. 51 in the context of the arguments between the federalists and the anti-federalists 2. Place Centinel No. 1 and Brutus No. 1 and No. 4 in context of the arguments between the federalists and the anti-federalists 3. Take the arguments that the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had and connect it to historical events and today Time Frame Two 90 minute periods or 4 45 minute periods Background The proponents of the Constitution called themselves the Federalists and the opponents became known as the Anti-federalists. The Anti-federalists had a variety of objections, but were in general united by the belief that liberty could be secure only in a small republic were rulers were physically close and closely checked by the ruled. The dissenters argued that a strong national government would be distant from the people and would use its powers to annihilate or absorb the functions that properly belonged to the states. If a stronger national government was to be created it should include more restrictions then proposed by the Constitution. They proposed several limitations, including narrowing the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, checking the presidents power by creating a council that would review his actions, leaving military affairs in the hands of the state militias, increasing the size of the House of Representatives, and reducing or eliminating the power of Congress to levy taxes.

53 In 1787, James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton responded to these criticisms through a series of articles defending and explaining their positions. Under the pen name Publius they wrote 85 articles. While the identity of the authors was keep secret, it is now known that Hamilton wrote 52, Madison 26, Jay five, and Hamilton and Madison jointly authored three. Madison argued in Federalist No. 10 that liberty was the safest in large or extended republics. According to Madison in small republics is anyone argues or dissents he or she will have few allies. However, in large republics there will be many opinions and interests; as a result it would be more difficult for a tyrannical majority to organize with an unpopular view. Madison was not trying to stifle democracy rather show how democratic government can work together. In Federalist No. 51 he argued that the coalitions that formed in a large republic would be more moderate than those formed in a small republic because the bigger the republic the more variety of interests, and thus the coalition must accommodate a diversity of interests and opinions. Procedures Part I: Establish historical content A. Through homework, lecture, class discussion, and PowerPoint notes, students will be familiar with the following 1. The influence of the Enlightenment in the Constitution 2. John Locke s influence on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution 3. The colonial mind during the creation of the Constitution 4. Five principals needed to achieve a working government (Popular Sovereignty, Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances, Limited Government, Federalism)

54 5. Important Delegates (Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin) 6. Factions in the convention (Large vs. Small states, North vs. South) 7. The plans and compromises (Virginia Plan, New Jersey Plan, Great Compromise) 8. The Federalist Papers 9. Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists Part II: Looking at Primary Sources A. Duplicate the primary sources and question. Assign students into pairs. One will look at the Federalist papers and the other Centinel No. 1 and Brutus No. 1 and No. 4. Both students will answer the questions and then discuss the major differences between the groups. 1. Explain that these documents examine the major differences that the population had over the ratification of the Constitution Part III: The Debate A. Students will be assigned one team, either Federalist or Anti-Federalist. They will need to connect the documents and beliefs of their side to events that have happened throughout history. Students will hold a debate based on the instructions handed out to them. An instructor can chose whether they want to hand out the questions a day before the debate or ask the students on the day of the debate. 1. Students will need time to research as a class. Explain that they must connect the 1780s ideas to historical events or issues. 2. On the day of the debate, groups will pass in a 2 page summary with citations of their argument.

55 Bibliography 4, By Section. "Anti-Federalist Papers: Brutus #4." TeachingAmericanHistory.org -- Free Seminars and Summer Institutes for Social Studies Teachers. Web. 23 Sept < 8, By Sect. "Centinel I by Centinel." TeachingAmericanHistory.org -- Free Seminars and Summer Institutes for Social Studies Teachers. Web. 23 Sept < Bernstein, Richard and Daniel M. Lyons, The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. Web. < "Brutus I." TeachingAmericanHistory.org -- Free Seminars and Summer Institutes for Social Studies Teachers. Web. 23 Sept < Jefferson, Thomas: A Peep into the Antifederal Club cartoon. Photograph. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Web. 22 Sep Serow, Ann G. and Everett C. Ladd, ed. The Lanahan Readings in the American Polity, 4 th edition. Baltimore, Maryland: Lanahan Publishers, Inc Wilson, James Q. and John DiLulio. American Government, 12 th edition. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company 2010

56 Fear of despotism or anarchy under a consolidated government Directions: Read the following documents and complete the questions Centinel No. 1, 5 October 1787 [I]f the united states are to be melted down into one empire, it becomes you to consider, whether such a government, however constructed, would be eligible in so extended a territory; and whether it would be practicable, consistent with freedom? It is the opinion of the greatest writers, that a very extensive country cannot be governed on democratical principles, on any other plan, than a confederation of a number of small republics, possessing all the powers of internal government, but united in the management of their foreign and general concerns. It would not be difficult to prove, that any thing short of despotism, could not bind so great a country under one government; and that whatever plan you might, at the first setting out, establish, it would issue in a despotism. If one general government could be instituted and maintained on principles of freedom, it would not be so competent to attend to the various local concerns and wants, of every particular district, as well as the peculiar governments, who are nearer the scene, and possessed of superior means of information, besides, if the business of the whole union is to be managed by one government, there would not be time. Do we not already see, that the inhabitants in a number of larger states, who are remote from the seat of government, are loudly complaining of the inconveniencies and disadvantages they are subjected to on this account, and that, to enjoy the comforts of local government, they are separating into smaller divisions.

57 Fear of despotism or anarchy under a consolidated government Directions: Read the following documents and complete the questions Brutus No. 1, 18 October 1787 The laws cannot be executed in a republic, of an extent equal to that of the United States, with promptitude. The magistrates in every government must be supported in the execution of the laws, either by an armed force, maintained at the public expence for that purpose; or by the people turning out to aid the magistrate upon his command, in case of resistance. In despotic governments, as well as in all the monarchies of Europe, standing armies are kept up to execute the commands of the prince or the magistrate, and are employed for this purpose when occasion requires: But they have always proved the destruction of liberty, and [are] abhorrent to the spirit of a free republic A free republic will never keep a standing army to execute its laws. It must depend upon the support of its citizens. But when a government is to receive its support from the aid of the citizens, it must be so constructed as to have the confidence, respect, and affection of the people [B]ut the people will not be likely to have such confidence in their rulers, in a republic so extensive as the United States, as necessary for these purposes. The confidence which the people have in their rulers, in a free republic, arises from their knowing them, from their being responsible to them for their conduct, and from the power they have of displacing them when they misbehave: but in a republic of the extent of this continent, the people in general would be acquainted with very few of their rulers: the people at large would know little of their proceedings, and it would be extremely difficult to change them. The people in Georgia and New-Hampshire would not know one another's mind, and therefore could not act in concert to enable them to effect a general change of representatives. The different parts of so extensive a country could not possibly be made acquainted with the conduct of their representatives, nor be informed of the reasons upon which measures were founded. The consequence will be, they will have no confidence in their legislature, suspect them of ambitious views, be jealous of every measure they adopt, and will not support the laws they pass. Hence the government will be nerveless and inefficient, and no way will be left to render it otherwise, but by establishing an armed force to execute the laws at the point of the bayonet a government of all others the most to be dreaded In so extensive a republic, the great officers of government would soon become above the controul of the people, and abuse their power to the purpose of aggrandizing themselves, and oppressing them The command of all the troops and navy of the republic, the appointment of officers, the power of pardoning offences, the collecting of all the public revenues, and the power of expending them, with a number of other powers, must be lodged and exercised in every state, in the hands of a few. When these are attended with great honor and emolument, as they always will be in large states, so as greatly to interest men to pursue them, and to be proper objects for

58 ambitious and designing men, such men will be ever restless in their pursuit after them. They will use the power, when they have acquired it, to the purposes of gratifying their own interest and ambition, and it is scarcely possible, in a very large republic, to call them to account for their misconduct, or to prevent their abuse of power. There are some reasons by which it appears, that a free republic cannot long subsist over a country of the great extent of these states. If then this new constitution is calculated to consolidate the thirteen states into one, as it evidently is, it ought not to be adopted.

59 Fear of despotism or anarchy under a consolidated government Directions: Read the following documents and complete the questions Brutus No. 4, 29 November 1787 There can be no free government where the people are not possessed of the power of making the laws by which they are governed, either in their own persons, or by others substituted in their stead. Experience has taught mankind, that legislation by representatives is the most eligible, and the only practicable mode in which the people of any country can exercise this right, either prudently or beneficially. But then, it is a matter of the highest importance, in forming this representation, that it be so constituted as to be capable of understanding the true interests of the society for which it acts, and so disposed as to pursue the good and happiness of the people as its ultimate end The small number which is to compose this legislature, will not only expose it to the danger of that kind of corruption, and undue influence, which will arise from the gift of places of honor and emolument, or the more direct one of bribery, but it will also subject it to another kind of influence no less fatal to the liberties of the people [I]t will not possess the confidence of the people. The execution of the laws in a free government must rest on this confidence, and this must be founded on the good opinion they entertain of the framers of the laws In order for the people safely to repose themselves on their rulers, they should not only be of their own choice. But it is requisite they should be acquainted with their abilities to manage the public concerns with wisdom. They should be satisfied that those who represent them are men of integrity, who will pursue the good of the community with fidelity; and will not be turned aside from their duty by private interest, or corrupted by undue influence; and that they will have such a zeal for the good of those whom they represent, as to excite them to be diligent in their service; but it is impossible the people of the United States should have sufficient knowledge of their 2 representatives, when the numbers are so few, to acquire any rational satisfaction on either of these points. The people of this state will have very little acquaintance with those who may be chosen to represent them; a great part of them will, probably, not know the characters of their own members, much less that of a majority of those who will compose the federal assembly; they will consist of men, whose names they have never heard, and whose talents and regard for the public good, they are total strangers to; and they will have no persons so immediately of their choice so near them, of their neighbours and of their own rank in life, that they can feel themselves secure in trusting their interests in their hands. The representatives of the people cannot, as they now do, after they have passed laws, mix with the people, and explain to them the motives which induced the adoption of any measure, point out its utility, and remove objections or silence unreasonable clamours against it. The number will be so small that but a very few of the most sensible and respectable yeomanry of the country can ever have any knowledge of them: being so far removed from the people, their station will be elevated and important, and they will be considered as ambitious and designing. They will not be viewed by the people as part of themselves, but as a body distinct from them, and having separate interests to pursue; the

60 consequence will be, that a perpetual jealousy will exist in the minds of the people against them; their conduct will be narrowly watched; their measures scrutinized; and their laws opposed, evaded, or reluctantly obeyed If then this government should not derive support from the good will of the people, it must be executed by force, or not executed at all; either case would lead to the total destruction of liberty.

61 Centinel No. 1 and Brutus No. 1 and No. 4 Directions: read the documents, Centinel No. 1 and Brutus No. 1and No. 4, and answer the questions on the worksheet. Question 1. What evidence does the Centinel give to suggest that a large extended republic will result in dissention or rebellion among citizens? Answer 2. In Brutus No. 1, why does Brutus believe an extended republic will eventually have to use force against its citizens? 3. In Brutus No. 1, why does Brutus believe that rulers in an extended republic will abuse their powers and violate the rights of citizens? 4. In Brutus No. 4, what problems will likely arise from having too few representatives in Congress? 5. In Brutus No. 4, why does Brutus believe that an extended republic will lead to an elite class of rulers distinct from the people?

62 Constitutional Underpinnings Questions on Madison's Federalist Number How does Madison define faction? What are some examples of factions today? 2. What are the two methods of curing the mischiefs caused by factions? 3. What are the two ways of eliminating the causes of faction? Why are both unacceptable? 4. According to Madison, what is the primary cause of conflict? 5. What issues divided mankind in 1787? Are those issues similar to the causes of today s divisions? 6. What are the two remedies for controlling the effects of factions? 7. Why are factions more easily controlled in large republics? 8. How does federalism control factions? 9. What portions of Madison s arguments are most persuasive? What is the least persuasive? 10. Does Madison have an optimistic or pessimistic view of human nature? How did this viewpoint impact the drafting of the Constitution?

63 11. Was Madison right, or have factions sometimes gained control of our government?

64 Constitutional Underpinnings Questions on Madison's Federalist Number What are the three branches of government? 2. Which branch did Madison think would be the weakest? 3. Which methods does Madison suggest to check the powers of government? 4. How is the separation of powers between the three branches assured? 5. Give two examples of the "checks and balances" in the U.S. constitutional system. 6. Which branch appears as an exception to the separation of powers norm? Why is this exception not dangerous? 7. What is federalism? 8. What are the two great advantages of federalism, according to Madison? 9. What is the "end" (supreme goal) of government, according to Madison? 10. What is Madison's view of human nature and how does it affect his prescriptions for the republic?

65 It s Up For Debate! It was the debate to end all debates--two powerhouse groups of rich white guys who argued about how the U.S. government should rule the American people! Patrick Henry on the left, James Madison on the right this was a showdown not to be missed! Now you get the honor of recreating it for the 21 st century! Moderator (Me) -- calls the debate to order, poses the debatable point/question, and introduces the debaters and their roles. Lead Debater/Constructor -- presents the main points/arguments for his or her team's stand on the topic of the debate. Questioner/Cross-Examiner -- poses questions about the opposing team's arguments to its Question Responder. Question Responder -- takes over the role of the Lead Debater/Constructor as he or she responds to questions posed by the opposing team's Questioner/Cross-Examiner. Rebutter -- responds on behalf of his or her team to as many of the questions raised in the crossexamination as possible. Summarizer -- closes the debate by summarizing the main points of his or her team's arguments, especially attempts by the opposition to shoot holes in their arguments. Here you will find the order for the debate: Opening Argument (5 minutes) Federalist Opening Argument (5 minutes) Anti-Federalist Opening Question Teams meet for response (10 minutes) Response (4 minutes) Anti-Federalist Response(4 minutes) Federalist Cross Examine (2 minutes) Anti-Federalist Rebuttal (3 minutes) Federalist Speed Round: Second Question Teams meet for rebuttal (3 minutes) Response (3 minutes) Federalist Response (3 minutes) Anti-Federalist Cross Examine (2 minutes) Federalist Second Rebuttal (3 minutes) Anti-Federalist Teams meet for closing statements (6 minutes) Closing Statements (3 minutes) Anti-Federalist Closing Statements (3 minutes) Federalist Each team will be assigned one of the following political parties to represent:

66 Federalist(James Madison, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton) Anti-Federalist (Patrick Henry, Robert Yates, Richard Henry Lee) The task: As a team, you need to research and create a debate platform based on historical evidence from your party. You will need to research how your party thinks, what major issues they have considered, and what your opponents argue. When debating, you must follow the rules for order and must be professional. Be thorough in your research and work together as a team to form your points for discussion and argument. I have provided you with a research packet to help you. You will need to read both your party s material and your opponents. Know thy enemy! You may also want to translate the primary sources into modern day language to make it clearer. Make sure you include modern and historical evidence to support your views on federalism. Good luck! Assessment: Grades will be issued to the TEAM according to the following rubric: CLASSROOM DEBATE RUBRIC Levels of Performance (Points Possible) Criteria Organization and Clarity: viewpoints and responses are outlined both clearly and orderly. Unclear in most parts Clear in some parts but not over all Most clear and orderly in all parts Completely clear and orderly presentation 2. Use of Arguments: reasons are given to support viewpoint. Few or no relevant reasons given Some relevant reasons given Most reasons given: most relevant Most relevant reasons given in support 3. Use of Examples and Facts: examples and facts are given to support reasons. Few or no relevant supporting examples/facts Some relevant examples/facts given Many examples/facts given: most relevant Many relevant supporting modern and historic examples and facts given 4. Use of Rebuttal: arguments made by the other teams are responded to and dealt with effectively. No effective counterarguments made Few effective counterarguments made Some effective counterarguments made Many effective counterarguments made 5. Presentation Style: tone of voice, use of gestures, and level of enthusiasm are convincing to audience. Few style features were used; not convincingly Few style features were used convincingly All style features were used, most convincingly All style features were used convincingly **NOTE: In order to receive their points, each team needs to submit a typed 2 page summary of their arguments along with a bibliography of sources used in MLA format. Summaries should be proofread and spell-checked prior to submission.

67 Opening Question Federalism dictates that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, but allows states to make laws not addressed by the federal government. This has allowed a wide variety of states laws to be passed including: Anti-slavery Literacy tests for voting Doctor assisted suicide Gay marriage (for and against) Gun laws State minimum wages How have these laws and others you might have researched affected your view of federalism? Speed Round Question In recent years we have seen fundamental shifts in federalism with more power being turned over to the states by virtue of devolution. The "Devolution Revolution" is a shift in authority from the federal government to state and local authorities. This means more grants and mandates (funded and unfunded) are being passed onto the states. Does your group like the idea of devolution? Please justify your responses.