How does the U.S. Constitution reflect both the founders distrust of government AND democracy?

How does the U.S. Constitution reflect both the founders distrust of government AND democracy?

Alexander Hamilton All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well born; the other, the mass of the people. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second.. It has been observed that a true democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny (of the masses); their figure deformity. Your people, sir, is a great beast.

A Stronger Centralized Government ARTICLES A loose confederation of states Each state - 1 vote in Congress 2/3 vote (9 states) in Congress for all important measures Laws executed by committees of Congress No power over commerce No power to levy taxes No federal courts CONSTITUTION A firm union of people 2 votes in Senate for each state; representation by population in House Simple majority vote in Congress, subject to presidential veto Laws executed by powerful president Congress to regulate both foreign and interstate commerce Extensive power in Congress to levy taxes Federal Courts, capped by Supreme Court

HOW SHOULD STATES BE REPRESENTED? HOW DID THIS PLAN REFLECT THE FEAR OF GOVERNMENT AND THE FEAR OF DEMOCRACY? Why have 3 branches? - If we re going to significantly strengthen the national gvt, must provide checks on power Why have a two House legislature? - Senate insulated from interests of voters - originally not elected directly by the people

HOW SHOULD SLAVES BE COUNTED FOR PURPOSES OF REPRESENTATION? Dispute b/w Southern States and Northern States Compromise 2: Three-Fifths Compromise

Three-Fifths Compromise Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Constitutional Protections of Slavery Slave trade compromise White southern males had disproportionate influence due to ⅗ clause (ie. representation in Congress AND the electoral college) Fugitive slave clause required all states to return runaways Domestic violence clauses provided national protection for states threatened with domestic violence (ie. Shays Rebellion; slave revolts)

Separation of Powers within the Federal Gvt SEPARATION OF POWERS IN PART to prevent a dangerous concentration of powers by dividing and overlapping powers in 3 branches (Montesquieu) YET - President given veto power over the only branch of gvt elected directly by citizens (limiting democracy) (see handout for

How does our process for electing the President reflect the founders distrust of democracy? ELECTORAL COLLEGE - electors nominated by state political parties or state legislatures Number of electors per state is based on number of Congressmen and Senators Winner takes all system: each state gives all electoral votes to the party with the majority votes Reasons: - To insulate the presidential office from the direct voices of the people. Electors were thought to be better equipped to decide on behalf of the people. - Also created to give numeric advantages to the smaller states (min. electors =3) who otherwise would be dominated by large states in all elections Flaws: 1. winner of pop vote could lose the electoral college vote.

Flaws of the electoral college system winner of pop vote could lose the electoral college vote (ie. Al Gore in the 2000 election) too much attention given to issues in swing states at the expense of other states there have been many Constitutional amendments proposed to abolish the electoral college system in favor of a direct popular vote. None have passed thus far

2012 Electoral College - 538 Electors Total = 435 (no. in Congress) + 100 (no. in Senate) + 3 DC Barack Obama (D): 332 Mitt Romney (R): 206

2000 Election Bush (R): 50,456,003 (47.9%) -- 271 electoral college Gore (D): 50,999,897 (48.4%) -- 266 electoral college

Final Product of the Convention: A FEDERALIST SYSTEM of GOVT Power to govern shared/divided b/w national and state governments (FEDERALISM) National government has DELEGATED POWERS States governments have RESERVED POWERS CONCURRENT POWERS are those held by both states and the national government (For the most part, what these powers would be wasn t disputed, BUT...

Controversy: The Necessary and Proper Clause (aka Elastic Clause OR Implied Powers The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. ALLOWS FEDERAL GOVT POWERS NOT STATED SPECIFICALLY BUT CONSIDERED REASONABLE OFFSHOOTS OF DELEGATED POWERS THIS WOULD LEAD TO DISPUTES B/W: strict interpreters of the Constitution loose interpreters

Balanced the following concerns: - how to strengthen the national govt - fear of a too powerful national govt - fear of too much democracy

Why was ratification so contentious?

FEDERALISTS ANTI-FEDERALIST S Tended to be small farmers and debtors who resented the power of the elite classes Led by Patrick Henry, Sam Adams, George Mason, Richard Henry Lee National gvt is too centralized: will be too far removed from the people (ie. Senate/electoral college); office terms too long Republican principles cannot be upheld in such a large territory Having a national executive branch gives too much power to one person danger of corruption Nothing in the Constitution protects individual rights Tended to be well-to-do people Federalist Papers written to defend Constitution (James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay) The US will never become stable or taken seriously internationally if it remains disunified A large territory can uphold republican values better due to the diversity no one interest will ever dominate (see Federalist Paper #10) The president is chosen by election, the term is four years, and the process for impeachment is built into the Constitution Nothing in the Constitution gives the Federal or state governments the power to infringe on the rights of the people

Federalist Paper #10 (James Madison) The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party, and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable the a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other.the influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular states, but will be unable to spread a general

Regarding a Bill of RIghts: Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? - Alexander Hamilton Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can - Thomas Jefferson THE INCLUSION OF A BILL OF RIGHTS CONVINCED ENOUGH STATES TO RATIFY THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH WENT INTO EFFECT IN 1888

I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I urge acceptance because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. - Benjamin Franklin