ConstitutionPOSC 121BraunwarthNationalismHow d.docx

Constitution
POSC 121
Braunwarth
NationalismHow did we come to be an independent
nation?Began as a struggle between order and freedomEngland
protects the colonies in the Seven Years’War with France
ending in 1763To pay, England passes Stamp Act and Sugar
ActResistance to “taxation without representation” was fanned
by “Patriots” who wanted independenceThrough their organized
efforts, representation grew into self-identification
Nationalism1773 Boston Tea Party by the Sons of
LibertyEngland responds with “Intolerable Acts” of 1774: more
tax collectors and more troopsCreated widespread
patriotismMany became frustrated with diplomacy and made
demands for freedom with forceMany of the Southern colonies
were motivated by the 1772 Somerset Decision that made
slavery illegal in England
Origins of the Constitution
There are two central precursors to our ConstitutionThe
Declaration of Independence andThe Articles of Confederation

The Declaration of IndependenceWritten by Jefferson (he was
actually a last minute replacement)Two enduring political ideas
are laid out in the Declaration of IndependenceNatural Rights
and the Social Contract
Natural Rights
What are Natural Rights?Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit
of Happiness
Why are they “natural”?Because we have them by virtue of
being human, hence they are “unalienable”
Developed in the writings of John Locke as “Life, Liberty, and
Property”Locke was concerned about how rational individuals
would overcome the “inconveniences” of a “state of nature”
without government
Social ContractWhat is a Social Contract?According to the
Declaration, these natural rights were to be secured through a
social contract between consenting citizens and the
governmentWe give up some of our liberties by agreeing to
abide by the laws of society and, in return, our natural rights are
protected
The Social Contract
The SignersThe signers were fully committed to the cause.
They were, after all, committing treasonAt the signing, it has

been reported that Benjamin Harrison, a rather large man, said
to the thin-framed William Ellery, “I shall have a great
advantage over you, Mr. Ellery, when we are all hung for what
we are now doing. From the size and weight of my body, I shall
die quickly, but from your lightness of body, you will dance for
some time before you are dead.”
Republicanism and the Spirit of ’76Following the passage of the
Declaration of Independence a sense of equality and
empowerment became widespreadRepublicanism: that power
should remain close to the people > political elitesCreated very
democratic state constitutionsPopularly elected
legislaturesLimited power to the executiveShort terms of office
A Constitution
A Constitution is the basic law of societyIt’s society’s rule
bookIt provides a general visioncreates political structuresand
how those structures will functionIt places limits on power and
establishes rightsConsequently, in order to understand
contemporary politics, one must study our Constitution
Constitutionalism = Limited Government
Articles of ConfederationThe Continental Congress’ first
ConstitutionWhat is a confederation?Essentially an association
of sovereign states with a weak central
governmentDecentralized PowerUnits are SovereignCan
delegate power upwardsAlways Conditional and can be
RevokedWhat’s the main drawback?Often too weak to be
effective

Problems with the Articles
Financial:Couldn’t tax, could only request money from the
statesCouldn’t regulate the economic “warfare” between many
of the statesDifferent currencies in different states made trade
difficult and inflation rampant
Problems with the Articles
Couldn’t protect from threatsExternally: With no money to raise
an army and little unity between the states, both Britain and
Spain were interfering with our lands and trade to the
WestInternally: The economic turmoil resulted in peasant and
farmer revolts (Shay’s Rebellion)
Life under the ArticlesConsider how the various groups fared
under the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution:The
GovernorsThe Federalists and the Continental CongressThe
economic eliteWorkers and small farmers Women and slaves
Constitutional ConventionBecause of these problems,
representatives from all states met in Philadelphia during the
oppressively hot summer of 1787They were instructed to meet
“for the sole and expressed purpose of revising the Articles of
Confederation”But, one of the first things decided was to scrap
the Articles and start over
The FramersWho were they?Federalist revolutionaries,

nationalists, and clever politiciansThey were not Gods, but men
and created a document through hard work and compromise
The FramersThey were also the “rich, well-born and
able”Preservation of property was a central concernSelf-Interest
was important but so was morality If everyone were really only
out to advance their own interests, what would happen to our
economy?
Read the U.S. Constitution What do the main articles
(I, II, III) discuss?Find the Necessary and Proper Clause (also
called the Elastic Clause)Find the Supremacy ClauseWhat is the
substance of each amendment to the US Constitution?
Central DilemmasHow will states share power in the new
government?What about slavery?How will the new government
be strong enough to work but not so strong that it becomes
tyrannical?How much Power to the People?How will the new
Constitution be ratified?
Representation
Power sharing between large (Virginia plan) and small states
(New Jersey plan)Resolved through Great (Connecticut)
CompromiseOne house with representation by populationOne
house with each state represented equally

Slavery
Slavery: most wanted it abolishedThis was a deal-breaker for
the SouthSlave trade wouldn’t be banned for 20 yearsDo slaves
count as population for the purposes of representation and
taxation?Compromise: Slaves count as 3/5 a personEventually
resulted in a brutal civil war
Fragmented PowerDifficult task:Needed to create a government
that was strong enough govern but not so strong as to become
tyrannicalMadison devised a system of “checks and
balances”Not just separate, but shared powers; each branch
requires the consent of the othersConvention Video Clip
Republic: Insulated Democracy
Rule by the people, but indirectlyWho could vote?Generally
white males with propertyFor whom could they vote?Only
Representatives to the House, Senators were selected by state
legislatures, and the President was selected by special
“electors”Why?Wanted to make sure that only individuals who
had the right temperament, knowledge, experience and
disposition would ruleWere concerned about mob rule like the
abolition of all debt in some states under the articles
Human Nature and
Classical LiberalismThe Framers wanted to create a Republic in
which leaders had the best long term interest of the Public at
heart (think rePUBLIC)They didn’t want people solely voting
according to their own selfish interests (Democracy?)Wanted to
avoid the election of demagoguesWould prey on the fears and

passions and selfish interests of individuals that might be
contrary to the best interest of the nation
Federalist #10What is a faction?Why do factions arise?What is
the problem with factions?What is the tyranny of the
majority?How can you solve this problem?Why can you do this
in a republic and not a democracy?What is the advantage of a
large republic over a small?
Federalist #10Madison was concerned about groups gaining
advantages at the expense of others or the nation as a wholeThis
would be facilitated in a direct or pure democracy (ballot
propositions?)This is why you want a certain kind of wise and
just elected leaderWhy you have indirect democracy at the
national levelAlso, local tyrannies will cancel each other out in
this new larger government
Federalist #51How can we create a government
that is strong enough to govern
but not too strong?Paragraph 1: what is a department and how
should power be divided between them?Paragraph 4: What is
the assumption about human nature?Why two houses with
different terms?Why a “compound” government?

Human Nature and
Classical LiberalismWhat does Federalist #10 and #51 assume
about human nature?How does self-interest contribute to the
rise of factions (Federalist #10)?Can we simply abandon trust,
loyalty, and honesty in the political and economic spheres?What
about social capital (Putnam)?
Human Nature and
Insulated DemocracyWere the Framers correct to limit direct
input from the masses?How have we become more democratic
since 1787?Direct election of SenatorsElectoral College based
on popular voteAny examples of direct democracy?Ballot
Initiatives in many states?Is this better? Why or why not?
Short Term Economic Gain and Long Term Social CostsWhat’s
the advantage of a limited-liability company?It reduces the risk
(and commitment) of the shareholder/owners.Will shareholders
take a short or long-term view toward profits?What’s the easiest
way to raise short-term profits: cut costs or raise revenues?
What effect does this have on: The workers?The long-term
interests of the company?The government’s treatment of
corporations?Income inequality and the growth of factions?
Anti-Federalist #1Why does Brutus think the power of the
general gov’t will eclipse the states?Look at Article 1, Section

8Will the same be true of the Courts?What is his assumption of
human nature?What are the advantages of government in a small
place?For representation?For citizen knowledge?What about
diversity of place?Contrast this argument with that in Federalist
#10/Tyranny of the MajorityNote his concerns regarding a
standing army and an imperial power
RatificationA very tough fightFederalists advocated the new
system as they recognized we needed a strong government to
guide a strong nationAnti-Federalists were worried about too
much centralization of elite powerThe Federalists succeeded
through better organization, but the Anti-Federalists secured a
Bill of Rights
Anti FederalistsJefferson argued that small farmers were
essential to democracy; why?They provide for and are the
backbones of local communities; this allows some independence
from and a platform to resist the encroachments of a tyrannical
governmentCan you think of a contemporary analogy?Perhaps
local businesses as a line of defense from the encroachments of
multi-national corporations
Constitutional Characteristics
Works slowlyShared and separated power, etc.Hard to get
effective policy passedMost other governments haven’t
copiedAdvantages of moving slowly?Deliberative Democracy:
reflect and refine views, bias towards the status quo

Constitutional Evolution
Procedural Constitution: general and briefHow to do things, not
what will be doneOpen to interpretation to fit future conditions,
“living document”Formal amendment process is difficultonly 27
in over 2 centuries and many have made the document more
democratic (who can vote and on what they can vote)
Dual ConstitutionalismBoth states and the federal government
have constitutionsBoth are basic rules for each levelBut the
national government has supremacy within those spheres of
authority delegated to it in the U.S. Constitution
CA 1849 ConstitutionEstablished the basic structure of
government16 point bill of rights including:No SlaveryProperty
Rights for WomenPrinted in both English and SpanishExhibited
at Golden State Museum in Sacramento
CA Constitution of 1878Much more detail and
specificityFurther limitation on governmentMany specific
provisions addressing a variety of groupsReflects the idea of
HyperpluralismDominated by Elite and Special InterestsAll
wanting their advantages in the Constitution
CA Constitution: Detailed and Long33,000 words in
lengthAmended nearly 500 times (v. 27 U.S.)4th largest
Constitution in the worldWhy so BIG?“Substantive” (v.
Procedural)Has had to grow as the state has

Excessive DetailBewildering variety of specific topics:Sale of
alcoholic beverages on planesthe Alumni Association of the
UCCafeteria budgets of state agenciesuse of Bingo by charitable
groupsthe right of citizens to fishProperty tax exemption for
grape vines less than three years old, etc.
Source of the essay：
Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG4WIr8EKjA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra3MoiX4iaw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV6P82wt434
Book:
Chapter 2 - Section 1The Constitution
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more
perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare,
and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,
do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of
America”
The Preamble
In the 2000 presidential election, the Democratic candidate,
Al Gore, won a clear majority of the popular vote, yet was not
elected President. In the 2016 presidential election, Hillary
Clinton won nearly three million more votes than Donald
Trump, yet she didn’t become president. Gore’s and Clinton’s
opponents received fewer votes overall but won the presidency.
How can this happen in a democracy whose core political values
include rule by the people and majority rule? The answer lies in
the Constitution.
The Constitution is, essentially, society’s rule book. The
framers of the Constitution were skeptical about the ability of

the masses to select an executive who possessed the necessary
experience and wisdom for such an important office. They were
worried that the masses would elect a demagogue who appealed
to the self-interests and passions of the public. Subsequently,
the Framers created a system in which the president would be
chosen by electors as part of an electoral college. Originally the
electors made their selection independent of the will of the
masses; but by 2000 the electoral vote was determined by the
popular vote. Most states have a legal requirement that electors
vote according the results of the popular vote in their states;
other states extract pledges through political parties that
electors will vote according to the popular vote; and some states
have no formal requirements although it is extremely rare for
electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral
vote for someone other than the candidate who won the popular
vote in that state. One’s vote in a presidential election does not
go directly toward a presidential candidate but for electoral
votes that candidates win in each state.
In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president despite
not winning either the popular vote or the electoral vote.
Andrew Jackson was the winner in both categories. Jackson
received 38,000 more popular votes than Adams, and beat him
in the electoral vote 99 to 84. Despite his victories, Jackson
didn’t reach the majority 131 votes needed in the Electoral
College to be declared president. In fact, neither candidate did.
The decision went to the House of Representatives, which voted
Adams into the White House.
In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election (by a margin
of one electoral vote), but he lost the popular vote by more than
250,000 ballots to Samuel J. Tilden.
In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes to
Grover Cleveland’s 168, winning the presidency. But Harrison
lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes.
In 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner of the
general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn’t
win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction,

garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bush
won the electoral vote, 271 to 266.
In 2016, Donald Trump won 306 electoral votes to Hillary
Clinton’s 232, yet Trump only won 62,979,879 votes to
Clinton’s 65,844,954 votes. In terms of percentages of popular
vote, Trump got 46.1% to Clinton’s 48.2%.
These rules, which led to the election of George W. Bush
and Donald Trump with a minority of the popular vote, are set
out in the Constitution. If we are ever to change the
undemocratic institution, and replace it with a direct election of
the president, then a Constitutional Amendment is needed.
Contents
Section 2Chapter 2 - Section 2Constitutionalism
Throughout this text you, the reader, will explore various
aspects of U.S. Government and politics. However, before
diving into the specifics of the various functions of the U.S.
government, in this chapter you will explore some of the rules
and structures under which those functions are carried out. A
constitution sets out a general vision for society, creates
political structures, and establishes how these structures will
function. A constitution places limits on the power that can be
exercised by government and establishes rights for those who
are governed; limiting the power of a government in a
constitution protects the political rights and liberties of the
people from the potential capriciousness of rulers. Governments
are both empowered and limited by constitutions; this is the
basis of constitutionalism. The primary political structure of
any government is its constitution. It is a society’s most basic
law. Nothing can be done in a society which conflicts with that
society’s constitution.
Subsequently, in order to gain a better understanding of
contemporary politics, one must first gain a better
understanding of the United States Constitution which was
drafted back in 1787. Every political issue in this morning’s
paper is shaped by the U.S. Constitution. In 1787, the framers

of the U.S. Constitution had no way of knowing that in the 21st
century the United States government would be debating
political issues relating to nuclear power, global terrorism, and
internet piracy. However, the rules that they created in the late
18th century profoundly shape how each of these topics will
play out in contemporary political debate. It’s sort of like a
football or baseball game. Each game is different: different
plays are made, different tactics are used, and different teams
win or lose, but the rules remain the same.
Section 1
Section 3Chapter 2 - Section 3The Development of Nationalism
The American colonies in the mid-eighteenth century fared
well under British rule. The colonists prospered economically
and enjoyed a moderate degree of liberty and self-governance.
They considered themselves to be English and were generally
loyal British subjects who did not question the rule of “Mother
England”. This began to change in 1763. England had just
defeated Spain and France for control of the new world in the
Seven Years War. As this war was essentially fought on behalf
of the colonies and the colonists, Mother England decided that,
not unjustifiably, much of the debt incurred in this war should
be paid by these beneficiaries. Subsequently, England levied
taxes on the colonies in the form of the Sugar Actand the Stamp
Act. The colonists were widely opposed to these Acts which
proved to be a turning point in the colonists’ attitudes toward
their relationship with Great Britain. As a result of the Sugar
Act, many colonists avoided the use of refined sugar in order to
deprive Britain of the revenue generated by the Act. This
prompted widespread use of homemade sweeteners, such as
molasses, throughout the colonies. The Stamp Act imposed a tax
on printed items from playing cards to newspapers and
particularly aggrieved the colonists. Their resistance to what
they saw as unfair taxation began to develop into a self-
identification as a people different from, and even independent
of, Great Britain.

As Great Britain sought to reassert its control over its
colonies, for which it had just fought an expensive war to
protect, resistance grew among the colonists. This resistance
reached a watershed in 1773 when self-proclaimed “patriots” in
Boston, disguised as Indians, dumped a ship’s cargo of tea into
Boston Harbor to protest a recent British tax on the beverage.
England responded with the “Intolerable Acts” of 1774. These
acts included increased taxes, a corresponding influx of British
officials, and troops to oversee the operation. Until this time,
active resistance was orchestrated by a relatively small group of
patriots, however the Intolerable Acts proved to be the straw the
broke the camel’s back for the many colonists who, until this
time, had been relatively indifferent to the developing sense of
patriotism.
Tea Party - Schoolhouse Rock - No more Kings
Section 2
Section 4Chapter 2 - Section 4The Declaration of Independence
History often depicts great moments as the only possible
culmination of some inevitable historical force. In reality,
events rarely unfold in this manner. For instance, while it was
probably inevitable that the English colonies in North America
would at some point gain independence, much debate
surrounded the decision to draft a declaration of independence
in 1776. A significant number of colonists at the time remained
loyal to Mother England. Many others believed that the timing
for declaring independence as a nation wasn’t right because
they thought that the decision should reflect the desires of the
people as expressed through the provincial assemblies. The
turning point in the creation of the Declaration of
Independence began on May 15 in Philadelphia, when a
delegation of the Second Continental Congress, a colonial
legislative body, proposed a declaration for the course of the
colonies. The delegation was largely made up
of revolutionaries, those who advocated a decisive break from

England. Richard Henry Lee, the delegation’s leader, introduced
the following resolution: “That these United Colonies are, and
of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are
absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all
political connection between them and the State of Great Britain
is, and ought to be, totally dissolved”.
Since the revolutionaries believed that their quest for
independence would be successful, they assembled a team on
June 11 to write a draft of what would become the Declaration
of Independence. The “committee of five” included Benjamin
Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson who were all
firmly in the revolutionary camp. The committee also included
Roger Sherman, who had some doubts but still backed the
independence movement and Robert R. Livingston, who led the
opposition to Lee’s resolution. Livingston’s membership was
important because the revolutionaries thought that his presence
would exert a moderating effect on those who were opposed to
declaring independence at that time. The committee voted that
Thomas Jefferson, the best writer in the group, would be given
the task of composing the document. He integrated his own
ideas with those of other political thinkers including George
Mason and the Classical Liberal political philosopher John
Locke.
For a closer look at the Boston Tea Party:
http://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/boston-tea-
party/videos
The Declaration of Independence – July 4, 1776
In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote of
certain self-evident truths: “that all men are created equal; that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.” This passage was heavily influenced by John
Locke’s (1632-1704) conception of Natural Rights. Locke wrote
that life, liberty, and property are “natural” or God-given, rights
that no one can create or take away from anyone else. They are

rights which individuals have simply by virtue of being human.
Subsequently, individuals cannot be separated from these rights,
they are “unalienable”. Similarly, Thomas Paine argued that,
“natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his
existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of
the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for
his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the
natural rights of others.”
Interestingly, Jefferson never mentions Locke in the
Declaration, nor does he provide any citations. Even though
Jefferson changes Locke’s words slightly and utilizes them in
more of a revolutionary context than that intended by Locke, if
you, the reader, incorporate your source material in your
academic papers as well as Jefferson did, you will be guilty of
academic dishonesty. Jefferson, however, was not concerned
with plagiarism. It has been argued that Jefferson actually
changed the words in order to overcome his moral queasiness
about the institution of slavery. Jefferson wrote that the practice
of slavery “degrades the slave and the slave owner.” He may
have been uncomfortable referring to liberty and property in
such close proximity when many people (slaves) were
considered to be no more than property themselves. In his
original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson
went on to blame King George for the slave trade in the
colonies. The justifications for such a claim were somewhat
questionable and the phrase was edited out during subsequent
revisions. Other historians have argued that Jefferson was
actually a staunch and unabashed supporter of slavery and the
only reason he condemned the slave trade was because his home
colony of Virginia, unlike the other southern colonies, had a net
surplus of slaves and was an exporter of slaves to the other
colonies and thus competed economically with the slave trade
from Africa. In either case, it is somewhat ironic that the first
major document of the U.S. government, which continues to be
a great source of inspiration for individuals and groups seeking
the freedom and equality promised by Classical Liberalism,

does not condemn slavery even though Jefferson had the
opportunity to do so at the time.
The Slavery Clause in the Declaration of Independence
According to the Declaration of Independence, one’s natural
rights were to be secured through a social contract between the
people and the government. Because the philosophy of classical
liberalism focuses on the individual as an isolated actor, it only
deals with the community as a group of individuals who happen
to be living in close proximity and must thus coordinate their
actions in order to overcome the “inconveniences” of
anarchy. Anarchy is the absence of any formal system of
government in a society. In such a situation, what Locke refers
to as a “state of nature”, rational individuals agree to give up
some of their liberties to a government which would have
monopolization on the legitimate use of violence and would
protect the natural rights of individual citizens. A social
contract, like any contract, is based on the idea of consent of
the governed. Should the government fail to live up to its end of
the bargain, the people have the right to revolt and change their
government. This idea is again evident in the Declaration of
Independence where Jefferson talks of the “long train of abuses
and usurpations” which compels the colonies “to throw off such
Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
security.” Inherent to the idea of the social contract is the idea
of limited government. Government should protect the natural
rights of individuals but infringe on further liberties as little as
possible. As the Classical Liberal tradition posits that all
individuals are both rational and reasonable, they are therefore
also deserving of liberties, freedom, and rights, but not
necessarily responsibilities. This lack of robustness in the
conception of community plays a key role in our current popular
attitude toward social welfare policies. This will be addressed
again later in this text.
Jefferson worked on his draft of the declaration from June
11 to June 28, 1776. The “committee of five” responsible for
writing a declaration of independence met again on July 1, 1776

and edited Jefferson's draft. Two parts were deleted. The first
was a censure of the people of Great Britain which seemed
harsh and needless. The second part was the condemnation of
the slave trade, which offended the Southern planters and the
New England shippers. The final draft was signed by John
Hancock as the president of the Congress and fifty-five
members at Independence Hall on July 2, 1776. On July 4,
1776, the Second Continental Congress met and voted to
approve the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of
Independence consists of three main parts. The first part lists
the unalienable rights of people, including the power to change
a government that denies them their rights. You will find a
transcript of this section below. The second section goes on to
list the abuses by the British government. Finally, the third
section declares that the colonies are free and independent
states.
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of
America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary
for one people to dissolve the political bands which 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, a decent respect to the
opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the
causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, 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, --That whenever any
Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most

likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed,
will dictate that Governments long established should not be
changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all
experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to
suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by
abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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, and to provide new Guards for their future
security. – Such has been the patient sufferance of these
Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them
to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the
present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries
and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of
an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts
be submitted to a candid world...
The Declaration of Independence
Signing the Declaration of Independence was not without
risk. Those who signed the Declaration were committing treason
against Great Britain and, if unsuccessful in their bid for
independence, they would be hunted down, tried, and hanged.
Essentially the Declaration was a Declaration of War. Many
members of Congress did not sign the document for fear of
punishment; those who did were willing to risk everything,
including their lives, on the gamble that the nationalist dream of
United States independent of Great Britain would prove fruitful.
One of the signatories, Dr. Benjamin Rush, was fond of
retelling an exchange between Benjamin Harrison of Virginia
and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts which he overheard on
July 4, 1776, just hours after the Declaration was finished and
sent to the printers. The portly Mr. Harrison teased, “I shall
have a great advantage over you Mr. Gerry when we are all
hung for what we are now doing. From the size and weight of
my body, I shall die in a few minutes. But from the lightness of
your body you shall dance in the air for an hour or two before

you are dead.” Rush noted that this was statement was received
with a smile but any levity was soon overshadowed with the
solemnity of the situation. About 200 copies of the Declaration
of Independence were made both in manuscript and poster form.
They were distributed throughout the colonies by horseback and
were often read aloud. To this day only 25 original copies
remain, two of which are in Britain, indicating that King George
received the declaration.
Fate of our Fathers
The signatories to the Declaration of Independence realized
they were making history but had no way of knowing how this
history would play out. What seems a foregone conclusion to us
in the 21st century was not at all assured back in 1776. Indeed,
if Britain had prosecuted the war a bit more vigorously early on,
they would have likely defeated the colonial upstarts and all of
us in what is now known as the United States would be speaking
the Queen’s English today. In order to make a clean break with
England, nationalists such as Jefferson and Adams actually did
advocate severing ties with the language of Mother England.
Not un-political steps were made in this direction by another
nationalist, Noah Webster, who penned an American English
speller and reader. Webster’s speller sold millions of copies
well into the next century and helped to create a widespread
sense of American identity among the former colonists.
Language ties are ties that bind people together and while
different spellings of the word honor and recognize may seem
trivial, such conventions take on political importance in the
context in which they develop.
The Declaration of Independence is, essentially, the “birth
certificate” of the United States of America. In it the people
declared their independence, their commitment to freedom and
their commitment to the guarantee of basic individual rights.
Since it was written many things have changed, but the
Declaration of Independence continues to be used by many
groups as justification for their claims to freedom and equality.
Almost 100 years after the signing of the Declaration of

Independence, Abraham Lincoln drew upon the ideals expressed
in the Declaration when he wrote the Emancipation
Proclamation. 150 years after the Declaration was written,
women used it to justify their struggle for suffrage. The
Declaration was also invoked during the Civil Rights movement
as African Americans declared their rights as equal citizens.
The Declaration of Independence continues to be utilized as a
protection for liberty and equality today.
Section 3
Section 5Chapter 2 - Section 5Republicanism and the Spirit of
'76
Following the creation of the Declaration of Independence, a
sense of republicanism began to sweep through the colonies.
This tide of opinion became known as the “Spirit of ‘76” and
was motivated by a number of publications in addition to the
Declaration of Independence, most notably Thomas
Paine’s Common Sensewhich was a huge bestseller for the time
and widely read throughout the colonies. Republicanism rests
on the idea that political power should rest with the people
rather than with elites. The business of governance should be
carried out by representatives elected to relatively brief terms
of office rather than relying on the benevolence of monarchs
who rule with no limits on their power. The distrust of
tyrannical executive rule was reflected in the new states’
constitutions which stressed legislative rather than executive
power. The justification for this emphasis was that legislatures
were felt to be the branch of government which was closest to
the people and most likely to represent the interests of the
masses. Most states limited terms of office to one year in order
to minimize the possibility for capricious control by individual
despots. These constitutions also regularly featured bills of
rights to protect against the potential for abuses of power by
legislatures.
With any form of government there is a tradeoff between
order and liberty. While England tried, in vain, to impose order

on the colonies, a growing sense of liberty manifested itself
among the colonists. While unrestrained liberty may eventually
result in anarchy, the spirit of republicanism (which emphasized
liberty over order) also included an emphasis on acting in the
public good rather than private interests. This sense of
deference to a greater good was aided by a growing sense of
equality among the colonists following the publication of the
Declaration of Independence. While there did exist a distinct
class of “gentlemen” in the colonies, the sense of “all men
[being] created equal” stood in marked contrast to the more
class conscious societies of Europe. Reflecting this sense of
equality and liberty, the rate of indentured servitude decreased
dramatically in the years following 1776.
Section 4
Section 6Chapter 2 - Section 6The Articles of Confederation
The colonies already had some experience with self rule. As
a result of the great distances between the colonies and
England, direct rule over the day to day affairs of the colonies
by London was clearly impractical. Different colonies
developed different governing structures including the
Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1639), the Massachusetts
Body of Liberties (1641), the Pennsylvania Frame of
Government (1682) and the Pennsylvania Charter of Privileges
(1701). One of the earliest attempts at consensual self-rule was
the Mayflower Compact which was signed by most of the adult
men on the Mayflower as it crossed from England to Plymouth,
Massachusetts. Apparently some of the framers of the
Constitution were even influenced by the Iroquois Confederacy
who, in a 1520 treaty, pledged that “We, the people, to form a
union, to establish peace, equity, and order…”. On a nationwide
level, the first Continental Congress was formed in 1774
followed in 1775 by the Second Continental Congress which
included representatives from all 13 colonies. Although the
British would not admit defeat until Cornwallis was beaten in
Yorktown in 1781, in June of 1776 the Second Continental

Congress had already begun drafting the Articles of
Confederation which would become the young nation’s first
constitution. The final draft of the Articles of
Confederation was finished on November 15, 1777.
Under the Articles of Confederation, all power rested with
the states. Each of the states had its own government and
governed itself. The states, in theory, would coordinate actions
in order to achieve some common goals; however the central
government had no power to make the states do anything.
A Confederation is a system of government in which
sovereignty rests with the constituent units. Sovereignty means
that a government has complete control within their borders. A
sovereign entity is independent and is not under the jurisdiction
of any other government. Each of the thirteen colonies was
essentially an independent country or state. It is from this
beginning that the confusion over the word “state” originates.
For the rest of the world, the word “state” refers to a sovereign
entity such as Mexico or Thailand. After achieving
independence from Britain, the thirteen colonies acted as
independent states. Following the revolution, France, for
example, proposed to send thirteen different ambassadors, one
to each of the new countries or states. These thirteen states later
decided to give up some of their sovereignty to form a new
country, the United States of America. It is because of this
unique turn of events that the constituent parts of the United
States are known as states rather than provinces, districts, or
prefectures.
As the constituent units under the Articles of Confederation
were sovereign, they were not under the direct power of the
central government. This made governing as a nation very
difficult. The constituent units in a confederation may choose to
delegate power upward for the sake of acting in concert with
others for their mutual benefit, but that power can only be
granted conditionally and can be withdrawn at any time.
Similarly, the central government can request actions from the
states but has no power to enforce demands. A confederation is

a very weak form of central government. Can you guess why the
former colonies decided to form a confederation as their first
form of government? The former colonies were quite distinct.
Each had a different economic base; large plantation agriculture
in the South, fishing and trade on the coast, nascent industry in
the North, and small-scale agriculture in the interior. Residents
of each state identified themselves as residents of that state and
not of a larger nation. When people talked about their country,
they talked about “my country Virginia” or “Massachusetts”, or
“Georgia”, etc. But the primary reason the former colonies
formed a weak confederate form of government was because
they feared tyrannical central rule such as they had experienced
under Great Britain. However, the inherent central weakness of
a confederation led to obvious problems both economically and
militarily.
On the economic front, the issue of taxation was a constant
and vexing problem. Under the Articles of Confederation, the
Continental Congress could request taxes from the states but
could not force the states to pay. The new states had economic
demands of their own and were reluctant to send money off for
the communal good. To use the terms introduced in the first
chapter, each of the states had an incentive to be a free
rider and no state paid all the taxes which were requested of it.
Without taxes, the Continental Congress had difficulty raising
an army and a navy once the immediate concern of Great Britain
was dealt with. As it was, the Continental Congress was
burdened with debt stemming from the war effort. With no
significant standing army to defend themselves, the new states
were vulnerable to attack from abroad. Britain, in violation of
the treaty ending the Revolutionary War, threatened territory to
the West from its outposts in Canada. The Spanish were
harassing interests at the mouth of the Mississippi river and the
Continental Congress was essentially powerless to oppose these
incursions. Some of the states developed their own armies and
navies but these were small and relatively ineffectual.
With no central government coordination, trade and border

disputes quickly arose. Roughly one-half of all manufactured
goods were imported from Europe at this time. Those states
through which the goods passed added tariffs as they were
exported to other states. In retaliation, levies were added to
agriculture products as they crossed state borders. In some
instances trade disputes grew into trade wars which further
developed into calls for armed conflict. Luckily these calls went
unanswered. Trade was further hampered by the use of different
currencies in different states. Some states used Spanish Dollars,
some used British Pounds, and some coined their own currency.
In general, such currency was not tied to any solid indices and
inflation ran rampant as new governments simply printed more
money to pay for the work of the state or to pay off their debt to
the Continental Congress.
Burdened by debt, trade disputes, and poor monetary policy,
the economies of the states deteriorated. This affected the
success of the small businessman, farmer, and consumer. The
young nation quickly developed into one populated by only two
classes of people: the debtors and the creditors. Farmers were
particularly hard hit when they were unable to earn prices for
their crops sufficient to pay off the costs of planting and
harvesting. Banks began to foreclose and the debtors began to
chafe. People wondered what had happened to the ideals of
equality prevalent during the Spirit of ’76. The problem now
was not political but economic repressiveness. Debtor
insurrections followed. In some cases, popularly-controlled
legislators cancelled all debts, trampling on the property rights
of creditors. Armed uprisings of one sort or another developed
in each of the thirteen states, the most well-known of which
was Shay’s Rebellion in Massachusetts. Daniel Shays, a veteran
of the Revolutionary War, led a small band of followers who
forcibly closed down foreclosure proceedings in Western
Massachusetts. Although these armed uprisings were limited in
scope and duration, they, more than anything else, convinced
the economic and political elite that changes needed to be made.
With the benefit of historical hindsight, such changes seem

pre-destined, but this was not the sentiment at the time. State
political leaders were obviously reluctant to make changes to
the governing system developed under the Articles of
Confederation because they did not wish to give up their
independence and power. However, the threat of peasants armed
with muskets, torches, and rakes marching across the well-
groomed lawns to the columned porticos of the political and
economic elite – not unlike some scene out of an old horror
movie – was enough to compel action. Individuals are
interconnected in society; when the peasants suffer, so do the
elites. Popular passions, once ignited during the revolutionary
war, now threatened the economic and political order on which
the elites depended for their position, wealth, and power. The
problem was no longer the capricious power of an executive but
the power of the people acting through their popularly-elected
legislatures. The tide of republicanism which had swept over
the land was now a tidal wave that threatened to capsize the
fragile vessels of the young states. Both the masses and the elite
demanded change.
The Background of the United States Constitution
Section 5
Section 7Chapter 2 - Section 7The Constitutional Convention
Representatives from each of the thirteen states were called
together to meet in Annapolis Maryland on September 11, 1786
to discuss commercial problems. However, it became clear to
those in attendance, most notably Alexander Hamilton and
James Madison, that a more comprehensive discussion of the
problems facing the thirteen states was needed. Consequently,
delegates were sent from twelve of the thirteen states (Rhode
Island abstained) to Philadelphia in May of 1787. Fifty-five
delegates were in attendance. Notably absent were Thomas
Jefferson and John Adams, who were serving as ambassadors to
France and England respectively. It is notable that these two
were absent as they were particularly skilled in the art of
statecraft; Jefferson was largely responsible for writing the

Virginia Constitution and Adams was largely responsible for
Massachusetts’. However, it can be assumed that their legacies
and ideas were well represented at the constitutional
convention.
The meetings were held in the Pennsylvania State House in
Philadelphia which would later become known as Constitutional
Hall. The summer was unseasonably hot and humid and working
conditions in the State House were far from ideal. As a result,
much informal debate was carried out in the India Queen tavern
nearby. Ben Franklin, the oldest delegate to the convention at
81 years old, suffered from gout. When he couldn’t walk, four
prisoners from a nearby jail carried him to the proceedings in a
fancy Chinese chair. It has been noted that, for amusement, he
would occasionally trip other delegates with his cane from his
aisle seat.
Once the convention was opened on May 25, one of the first
orders of business was to place George Washington at the head
of the proceedings. This was an obvious choice due to
Washington’s prominence and popularity throughout the
thirteen states; it was felt that his leadership of the convention
would lend an aura of importance and seriousness. Interestingly,
Washington contributed little to the debate, supposedly because
he knew his opinions would carry undue weight. The delegates
were to meet “for the sole and expressed purposes of revising
the Articles of Confederation,” however almost immediately the
decision was made to scrap the Articles and start over from
scratch. The delegates also decided to keep the proceedings
secret and a strict news blackout was enforced. While a
prohibition on “no news out of doors” sounds a bit
undemocratic to our contemporary ears, the code of secrecy
allowed delegates the opportunity to float ideas and raise
objections without having to worry about how these comments
might play in the popular press.
Open to Debate:
Were the Framers of the Constitution altruistic statesmen
who, without personal regard, sought to create a document that

would represent the masses and promote the ideal of democracy
or were they self-interested individuals who were looking out
for their own welfare? The answer is open to debate. Historian
Charles Beardmakes the case that the framers of the
Constitution did not represent a cross-section of the citizenry of
the day; rather their ranks were drawn from the economic,
political, and intellectual elite. As one historian put it, they
were the well bred, the well read, the well wed, and the well
fed. The assumptions about human nature carried by these
individuals were that people are naturally self-interested and are
motivated by power, money, and other rewards. Beard carefully
details how each of the Constitution’s framers stood to gain by
the passage of the document. As merchants, creditors, and
political elite, the framers would benefit from the economic
stability engendered by a stronger central government. Also,
Article VI of the Constitution specifies that “All debts
contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of
this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States
under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.” Much of
the debt in question had been purchased by some of the framers
for pennies on the dollar when the Continental Congress’ ability
to satisfy this debt was called into question.
Did the secrecy surrounding the creation of the Constitution
allow the delegates the opportunity to decide how to protect
their own interests without popular interference? Perhaps.
However, even if motivated by economic advantage, the
limitations and barriers put in place to counteract the self-
interested nature of humans have served the U.S. well in the
years since the passage of the Constitution. However, one could
argue that Americans simply appear to be self-interested
because of the assumptions of the system in which they find
themselves. Another view of human nature is that people seek
comfort and order and, in smaller republics, will naturally strive
to protect the interests of their common brethren. These were
the assumptions of the Ant-Federalists (those opposed to the
new Constitution). Despite the widespread prevalence of these

values (“the spirit of ‘76”) in the years following independence,
such values and assumptions were rendered moot by the new
constitution.
Creating the Constitution
Section 6
Section 8Chapter 2 - Section 8The U.S. Constitution:
Compromise and Accommodation
The U.S. Constitution is interesting not only for the
government it created but also for the skill and finesse that went
into the creation of the document itself. The construction of the
Constitution serves as a reminder that politics is not about
confrontation and aggression, despite what tough talking
political candidates would suggest; rather, statesmanship is
about civility and hard work. Successful political practice is not
about being stalwart and inflexible but about crafting solutions
through compromise. The entertainment values that drive
contemporary U.S. political culture are often antithetical to the
idea of compromise. Contemporary political actors don’t
commonly win support by promising to work with the
opposition but this is what is necessary to achieve outcomes
which best fit the needs of a heterogeneous society. Americans
like to see the end result of the creation of successful public
policy, but they don’t necessarily like to see the give and take
that go into its construction. It’s sort of like breakfast sausage.
While you may occasionally enjoy eating the end product,
seeing them made might prove less appealing; however, like the
creation of public policy, it’s the process that matters. The U.S.
Constitution is the result of a process of compromise and
debate. It wasn’t found in its current form behind a burning
bush but was created through hard work and accommodation.
The Great Compromise
As mentioned above, the individual states were in no big
hurry to surrender their sovereignty. But by 1787 it became
clear that a confederate system of government was simply too
weak to govern effectively. In creating a new system of

government, states must now be concerned with protecting their
power vis-à-vis each other. The context for this debate was set
by Governor Edmund Randolph of Virginia who proposed what
became known as the Virginia Plan. This proposal featured
a bicameral (two legislative chambers) legislature in which
representatives to the lower house would be elected by the
people. The number of representatives to this house would be
based on the population of each state. This lower chamber
would select representatives to the upper chamber
from nominees presented by the state legislatures. The
legislature would select both an executive and a judiciary. This
plan obviously favored the more populous states as
representation to the legislature was based on population and
this legislature, in turn, shaped the other branches of
government. William Paterson of New Jersey responded to
Randolph’s plan with what became known as the New Jersey
Plan. This proposal featured equal representation by each of the
states: one state, one vote. Congress would select a plural
executive and the executive office would select a judiciary. This
plan benefited the small states relative to the more populous
states. Debate over the plans was intense. The large states
reasoned that, since they had more people, they should have
more representation in the new government. The small states
countered that each state should have equal representation as
established under the Articles of Confederation. After weeks of
debate punctuated by threats to dissolve the convention, a
compromise was finally reached. Proposed by Roger Sherman of
Connecticut, the Connecticut Plan or “Great
Compromise” solved the seemingly intractable dilemma. This
plan called for a bicameral legislature in which representation
to the lower chamber, the House of Representatives, would be
proportioned by population. Each state would have equal
representation to the upper chamber, which would be known as
the Senate.
Constitutional Convention Compromises

The Slavery Compromise
The issue of slavery presented another seemingly
insurmountable obstacle to the representatives to the
constitutional convention. Any commitment to either the
abolitionists or the slaveholders would eliminate any chance for
success for the ratification of the Constitution. Although
slavery was widespread at the time, popular sentiment, fueled in
part by the ideals of liberty and equality of the “spirit of ‘76”
was turning against the practice. Slavery was becoming less
economically feasible everywhere but in the large plantations of
the South. Even many of those delegates who owned slaves,
Washington included, felt that the days of slavery were on the
wane. Washington stipulated in his will that all of his slaves
were to be emancipated upon the death of both himself and his
wife Martha (though in Martha’s will, there was no provision
for freeing the slaves). Nevertheless, those delegates from the
South remained dependent on slaves for large-scale plantation
agriculture and were unwilling to agree to any deal that
included the elimination of slavery. This was a bitter pill to
swallow for many of the delegates from the North. However,
they were unwilling to sink the entire enterprise on this one
issue, no matter how morally objectionable. The Southern states
remained concerned that the new government formed under the
Constitution would simply turn around and outlaw the
importation of slaves legislatively. To prevent this, they were
able to broker a twenty year moratorium on any attempts to
limit the slave trade.
Additionally, the Southern states argued that slaves should
count as part of the population census used to determine
representation to the House of Representatives. This, however,
went too far for the other delegates. While forced to accept
slavery in order to avoid the collapse of negotiations, they were
unwilling to accept that individuals who were considered
property and had no political rights of their own should be
counted for purposes of determining representation. This
dilemma was solved through the three-fifths compromise in

which each slave was counted as three-fifths of a person for the
purposes of determining representation to the House of
Representatives and for determining per-capita taxes paid by the
states to the central government.
The issue of slavery was not resolved completely to the
satisfaction of either sectional party. However, a compromise
was reached in which each could claim victory. The Southern
faction succeeded in securing their primary objective: slavery
would not be abolished under the new Constitution.
Furthermore, the Constitution contained a provision protecting
the most egregious aspect of slavery, the slave trade, for the
next 20 years. By that time a breeding population could be
gathered that would ensure a necessary supply of slaves for the
large-scale plantation agriculture of the day. However, the
abolitionists could take heart in the fact that while the slave
trade would be extended, slavery itself was not afforded any
protected status in the Constitution. The difficulty in crafting
such a compromise, that allowed room for both sides to find
advantage in such a controversial and seemingly intractable
issue, was a Herculean task made even more remarkable by
being done without the Constitution once mentioning the words
slave or slavery.
Checks and Balances
“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. In framing a
government which is to be administered by men over men, the
great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the
government to control the governed; and in the next place,
oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no
doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience
has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
James Madison, The Federalist, No. 51
The framers of the Constitution faced another difficult job.
They had to create a central government that was strong enough
to govern but not so strong that it would become tyrannical.

Given the problems encountered under the Articles of
Confederation, it was clear that a stronger system of
government was necessary. However, the states had only
recently been colonies and the memories of the tyranny of King
George and Great Britain were still fresh in the minds of all.
The difficult job of creating a government that was both
strong and limited fell to James Madison. He proposed what has
become known as the Madisonian Model based on the ideas of
the Baron de Montesquieu. Madison maintained that the key to
limiting the power of government was to separate the
government into executive, legislative, and judicial branches.
However, the sublime beauty of Madison’s plan did not end
there. In addition to dividing the power of government into
different branches, Madison devised a system in which each of
the branches would have to share power with the others and thus
provide a check on each other so that “ambition can be made to
counteract ambition” as Madison wrote in Federalist #51. The
elaborate checks and balances model has proven very effective
in the years since the ratification of the Constitution and has
justly earned Madison the mantle of “Father of the
Constitution.” Some features of the checks and balances system
are that any legislative acts must be signed by the President
before they become law, but the legislature may override any
presidential veto by a two-thirds vote; the President is
responsible for enforcing the law but is checked by the
legislature, who must allocate funds for all expenditures and
thus control “the power of the purse”; the judicial system can
declare any acts of the President or national or state laws to be
unconstitutional but the President has the power to appoint
federal judges who must then be ratified by the Senate. The
system works so well because all of the branches have checks
on each other and all must share power with one another.
Facts of Congress: Checks and Balances
Indirect Democracy
A final task faced by the framers of the Constitution was

how to accommodate the republican spirit that swept the young
nation following its successful bid for independence from
England. How would the new government be able to
accommodate this democratic impulse while also creating a
system that would rule with wisdom and authority? Up until this
time, the assumption was that in any large nation-state, power
flowed from the top downward. In order for a society to
function smoothly, it required the authority of a king or some
other supreme executive. The idea that a country could function
smoothly with power flowing upward from the people was a
radically new idea. The framers of the Constitution, James
Madison in particular, were very cognizant of this problem and
strove to develop a system that could accommodate the
democratic desires of the nation while ensuring those in power
had the intelligence, wisdom, experience, and temperament
necessary to carry out the difficult job of governing. Clearly,
a representative democracy, in which the people elect
representatives to carry out the task of governing, was called
for.
The framers of the Constitution were very skeptical of the
idea of direct democracy or rule by the people directly. The
delegates to the constitutional convention had recently
witnessed what they saw as the excesses of popular democracy;
during the economic difficulties engendered by the Articles of
Confederation, popular uprisings struck down contracts,
absolved debts, and otherwise threatened property rights. Thus
the idea of an indirect democracy was not simply one of
practical necessity for the framers; it was an idea of
philosophical necessity. The framers of the Constitution wanted
to create a system in which power rested with the people but
actual rule was limited to those who possessed the qualities
deemed necessary to carry out the difficult task of governing.
This required an elaborate winnowing process. The framers
made a concession to democracy by allowing for direct popular
elections of representatives to the lower house. This was
probably required in order to gain enough popular support for

ratification of this new form of government. However, even at
this level most states limited voting rights to white males with
“property.” Property generally meant a significant level of
wealth, one that was possessed by no more than ten percent of
the adult white male population. During the constitutional
convention, Benjamin Franklin was the only delegate bold
enough to suggest universal white male suffrage but this was
simply too democratic for his compatriots. Further, it was
determined that even those white males with property could not
be trusted to elect representatives to the Senate; Senators were
to be selected by state legislatures. Finally, the president would
be chosen by electors who would not be beholden to popular
pressures but would select a candidate who met the criteria of
the elite. In sum, while power might ultimately reside with the
people, they would influence political action only indirectly.
Open to Debate:
Do the checks and balances in the Constitution protect the
liberties of the people or do they protect the elite from popular
opposition? The answer is open to debate. When Madison talks
of the danger of factional control in Federalist Paper #10, is he
really talking about the danger of popular control? When
Madison warns about the tyranny of the majority, this applies
not only to the protection of ethnic or religious minorities but
also to the protection of an elite minority from popular
sentiment. Is this the tyranny of the majority against the
interests of the few that Madison feared? It is traditionally
claimed that dividing power between the three branches of
government, as Madison discusses in Federalist Paper #51,
protected the development of a capricious tyrant who would
seek power for personal gain. But, it can also be easily seen that
the check each branch has on the other in this division of power
allows an economic or political elite to effectively check the
people who might seek to exercise their latent power through
popular democratic control.
Section 7

Section 9Chapter 2 - Section 9Ratification
The Constitution of the United States of America was
formally approved by the constitutional convention on
September 17, 1787. But the Constitution would have to be
formally ratified by the states before it could become law.
Under the Articles of Confederation, a unanimous vote would
have been required to approve a new constitution. However, in
keeping with their decision to ignore the directive to limit their
activities to amending the Articles, the framers of the new
Constitution also changed the rules for ratification. They
realized that unanimous consent from all 13 states represented a
threshold of approval that would likely not be met so they
decreed that as long as 9 states approved the Constitution, it
would go into effect. Thus began one of the most intense
periods of widespread political discourse seen in the world until
that time or since. There were frequent and widely attended
political debates on the new Constitution. Pamphlets and
broadsides were published and widely read.
The participants in the debate largely fell into two camps.
Those in favor of the new Constitution called
themselves Federalists. These were led by those who had long
advocated a nationalist vision of a united and powerful state
that would be able to exert its influence westward and become a
major global actor. Those who were opposed to the new
Constitution, found themselves labeled with the moniker
of Anti-Federalist. They feared that the power of the new
central government would eclipse the power of the states; a fear
that has proven justified. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists
carried out a very public debate through a series of publications
in the newspapers. These documents were known as
the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. Three of these
documents, Federalist Paper #10, Federalist Paper #51, and an
Anti-Federalist Paper penned under the pseudonym Brutus, can
be found in the appendix to this textbook.
The debates hashed out during the constitutional convention
were, of course, revisited in the ratification conventions of the

various states. In Massachusetts, for example, ratification
delegates objected to the 3/5 compromise and 20 year extension
of the slave trade as essentially protecting an institution which
was widely viewed in the North as a compact with the Devil.
They were assured that these provisions did not prohibit the
eventual emancipation of slaves and were, after all, necessary
for the passage of the Constitution. In South Carolina, a similar
debate raged but this time centering on the concern that there
was no provision protecting the institution of slavery in
perpetuity. However, they were able to take heart in the fact
that the Constitution limited the powers of the national
government over the states to those specifically expressed in the
Constitution of which the abolition of slavery was clearly not
enumerated.
The U.S. Constitution is the oldest democratic constitution
in the world and is widely praised today as a model of
democratic craftsmanship. But at the time of ratification, the
success of the Constitution was very much in doubt. The
majority of the people were probably opposed to the
Constitution as they were concerned about the degree of power
vested in the new central government. The first real test of
ratification was Massachusetts. The Massachusetts ratification
convention took on extreme importance as a bellwether for the
success of the Constitution in other states. If Massachusetts
ratified the new Constitution, momentum would help carry
ratification in other states. If Massachusetts rejected the new
Constitution, that momentum would be lost and the weight of
Massachusetts’ rejection would weigh down the opportunity for
success in other states.
Most delegates to the Massachusetts ratification convention
were sent to the convention with instructions to reject the
Constitution. However, throughout the debate, the Federalists
deftly handled the delegates’ seemingly unanswerable
questions. For instance, in Massachusetts, all statewide elected
officials were elected for one year terms. The popular sentiment
at the time was, “where one-year terms end, tyranny begins.”

Consequently, six-year terms for the Senate with unlimited
opportunities for re-elections seemed particularly egregious to
the delegates. The Federalists responded that the U.S. Senate
was a different type of legislative body than those found in
Massachusetts. The U.S. Senate was respon sible for difficult
and detailed issues such as foreign policy and advice and
consent. It needed the popular insulation of a longer term of
office to take a more long-range view of what was best for the
nation as a whole and to act accordingly. Other concerns were
handled with similar dexterity. The story goes that at one point,
as the Anti-Federalists realized they were being out-debated,
someone said, “let’s just vote it down and go home.” At this
pointSamuel Adams, an Anti-Federalist himself, spoke up.
Although not a powerful speaker, Adams said that he came here
to learn and was learning quite a lot and hoped the debate would
continue. It was this action, as much as any other, which
enabled the success of the new Constitution. In addition to his
supposed skills as a brewer, you also owe a debt to Samuel
Adams for his reason and patriotism.
The Federalists ended up prevailing in the ratification debate
for a number of reasons. First, they were responsible for the
drafting of the Constitution and were intimate with its details.
Throughout the summer of 1787 they had already participated in
intense debate and argumentation about all the different aspects
of the document and they were able to draw on that experience
in the public debate. As a result of the secrecy maintained
during the drafting of the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists had
only just laid eyes on the document and were forced to generate
their arguments from scratch. Also, the Federalists simply had
better resources which they could bring to bear on the argument.
They were better educated which gave them a leg up in terms of
the organization and presentation of their argument. They held
positions of power in society, which gave them better access to
the modes of communication available at the time. Not to be
discounted was the support of George Washington who was still
intensely popular with the masses.

But, in keeping with the spirit of compromise that went into
the drafting of the Constitution, the primary reason the
Federalists prevailed was because the Anti-Federalists, on one
key point, prevailed as well. The main concern of the Anti-
Federalists was the protection of individual liberty vis-à-vis this
new powerful central government. Many of the state
constitutions already contained lists of rights and freedoms for
individuals. The Anti-Federalists wondered why there was not a
similar list of individual rights in the Constitution. As Thomas
Paine asked, “are you worried it is going to use up too much
paper?” Madison maintained that it was the new democratic
system that would protect citizens from government; he asked
why the people would need protection from themselves, as they
were going to be the ones who held the power in the new
government. However, many Federalists recognized that a bill
of rights would assuage the concerns of many of the Anti-
Federalists and proposed the adoption of such a document.
Subsequently, a deal was proposed. The Federalists promised
that one of the first orders of business under the new
government would be the inclusion of a bill of rights if the
Anti-Federalists supported the ratification of the new
Constitution. Some cynics argued that as nothing bound the new
government to the passage of a bill of rights, there was no
guarantee that one would be passed. However, true to their
word, a bill of rights was drafted by the Federalists and was
ratified in 1791. Ironically, the author of the Bill of Rights, and
one of its chief supporters, was James Madison himself. As time
has passed the importance of the Bill of Rights has proven itself
time and time again. It now stands as one of the three central
documents of the U.S. government; equal in importance to the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution itself.
MacNeil-Lehrer Hamilton Clip
The Constitution, Part 1 Preamble 2
Section 8
Section 10Chapter 2 - Section 10Evolution of the Constitution

Living Document
How is it that a Constitution drafted in 1787 continues to
govern political debate over issues such as internet piracy and
global terrorism? How is it that the longest-lived democratic
constitution in the world continues to function in one of the
most technologically advanced countries in the world? The
answer is the nature of the Constitution itself. The U.S.
Constitution is a procedural constitution. It sets out how
government is to do what it does, not what should be done. It is
relatively brief (it is actually the shortest written national
constitution) and the wording is somewhat vague and open to
interpretation. Such interpretation falls under the purview of the
Supreme Court and their power of judicial review as will be
noted in more detail later in this text in the chapter on the
judiciary. The lack of specificity and detail in the U.S.
Constitution reflects the necessity of compromise and the
avoidance of language that would antagonize the various parties
included in its creation. In addition, the framers of the
Constitution were conscious of the fact that they were creating a
document for posterity; one that would hopefully endure beyond
their tenure as statesmen. So while the Framers had no inkling
of the digital information age, they created a document with the
flexibility to adapt to the changing times. This is why the U.S.
Constitution is sometimes referred to as a “living document.”
By way of contrast, the state of California is governed by
a substantiveconstitution. In addition to creating the structures
and functions of government, the drafters of the California
Constitution included many policy provisions that benefited the
various parties involved in its creation. This resulted in a
relatively static and lengthy constitution. The California
Constitution is the fourth longest Constitution in the world
(India’s is the longest) and contains such provisions as the sale
of alcoholic beverages on airplanes, the cafeteria budgets of
state agencies, the use of bingo by charitable groups, and
property exemptions for grape vines less than three years old.
Because it is so detailed and specific, it must be amended

frequently as times and circumstances change. The California
Constitution is over 33,000 words in length and contains some
500 amendments (as opposed to 4,500 words and 27
amendments in the U.S. Constitution). The index to the
California Constitution is longer that the U.S. Constitution in
its entirety. The flexibility inherent in the U.S. Constitution has
helped it endure the changes the U.S. has gone through since
1787.
Amendment Process
There are two different ways of amending the U.S.
Constitution. Amendments can be formally proposed by either
(1) a two-thirds vote of Congress or (2) at the request of two-
thirds of the state legislatures (this second method has never
been used). Amendments can then be ratified by (1) three-
fourths of the state legislatures or (2) by conventions in three-
fourths of the states (this second method has only been used
once, to repeal the prohibition on alcohol because supporters of
the repeal were concerned that too many state legislatures
would bow to the more vocal and intransigent minority
supporting prohibition). Though there have been close to 10,000
amendments proposed in Congress since 1789, of these only 27
have passed. This is a success rate of less than one per cent. Of
the twenty-seven amendments to the U.S. Constitution, ten of
those amendments were added in 1791 as the Bill of Rights; two
others, the implementation (18th) and repeal (21st) of
prohibition cancelled each other out. This really leaves only
fifteen formal amendments since 1791, an astoundingly low
number given the dramatic technological and social changes in
the intervening years. A significant number of these
amendments have effectively made the Constitution more
democratic by increasing the pool of potential voters and the
range of options over which they have direct influence. The
13th amendment bars slavery and the 15th amendment gives
former slaves the right to vote. The 14th amendment extends
legal protection to everyone. The 17th amendment allows for
direct popular election of senators and the 19th extends voting

rights to women. The 24th amendment bars poll taxes and the
26th lowers the voting age to 18. Amendments which have not
succeeded include the Equal Rights Amendment which would
prohibit the denial of equal rights on account of sex; a ban on
the desecration of the American flag; and a prohibition on U.S.
citizens receiving titles of nobility; among others.
Open to Debate:
How democratic is the Constitution?
The United States was founded on the ideals of liberty and
freedom. However, the need for order and centralized power
dictated the creation of a strong central government governed
by elites. To a certain extent, this debate can be seen as one
between the values enshrined in the Declaration of
Independence and the pragmatic necessity of constructing a
strong constitution to govern what had been up to that time a
disparate group of people. This debate was most fully
elaborated in the correspondence between John Adams and
Thomas Jefferson which engaged them both until their death
and which both recorded (self-consciously) for posterity.
Interestingly, both Jefferson and Adams died on the same day,
July 4th, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the signing of the
Declaration of Independence. The essence of their debate
centered on whether the popular democratic forces unleashed in
the republican experiment would prevail against the power of a
centralized elite who sought to limit the political power to those
who had the qualities, training, and temperament to govern on
behalf of the whole. The lack of specificity in the Constitution
and its cleverly worded ambiguousness allowed these two
competing interpretations of the values underlying U.S. political
culture to be endorsed simultaneously. Because of the huge
popularity of George Washington, these differences were
largely suppressed during his administration but came to the
surface soon after John Adams took office. This is a debate that
has been carried out in the United States ever since. This debate
is, of course, a bit stylized. Reality rarely fits into neat black
and white categories but, in general, Adams and Jefferson

argued about the role of elites in a democracy.
Adams advocated the position of those who had come to be
called the Federalists. The federalists maintained that
inequalities are inevitable. Some will be cleverer, some will
work harder, individual experiences will differ, and,
consequently, wealth and power will come to be distributed
unequally. It is, therefore, natural that an elite class will
develop to which the masses will defer. This is what has
happened in all societies under all governments tried up until
that time and this is what will develop in the new government
despite its democratic pretensions. The Federalist essentially
argued that the common man is not adequately informed about
politics and government or is simply not capable of governing.
One must therefore be hesitant about giving too much power to
the masses.
Jefferson, who presented the views of the Anti-Federalists,
argued that this new system was different. For the first time on
a large scale, power was vested with the people who would
govern accordingly. Jefferson and the anti-federalists were
skeptical of any minority that claimed to make political
decisions for the best interest of the majority. While Jefferson
recognized that some individuals were of course more capable
than others, he was more concerned about the development of
an entrenched elite that would look out for their own interests at
the expense of the masses. Jefferson argued that only a popular
democracy in which the masses were able to exercise real power
would provide an effective counterbalance to the aristocratic
few. It was not that the anti-federalists wanted to tear down all
vestiges of power; they merely wanted to protect the interests of
the masses from the potentially tyrannical power of too strong a
central government in the control of too few hands. The Anti-
federalists noted that they had just waged a war of
independence because they wanted to throw off the yoke of
tyrannical British rule. Did the U.S. Constitution create a
system of elite democracy or popular democracy? The answer
remains open to debate.

Section 9
Section 11Chapter 2 - Section 11Glossary
Anti-Federalists: those who favored more localized government
in which citizens would protect the interests of each other; they
were opposed to the new Constitution.
Articles of Confederation: The first constitution of what would
become the United States in which sovereignty rested with the
thirteen constituent states.
Bicameral: a legislature consisting of two houses.
Confederation: A system of government in which the constituent
units are sovereign.
Connecticut Plan or “Great Compromise”: the creation of a
bicameral system of representation which balanced the interests
of the large and the small states.
Constitutionalism: The creation of a basic law which places
limits on the power that can be exercised by government and
establishes rights for those who are governed.
Declaration of Independence: The document in which the
colonies formally declared their independence from Great
Britain.
Federalists: those who advocated a nationalist vision of a strong
central government that would be able to exert its influence
westward and become a major global actor; they were in favor
of the new Constitution.
Madisonian Model: Dividing government into three branches
which must share power with each through a system of “checks
and balances.”
Natural Rights: Rights which individuals have simply by virtue
of being human. Subsequently, individuals cannot be separated
from these rights; they are “unalienable.”
New Jersey Plan: a plan for representation which favored the
smaller states.
Procedural constitution: a constitution which sets out the
procedures government is to follow and not the substance of
what government does.

Representative democracy: a system in which the people elect
representatives to carry out the task of governing.
Republicanism: A system of governance in which political
power rests with the people who exercise that power through
representatives who govern on behalf of the masses and not the
elites.
Social contract: When rational individuals agree to give up
some of their liberties in order to form a government which will
protect their natural rights.
Sovereignty: A government which has complete control over a
state.
Spirit of ’76: The sense of Republicanism and equality that
swept through the colonies following the Declaration of
Independence.
Three-fifths compromise: A compromise in which each slave
was counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of
determining representation to the House of Representatives and
for determining per-capita taxes paid by the states to the central
government.
Virginia Plan: a plan for representation which favored the larger
states.
Section 10
Section 12
Assume the position of either a Federalist or an Anti-Federalist
who has been transported in time from 1787. Compare the ideas
expressed in Federalist #10, Federalist #51, and Anti-Federalist
#1 with contemporary politics. What was the Framer’s opinion
of human nature? Were they justified in this view? Do the ideas
expressed in the Federalist papers still work today?
As I keep mentioning in class, no matter what party you
support, the politics of today are not normal. Are contemporary
politics antithetical to our constitutional values or a direct

result of them? Please give an example and clearly link your
example to the intentions of the Framers as expressed in the
Federalist Papers.
What I'm basically looking for is that you understand the
Federalist Papers well enough to be able to apply them to a
contemporary political issue.
Source Material:
American Government Examined e-reader chapter 2:
· Aichinger, "The Relevance of the Federalist Papers"
· Federalist #10
· Federalist #51
· Anti-Federalist #1
Video Lecture Clips
· Chapter 2, sections 10, 11, and 12
Tips for Success:
· I will be looking for direct references to assigned readings
(author and page # citations are adequate). Again, this is an
assignment in which I am looking for your ability to display
your knowledge of course materials.
Grading Rubric:
Federalist #10
4
Federalist #51
4
Anti-Federalist #1
4
Contemporary Analysis
4

Writing Mechanics
4
Total Possible:
20

ConstitutionPOSC 121BraunwarthNationalismHow d.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to ConstitutionPOSC 121BraunwarthNationalismHow d.docx

Similar to ConstitutionPOSC 121BraunwarthNationalismHow d.docx (10)

More from donnajames55

More from donnajames55 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

ConstitutionPOSC 121BraunwarthNationalismHow d.docx