Discussion QuestionsWhy did the colonists break free from
British rule?
Were they successful in creating a government that solved the
problems they had as British subjects under colonial rule?2
**In 1787, a group of exceptional men, called the Framers, met
in Philadelphia to propose a framework for a new government. This
framework would address the weaknesses in the Articles of
Confederation. It required a series of compromises, but in the end,
the Framers designed a framework for a government of separated
powers and checks and balances.
Realizing that changes would be necessary as the nation grew,
they included a process to amend the Constitution. They purposely
made this process difficult in order to prevent political factions
from making changes that were not carefully thought out.
This chapter is about the constitutional design of the American
government, why the Framers fashioned the sort of constitution they
did, and how the meaning of the Constitution has evolved to address
the problems of a changing nation.
*Let's take a quick look at these learning objectives.
As you can see, this chapter is about the constitutional design
of the American government, why the Framers fashioned the sort of
constitution they did, and how the meaning of the Constitution has
evolved to address the problems of a changing nation.
*We'll learn how our Constitution was developed and the
compromises needed.
*We will learn why some opposed the Constitution and what they
asked for in order to agree to its ratification.
We will also learn about the amendment process.
*Settlers came to the New World for a variety of reasons, but
most of these early inhabitants remained loyal to Great Britain and
considered themselves subjects of the king. Over the years, as new
generations of Americans were born on colonial soil, those ties
weakened. A series of taxes levied by the British crown ultimately
led colonists to convene the Second Continental Congress and to
declare their independence.*In the early years of the colonies,
Great Britain followed the economic theory of mercantilism, in
which it sought to increase its wealth by exporting more goods than
it imported. It set strict import/export controls on the colonies.
Due to the distances involved, it was difficult for Britain to
enforce all of these policies and they were widely ignored by the
colonists.
To pay for the French and Indian War, the crown imposed
additional taxes on the colonists. The Sugar Act taxed sugar and
wine; the Stamp Act required a stamp on all paper items. Angered
that the taxes were imposed without the approval of colonial
governments, colonists engaged in boycotts and violent protests
under the rallying cry "no taxation without representation."
*In the early years of the colonies, Great Britain followed the
economic theory of mercantilism, in which it sought to increase its
wealth by exporting more goods than it imported. It set strict
import/export controls on the colonies. Due to the distances
involved, it was difficult for Britain to enforce all of these
policies and they were widely ignored by the colonists.
To pay for the French and Indian War, the crown imposed
additional taxes on the colonists. The Sugar Act taxed sugar and
wine; the Stamp Act required a stamp on all paper items. Angered
that the taxes were imposed without the approval of colonial
governments, colonists engaged in boycotts and violent protests
under the rallying cry "no taxation without representation."
*Samuel Adams was an early leader against the British and
loyalist oppressors. As we will learn next, he played a key role in
the events that led to the Revolutionary War.*In the early years of
the colonies, Great Britain followed the economic theory of
mercantilism, in which it sought to increase its wealth by
exporting more goods than it imported. It set strict import/export
controls on the colonies. Due to the distances involved, it was
difficult for Britain to enforce all of these policies and they
were widely ignored by the colonists.
To pay for the French and Indian War, the crown imposed
additional taxes on the colonists. The Sugar Act taxed sugar and
wine; the Stamp Act required a stamp on all paper items. Angered
that the taxes were imposed without the approval of colonial
governments, colonists engaged in boycotts and violent protests
under the rallying cry "no taxation without representation."
*In 1765, Samuel Adams and nine of the thirteen colonies met in
New York City to draft a petition to Parliament. In this petition,
they listed crown violations of the colonists' fundamental rights.
This Stamp Act Congress did not stop the taxes, but Parliament did
repeal some taxes in response to colonial boycotts, mainly because
merchants complained about the loss of revenue.
Parliament also repealed some taxes in response to colonists'
anger over the so-called Boston Massacre.*What really happened at
the Boston Massacre? On a cold snowy night in 1770, colonists
taunted British troops who were guarding the Boston Customs House.
The troops fired on the colonists, killing five.
Paul Revere made a famous engraving of this event. It was not a
massacre, but calling it that stoked anti-British sentiment in the
years leading up to the Revolutionary War.
This propaganda played fast and loose with the facts. It did not
happen as Revere depicted it. Do you think the British opened fire
as shown? Did the colonists bear some responsibility?
*Tensions continued to remain high long after the Boston
Massacre. In 1772, at the suggestion of Samuel Adams, colonists
created Committees of Correspondence to share with each other news
of British actions. These committees also served as powerful
molders of public opinion against the British.
In 1773, Parliament passed the Tea Act, granting a monopoly to
the East India Company to sell tea imported from Britain. Only the
American merchants loyal to the crown were allowed to sell the tea,
thereby undercutting dissident colonial merchants. When the next
shipment of tea arrived, the colonists responded by throwing it
into Boston Harbor.
The enraged king retaliated with the Coercive Acts of 1774,
calling for a total blockade of Boston Harbor and giving royal
governors the authority to quarter British soldiers in the homes of
local citizens, allowing Britain to send an additional 4,000
soldiers to patrol Boston. The colonists were not pleased.*Tensions
continued to remain high long after the Boston Massacre. In 1772,
at the suggestion of Samuel Adams, colonists created Committees of
Correspondence to share with each other news of British actions.
These committees also served as powerful molders of public opinion
against the British.
In 1773, Parliament passed the Tea Act, granting a monopoly to
the East India Company to sell tea imported from Britain. Only the
American merchants loyal to the crown were allowed to sell the tea,
thereby undercutting dissident colonial merchants. When the next
shipment of tea arrived, the colonists responded by throwing it
into Boston Harbor.
The enraged king retaliated with the Coercive Acts of 1774,
calling for a total blockade of Boston Harbor and giving royal
governors the authority to quarter British soldiers in the homes of
local citizens, allowing Britain to send an additional 4,000
soldiers to patrol Boston. The colonists were not pleased.The
British helped radicalize colonists through bad policy decisions in
the years before the Revolution. For example, Britain gave the
ailing East India Company a monopoly on the tea trade in the
American colonies. Colonists feared the monopoly would hurt
colonial merchants business and protested by throwing East India
Company tea into Boston Harbor in 1773.**Tensions continued to
remain high long after the Boston Massacre. In 1772, at the
suggestion of Samuel Adams, colonists created Committees of
Correspondence to share with each other news of British actions.
These committees also served as powerful molders of public opinion
against the British.
In 1773, Parliament passed the Tea Act, granting a monopoly to
the East India Company to sell tea imported from Britain. Only the
American merchants loyal to the crown were allowed to sell the tea,
thereby undercutting dissident colonial merchants. When the next
shipment of tea arrived, the colonists responded by throwing it
into Boston Harbor.
The enraged king retaliated with the Coercive Acts of 1774,
calling for a total blockade of Boston Harbor and giving royal
governors the authority to quarter British soldiers in the homes of
local citizens, allowing Britain to send an additional 4,000
soldiers to patrol Boston. The colonists were not pleased.*Tensions
continued to remain high long after the Boston Massacre. In 1772,
at the suggestion of Samuel Adams, colonists created Committees of
Correspondence to share with each other news of British actions.
These committees also served as powerful molders of public opinion
against the British.
In 1773, Parliament passed the Tea Act, granting a monopoly to
the East India Company to sell tea imported from Britain. Only the
American merchants loyal to the crown were allowed to sell the tea,
thereby undercutting dissident colonial merchants. When the next
shipment of tea arrived, the colonists responded by throwing it
into Boston Harbor.
The enraged king retaliated with the Coercive Acts of 1774,
calling for a total blockade of Boston Harbor and giving royal
governors the authority to quarter British soldiers in the homes of
local citizens, allowing Britain to send an additional 4,000
soldiers to patrol Boston. The colonists were not pleased.*Protests
over taxes led colonists to focus on the extent of British
authority over the colonies. The united colonial assemblies sent
delegates to the First Continental Congress. Delegates agreed on a
series of resolutions to oppose the Coercive Acts and to establish
a formal organization to boycott British goods, and further agreed
that if the king did not capitulate to its demands, it would meet
again in Philadelphia in May 1775. *The king refused to yield and a
Second Continental Congress was called. Before it met, fighting
broke out between British troops and colonists in Massachusetts. In
retrospect, this is seen as the formal beginning of the
Revolutionary War. Nevertheless, when the Congress convened, again
in Philadelphia, it tried first for reconciliation. But the king
responded to the Olive Branch Petition by sending 20,000 more
British troops and condemning to death the Congress attendees as
traitors.
At this point, independence was increasingly viewed as the only
option but many colonists still needed convincing to take this
radical step. To galvanize support, in January 1776, Thomas Paine
issued Common Sense, a pamphlet denouncing the corrupt British
monarchy and offering reasons to break with Great Britain. Virginia
introduced a resolution calling for independence and the Second
Continental Congress was suspended to allow its delegates to return
home for final instructions.*The king refused to yield and a Second
Continental Congress was called. Before it met, fighting broke out
between British troops and colonists in Massachusetts. In
retrospect, this is seen as the formal beginning of the
Revolutionary War. Nevertheless, when the Congress convened, again
in Philadelphia, it tried first for reconciliation. But the king
responded to the Olive Branch Petition by sending 20,000 more
British troops and condemning to death the Congress attendees as
traitors.
At this point, independence was increasingly viewed as the only
option but many colonists still needed convincing to take this
radical step. To galvanize support, in January 1776, Thomas Paine
issued Common Sense, a pamphlet denouncing the corrupt British
monarchy and offering reasons to break with Great Britain. Virginia
introduced a resolution calling for independence and the Second
Continental Congress was suspended to allow its delegates to return
home for final instructions.*The Congress set up a committee to
work on a Declaration of Independence, chaired by Thomas Jefferson.
On July 2, 1776, the Congress voted in favor of independence and,
two days later, voted to adopt the Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration set out the reasons for separation of the
colonies from Great Britain. Much of its stirring rhetoric drew
heavily on the work of political philosopher John Locke. Locke was
a proponent of social contract theory, which holds that governments
exist based on the consent of the governed. According to Locke,
people agree to set up a government largely for the protection of
property rights, to preserve life and liberty, and to establish
justice. Government exists for the good of its subjects and not for
the benefit of those who govern. If a government violates the
rights of its citizens, the citizens have the right to alter or
abolish the government.*Now that we've gone over the events leading
to the Revolutionary War, I want you to answer this question to
test your comprehension.
*Without representation in Parliament, colonists could not vote
against taxes they considered unfair.
*The Articles created a type of government called a
confederation in which the national government derives all its
powers directly from the states. This reluctance to give power to a
national government proved unworkable shortly after the
Revolutionary War ended.
The Articles of Confederation proposed the following: a national
government with the power to make peace, coin money, appoint
officers for an army, control the post office, and negotiate with
Indian tribes; each state's retention of independence and
sovereignty; one vote in the legislature, Congress, regardless of
state size; the vote of nine states to pass any measure; and
selection and payment of delegates by the states. *The Articles of
Confederation created a loose confederation of independent states
with little power in the central government. Under the Articles,
most important decisions were made in state legislatures.
Congress rarely could assemble the required quorum of nine
states to conduct business. Even when it did meet, states found it
difficult to agree on any policies. Congress had no power to tax,
so it could not raise revenue to pay off war debts and run the
government. Although the national government could coin money, so
could the states, making trade chaotic.
Another weakness was that the Articles did not allow Congress to
regulate commerce among the states or with foreign nations. As a
result, individual states attempted to enter into agreements with
other countries. Fearful of a chief executive who would rule
tyrannically, the drafters of the Articles made no provision for an
executive that would be responsible for executing laws nor for a
judicial system to handle conflicts among the individual states.
The Articles' greatest weakness was its failure to provide for a
strong central government that could force states to abide by its
provisions.
*The Articles of Confederation created a loose confederation of
independent states with little power in the central government.
Under the Articles, most important decisions were made in state
legislatures.
Congress rarely could assemble the required quorum of nine
states to conduct business. Even when it did meet, states found it
difficult to agree on any policies. Congress had no power to tax,
so it could not raise revenue to pay off war debts and run the
government. Although the national government could coin money, so
could the states, making trade chaotic.
Another weakness was that the Articles did not allow Congress to
regulate commerce among the states or with foreign nations. As a
result, individual states attempted to enter into agreements with
other countries. Fearful of a chief executive who would rule
tyrannically, the drafters of the Articles made no provision for an
executive that would be responsible for executing laws nor for a
judicial system to handle conflicts among the individual states.
The Articles' greatest weakness was its failure to provide for a
strong central government that could force states to abide by its
provisions.
*Unrest broke out in Massachusetts after the state legislature
passed laws that favored the interests of the wealthy.
With Daniel Shays in the lead, a group of farmers who had served
in the Continental Army marched to Springfield, Massachusetts, to
stop the state court from foreclosing on the veterans' farms if
taxes hadn't been paid. Armed mobs of protesters stormed the state
courts to forcibly prevent foreclosures.
The national government had no resources to help, so private
money was raised to form a militia and quell the rebellion. The
nation was shocked and worried. The strength of the protesters in
Shays's Rebellion terrified political and business leaders. An
armed mob had stopped business from going forward and there was no
way to disperse them. It was obvious that a stronger national
government was needed.
*Unrest broke out in Massachusetts after the state legislature
passed laws that favored the interests of the wealthy.
With Daniel Shays in the lead, a group of farmers who had served
in the Continental Army marched to Springfield, Massachusetts, to
stop the state court from foreclosing on the veterans' farms if
taxes hadn't been paid. Armed mobs of protesters stormed the state
courts to forcibly prevent foreclosures.
The national government had no resources to help, so private
money was raised to form a militia and quell the rebellion. The
nation was shocked and worried. The strength of the protesters in
Shays's Rebellion terrified political and business leaders. An
armed mob had stopped business from going forward and there was no
way to disperse them. It was obvious that a stronger national
government was needed.
*What was the result of Shays's Rebellion?
With Daniel Shays in the lead, a group of farmers who had served
in the Continental Army marched to Springfield, Massachusetts, to
stop the state court from foreclosing on the veterans' farms. The
rebellion illustrated many of the problems of the national
government under the Articles of Confederation and is widely
thought to have influenced the proceedings of the Constitutional
Convention.*We began this section with the answer to this question.
Can you answer it now?
*The Articles created a confederacy, giving power to the states
without providing for a strong national government.
*When weaknesses under the Articles of Confederation became
apparent, the states called for a meeting to reform them. The
Constitutional Convention threw out the Articles of Confederation
and fashioned a new, more workable form of government.
The U.S. Constitution resulted from a series of compromises,
including those over representation, issues involving large and
small states, slavery, and how to determine population. The
delegates also made compromises on how members of each branch of
government were to be selected. They created the Electoral College
to give states a key role in the selection of the president.*The 55
delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention represented
the elite of the states. All were property-owning white men,
relatively educated for the period, with professions such as lawyer
and doctor represented, and young except for 81-year-old Ben
Franklin. Half were slave owners.
Scholars have debated how democratic their motives were. Some
scholars have argued that the merchant class wanted a strong
national government to protect their economic interests. Other
scholars insist that while the Constitution's supporters might not
have been the united group of creditors, they were wealthier, came
from higher social strata, and had greater concern for maintaining
the prevailing social order than the general public.*When
weaknesses under the Articles of Confederation became apparent, the
states called for a meeting to reform them. The Constitutional
Convention threw out the Articles of Confederation and fashioned a
new, more workable form of government.
The U.S. Constitution resulted from a series of compromises,
including those over representation, issues involving large and
small states, slavery, and how to determine population. The
delegates also made compromises on how members of each branch of
government were to be selected. They created the Electoral College
to give states a key role in the selection of the president.*When
weaknesses under the Articles of Confederation became apparent, the
states called for a meeting to reform them. The Constitutional
Convention threw out the Articles of Confederation and fashioned a
new, more workable form of government.
The U.S. Constitution resulted from a series of compromises,
including those over representation, issues involving large and
small states, slavery, and how to determine population. The
delegates also made compromises on how members of each branch of
government were to be selected. They created the Electoral College
to give states a key role in the selection of the president.*As you
might expect, both plans had merits and neither was chosen as
presented. The creation of the constitution required compromises.
The first concerned the form of the government.
A committee to work out an agreement soon reported back what
became known as the Great Compromise. Taking ideas from both the
Virginia and New Jersey plans, it recommended a bicameral
legislature, or two houses. One house would be based upon
population and elected directly by the people. But in the second
house each state would have an equal vote, and state legislatures
would select the representatives. In dividing power between the
national and state governments, national power would be
supreme.*When weaknesses under the Articles of Confederation became
apparent, the states called for a meeting to reform them. The
Constitutional Convention threw out the Articles of Confederation
and fashioned a new, more workable form of government.
The U.S. Constitution resulted from a series of compromises,
including those over representation, issues involving large and
small states, slavery, and how to determine population. The
delegates also made compromises on how members of each branch of
government were to be selected. They created the Electoral College
to give states a key role in the selection of the president.*When
weaknesses under the Articles of Confederation became apparent, the
states called for a meeting to reform them. The Constitutional
Convention threw out the Articles of Confederation and fashioned a
new, more workable form of government.
The U.S. Constitution resulted from a series of compromises,
including those over representation, issues involving large and
small states, slavery, and how to determine population. The
delegates also made compromises on how members of each branch of
government were to be selected. They created the Electoral College
to give states a key role in the selection of the president.*When
weaknesses under the Articles of Confederation became apparent, the
states called for a meeting to reform them. The Constitutional
Convention threw out the Articles of Confederation and fashioned a
new, more workable form of government.
The U.S. Constitution resulted from a series of compromises,
including those over representation, issues involving large and
small states, slavery, and how to determine population. The
delegates also made compromises on how members of each branch of
government were to be selected. They created the Electoral College
to give states a key role in the selection of the president.*The
delegates considered an executive council but eventually agreed on
the idea of a one-person executive. They also settled on a
four-year term and allowed the president to serve more than one
term.
Delegates feared putting too much power, including selection of
a president, into the hands of the lower classes. At the same time,
representatives from the smaller states feared that selection of
the chief executive by the legislature would put additional power
into the hands of the large states. Their solution was the
Electoral College, a mechanism by which electors from each state
would choose the president. Each state would choose electors equal
to the number of representatives it had in the House and
Senate.
The Framers also provided for the removal of the president by
the legislature for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
Misdemeanors."*Now I want to test whether you understand what we've
just covered. Can you answer this question?
*We call this bicameral legislature the House of Representatives
and the Senate.
*The proposed U.S. Constitution created a federal system that
drew heavily on ideas about separation of powers. These ideas,
delineated in the articles of the Constitution, concerned a way of
parceling out power among the three branches of government. A
system of checks and balances also prevented any one branch from
having too much power.*The main question concerned how much power
states would give up to the national government. Given the nation's
experiences under the Articles of Confederation, the Framers
believed that a strong national government was necessary for the
new nation's survival. However, they were reluctant to create a
powerful government after their experience with Great Britain. The
compromise was to divide the power of government between a strong
national government and the individual states, with national power
being supreme.*The Framers feared putting too much power into the
hands of any one individual or branch of government. Separation of
powers is simply a way of parceling out power among the three
branches of government. They created a system in which law-making,
law-enforcing, and law-interpreting functions were assigned to
independent branches of government.
The power of each branch is checked, or limited, and balanced
because the legislative, executive, and judicial branches share
some authority, and no branch has exclusive domain over any single
activity.
*Let's look at this diagram, which shows how the Framers crafted
a political system of checks and balances and separation of
powers.
As you can see, each of the three branchesexecutive,
legislative, and judicialhas distinct powers, and each branch has
powers that intersect with the powers of each of the other
branches. This system prevents any one branch from becoming too
powerful.*This table compares the powers of each section of
government and the methods of selection of government officials
between the two documents. What powers did the states give up? What
are some differences in the legislative branch?*This table compares
the powers of each section of government and the methods of
selection of government officials between the two documents. What
powers did the states give up? What are some differences in the
legislative branch?*You have all heard the words "We, the people."
They are the opening words of the Preamble of the Constitution. The
Preamble states the goals and formal creation of the new
government. In seven articles, it: outlines the structure of the
government enumerates the powers of the three branches defines the
relationships between the states explains how to amend the
Constitution*Article I vests all legislative powers in a bicameral
Congress, consisting of the Senate and the House of
Representatives. One of the most important sections of Article I is
section 8. It carefully lists those powers the Framers wished the
new Congress to possess. These enumerated powers contain many key
provisions that had been denied to the Continental Congress under
the Articles of Confederation.
After enumeration of 17 powers, a final, general clause
authorizes Congress to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and
proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers." The
necessary and proper clause, often referred to as the elastic
clause, has been a source of tremendous congressional activity
never anticipated by the Framers. It is the basis for the implied
powers that Congress uses to execute its other powers.
*The powers and duties of the president are set out in Article
II. Among the most important of these are the president's role as
commander in chief of the armed forces. The president is given
authority to make treaties with the consent of the Senate, to make
federal appointments, and to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully
executed."
*In Article II of the Constitution, the Framers required the
president to report directly to Congress "from time to time" about
the affairs of the state. Today, the speech has become a media
event; the president's address is carried live on television,
radio, and the Internet.*Article III establishes a Supreme Court
and defines its jurisdiction.
The remainder of the articles attempted to anticipate problems
that might occur. Article IV begins with what is called the full
faith and credit clause, which mandates that states honor the laws
and judicial proceedings of other states. Article V outlines the
process of amending the Constitution. Article VI contains the
supremacy clause, which asserts the basic primacy of the
Constitution and national law over state laws and
constitutions.*The answer to this question is one that you should
know. I want to test your understanding now of these important
clauses. What is the answer to this question?
*The supremacy clause gives the national government enforceable
power. Some consider it the linchpin of the federal system.
*Ratification by nine of the 13 states was required to activate
the Constitution but when nine states had ratified, New York and
Virginia still had not done so. Since they contained 40% of the
population, their assent was critical to the success of the new
government.
In New York, where ratification was most in doubt, three
Federalists, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay penned
a series of essays in favor of ratification known collectively as
The Federalist Papers. The Anti-Federalists responded with a
critique of the Constitution that highlighted their fears of a
strong, distant central government.
The first ten amendments to the Constitution are known
collectively as the Bill of Rights. They were ratified in 1791 at
the behest of the Anti-Federalists who sought protection for
individual liberties in the Constitution as a condition of
ratification.
Activity: The struggle to ratify the Constitution was intense.
The eventual ratification of the Constitution may be partly
attributed to the case made by the Federalists. But the
Anti-Federalists made many important contributions, including
making the case for a Bill of Rights. Organize the students into
two groups. Ask them to pretend they are Constitutional Convention
delegates and have them debate the following issue: "Resolved: That
the United States Constitution should contain a Bill of Rights."
Those opposing the inclusion of a Bill of Rights should read The
Federalist No. 84Those favoring the inclusion of a Bill of Rights
should read The Anti-Federalist No. 84 to help prepare their
positions.*During the debate over whether to ratify the
Constitution, those who favored the new strong national government
were called Federalists. Opponents of ratification, who favored
stronger states governments and a weaker national government were
called Anti-Federalists.
The ratification process was marked by fervent debates between
the two sides.*Three of the most prominent Federalists, Alexander
Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, penned 85 essays in New York
newspapers under the pseudonym "Publius." These essays were a bit
theoretical and scholarly to have much impact on the public during
the ratification debate at the time, but they have survived as
explanations for later generations of the Framers' intentions.
The Anti-Federalists responded with essays of their own,
expressing their fear that the national government would run
roughshod over the liberties of the people and the New York
ratification vote was close.*This table compares the background,
political philosophy, type of government favored, and alliances of
the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.*Delaware was the first state
to ratify the Constitution, as they proudly proclaim on their
license plates to this day. Small states were generally quicker to
ratify, with the notable exception of Rhode Island which hadn't
even sent delegates to the Constitutional Convention, because they
liked the notion of equal representation in the Senate.
With the ratification of the 9th state, New Hampshire, the
Constitution was officially in force but two of the largest states,
New York and Virginia, who together held 40% of the population, had
yet to ratify, so the practical future of the union was still very
much in doubt. Hamilton in New York and Madison in Virginia worked
to convince delegates to their state conventions to vote for the
new government. When news of Virginia's acceptance of the
Constitution reached the New York convention, Hamilton was able to
convince a majority of those present to follow suit by a margin of
three votes.*Delaware was the first state to ratify the
Constitution, as they proudly proclaim on their license plates to
this day. Small states were generally quicker to ratify, with the
notable exception of Rhode Island which hadn't even sent delegates
to the Constitutional Convention, because they liked the notion of
equal representation in the Senate.
With the ratification of the 9th state, New Hampshire, the
Constitution was officially in force but two of the largest states,
New York and Virginia, who together held 40% of the population, had
yet to ratify, so the practical future of the union was still very
much in doubt. Hamilton in New York and Madison in Virginia worked
to convince delegates to their state conventions to vote for the
new government. When news of Virginia's acceptance of the
Constitution reached the New York convention, Hamilton was able to
convince a majority of those present to follow suit by a margin of
three votes.*The Anti-Federalists insisted that a Bill of Rights be
added as a condition of ratification. The Bill of Rights comprise
the first ten amendments to the Constitution and prevent the
federal government from infringing on a range of civil liberties
including freedom of speech, of the press, religion and
assembly.*Now that we've gone over opposing viewpoints of the
Federalist and the Anti-Federalists, I want you to answer this
brief question to test your comprehension.*In response to this
fear, the Anti-Federalists insisted on the addition of a bill of
rights, which would protect citizens against a tyrannical
government.
*The Framers did not want the whims of the people to sway the
government unduly. Therefore, they designed a deliberate two-stage,
formal amendment process that required approval on both federal and
state levels; this process has rarely been used. However, informal
amendments, prompted by judicial interpretation, cultural and
social changes, and technological change, have had a tremendous
impact on the Constitution.*Article V of the Constitution creates a
two-stage amendment process: proposal and ratification. There are
two ways to accomplish each stage.
Let's look at the graphic on the next slide to understand the
process.*There are two stages to the amendment process: proposal
and ratification.
Amendments can be proposed by a vote of two-thirds of the
members in both houses of Congress, or by a vote of two-thirds of
the state legislatures specifically requesting Congress to call a
national convention to propose amendments. The second method has
never been used.
The ratification process is fairly straightforward. When
Congress votes to propose an amendment, the Constitution specifies
that the ratification process must occur in one of two ways: a
favorable vote in three-fourths of the state legislatures; or, a
favorable vote in specially called ratifying conventions in
three-fourths of the states.
*For all its moral support from local prayer bands and groups
such as the Womans Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), whose members
blockaded bars to protest the sale of alcoholic beverages, the
Eighteenth (Prohibition) Amendment was a disaster. Among its side
effects was the rise of powerful crime organizations responsible
for illegal sales of alcoholic beverages. Once proposed, it took
only ten months to ratify the Twenty-First Amendment, which
repealed the Prohibition Amendment.*In 1803, the Supreme Court
declared in Marbury v. Madison that federal courts had the power to
nullify acts of the nation's government when the courts found such
acts to conflict with the Constitution. Today, some analysts argue
that the original intent of the Framers should govern judicial
interpretation of the Constitution. Others argue that the Framers
knew a changing society needed an elastic, flexible document that
could adapt to the ages.
Even the most far-sighted of the Framers could not have
anticipated the vast changes that have occurred in the United
States. The Constitution has evolved to accommodate such social and
cultural changes. The federal government has taken on more powers
and responsibilities in relation to the states, as we will discuss
later in this course.
Technological advances of the twenty-first century bring up new
questions concerning privacy and our rights under the
Constitution.
Activity: Ask students to bring in a news story from the
previous week to illustrate a point of contention over the U.S.
Constitution. Use these clippings as the basis for class
discussion, focusing on how the Founders left the Constitution
flexible for future generations. Examples might include gun control
(the 2nd Amendment), the rights of criminal procedure and due
process, or the implied right to privacy.*Now that we've gone over
the process of amending the Constitution, I want you to answer this
brief question to test your comprehension of an informal way that
the Constitution can be amended.
*The Supreme Court can declare some laws to be unconstitutional.
This power has significantly expanded the authority of the judicial
branch.
*
