Chapter 2 The Constitution

Chapter 2 The Constitution The goal of the American revolution was liberty. It was the clearest case of a people altering the political order violently, simply in order to protect their liberties

The Problem of Liberty • What did the American colonists look to protect when they signed the Declaration of Independence? • Why did many colonists believe they needed to become independent if their liberties were to be assured?

The Colonial Mind • They believed that English politicians, and by implication, most politicians tended to be corrupt. • This was their explanation of why the English constitution was not an adequate guarantee of the liberty of the citizens which greatly affected the way Americans designed their government. • The liberties the colonists fought to protect were widely understood. What were they based on?

THE REAL REVOLUTION • The revolution was a radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people (John Adams) • This change had to do with a new vision of what could make political authority legitimate and personal liberties secure. Legitimant government: • 1. require the consent of the governed • 2. Political power was a a result of a direct grant of power from a Constitution not tradition • 3. Liberty existed before government was organized • 4. Government most respect that liberty • 5. The legislative branch should be superior to the executive branch.

CONT. • At this time these ideas were revolutionary, no government had ever been organized on these principles. • The ideas of constitutions and bills of rights and representatives were a bold and unprecedented at that time. Many did not think they could work • 1. They would be so strong that they would threaten liberty • 2. They would be so weak that they would allow for chaos. • What was the 11 years between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution like?

The Challenge • The resolution of political issues often depend crucially on how the central question is phrased. • The delegates were in general agreement that there were defects in the Articles that need to be fixed, had they decided to do that the document that came out of the meeting would have been very different they what they adopted. • Instead once the meeting started the delegation from Virginia led by Edmund Randolph and the workmanship of James Madison presented to the convention a whole new plan for a national government.

THE CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY • Did the Constitution create, or was even intended to create, a democratic government? • The framers did not intend to create a democracy (people rule directly) why? • Size of the country made it impossible • The Framers were worried that a government in which the citizens ruled directly would be a government excessively subject to temporary popular passions and one in which minority rights would not be safe.

Cont. • The Framers intended to create a Republic government on elected representatives. • They chose to have the House of Representatives elected directly by the people (not all the delegates agreed with this) Why? • Popular rule was not the only element of the new government Why? • State legislatures would chose the Senate • Electors, not the people directly would choose the president • The small states were opposed to giving undue power to the larger states which direct popular elections would have done • The framers believed in majority rule but they believed that on the important questions two kinds of majorities were needed 1. majority of voters 2. majority of states

Cont. • Judicial review is also a way of limiting the power of popular majorities (Supreme Court) • We are not sure if the framers intended that there be judicial review. • There is not doubt they intended the fundamental law, Constitution, be protected against popular passions. • They made the Amendment process easier than under the Articles but it was still not easy What are they?

Did the Constitution bring a democratic government? • YES IT DID • By democracy we mean a system of representative government based on popular consent. The degree of consent has changed, and the institutions that have that consent can take on different forms one gives all political authority to one set of representatives directly elected by the people ( rejected in 1787) • The other form is one in which different sets of officials chosen directly or indirectly by different groups of people, share political power ( that is the case in the U.S. were separation of powers is intended to operate)

Key Principles • The American version of representative democracy was based on two major principles • 1. separation of powers 3 branches • 2. federalism national and state

Government and Human Nature • The experiences the framers had with both British rule and colonial governments had taught them that most people seek their own advantages in and out of politics. • That if this is not checked people would exploit others. • Solution: • Improve human nature cultivate virtue. • Madison did not think this was good Why? • He believed that a government that tried to do this would be to powerful and dangerous to liberty • He believed that self interest within some limits would be the solution to government. • He believed that the self-interest that leads people to factionalism and tyranny might if limited by a constitution provide a source of unity and protect liberty. • Separation of powers, and federalism would accomplish this How?

THE CONSTITUTION AND LIBERTY • Why was the ratification of the Constiution technically illegal even though it was democratic? • Did the Constitution create a government that would respect personal liberties?

Antifederalist View • They had many objections • 1. liberty could only be secure in a small republic in which rulers were close to and checked by the people. can not rule on the principles of freedom otherwise than by a confederation of republics • 2. Strong national government would be distant from the people and use its powers to annihilate the functions that belonged to the states • Congress would tax heavily • Supreme Court would over rule state courts • President would head a large standing army • They argued the nation needed a loose confederation of states with most powers with the states • If a stronger national government was needed they argued it would need many more restrictions. • Bill of Rights • Eliminating power of congress to tax • Narrowing the Supreme Courts jurisdiction • Council to check the presidents power by reviewing his actions • Make the House of Reps bigger.

James Madison answer to the Antifederalist • Federalist No. 10 and 51he argued that liberty is safest in large republics, because in small communities the people would all have the same opinions and interest and if anyone disagrees or pursues an individual interest they would be confronted by a majority and will have few allies but in a large republic there would be many interest and opinions which makes a tyrannical majority harder to form

Cont. • Madison was not trying to stifle democracy but instead show how it really works and how it can work better. • To rule different interest must form coalitions and in a large republic they would be more moderate Why? • He suggested that national government should be at a distance from the people because they did not always want to do the right thing. He believe that liberty was threat as much by public passions and popularly based factions as by a strong government. • Madison believed that if people could be corrupted by office they could also be corrupted by factional self-interest and therefore government had to be set up to prevent both politicians and the people from using government for unjust purposes.

Bill of Rights • Why did the framers fail to add a bill of rights to the Constitution? • 1. It contained a number of specific guarantee of individual liberty • 2. Most states had a bill of rights • 3. The framers were creating a government with specific, limited powers, that is it could only do only what the constitution gave it power to do

Need for a Bill of Rights • Why did the framers promise a bill of rights? • Pennsylvania • Massachusetts • Virginia • New York

Constitution and Slavery • There are three provisions dealing with the slave issue all of them have to do with please the slave states. • 1. apportionment of seats in the House of Reps (three-fifths) • 2. Congress was not allowed to act on the slave issue before 1808 • 3. If any slave escaped to the free states it he or she was not free but must be returned to his or her master. • The fact that the constitution did not deal with the slave issue was a betrayal of the Declaration of Independence. • Many revolutionary leaders did not like slavery and many northern colonies did away with it yet it continued in the south because some thought it was right while others found it useful, even though they did not like it. • The hard fact is any effort to use the Constitution to end slavery would have meant the end to the Constitution. Why? • So they compromised on it 3 ways

Motives of the framers • The framers were motivated by both a commitment to the public good and their own interest. That is the new government was created out of a mixture of motives • Economic Interests at the Convention • The framers were both rich and poor and some had slaves and others did not. Charles Beard argued in his book that the better off urban and commercial classes, especially those who held the IOUs issued by the government to pay for the revolution favored the Constitution. • But in the 1950 historians looked at it closer they saw that we could not explain the Constitution solely on economic interest of those who wrote it. if you look at it some of the richest delegates were against the document while those in major debt favored it • By the 1980’s new evidence was shown by economists that the economic considerations influenced the framers votes on issues during the convention • Economic position of their states had a greater effect on their vote than their own interest.

Economic Interest and Ratification • At the ratifying conventions economic factors played a large role. • Delegates with the economic conditions that would be aided by the constitution voted for it • Those with economic conditions not aided by the constitution voted against it.

Constitution and equality • Ideas counted as much as interests 2 views of the public good • 1. that a reasonable balance of liberty order, and progress required a strong government • 2. that liberty would not be secure in the hands of powerful distant government • Today that debate has a new focus that is the defect of the constitution is not that the government is to strong but that it is too weak that is to resist the pressures of special interests cause economic inequality

Cont. • Today some people think of inequality as a natural social order. That leads to undesirable inequalities (economic) • Therefore the government should be powerful enough to restrain these natural tendencies and instead create by law a greater degree of equality than society allows when left alone. • The framers were more concerned with political inequality believed that liberty and political equality were not in conflict • 1. framers task was keep government limited to prevent it from creating the worst inequality political privilege • 2. today people believe the government should be strong enough to reduce what they believe is the worst inequality Wealth.

Constitutional Reforms: modern views • From the start the constitution has been the object of debate over how it can be improved. 2 kinds of critics those that think the federal government is to strong and those that think it is to weak. • REDUCING THE SEPARATION OF POWERS • These critics believed that the separation of powers causes a pulling and hauling between the President and Congress and we need prompt decisive, and comprehensive action. Gridlock. All of our challenges require the president to carryout policies free from pressures and delays from interest groups and Congress. • They believe that reducing the separation of powers would help voters hold the president and his party accountable for their actions. • They believe that government agencies responsible for implementing programs are exposed to interference from congress and special interests. • The president should be in charge of the bureaucracy and not share the authority with congress.

Continue • Critics of the separation of powers fear that it makes the president too week and not accountable enough. • They propose the reduction of the separation of powers. • President to appoint congressmen to the cabinet • Allow president to dissolve congress and call for a special election. • Allow congress to require a president who has lost his confidence face a special election to stay in office • Require the president and congressional candidates to run as team in each congressional district. • Have the president serve one six year term vs. 2 four year terms. • Make the terms of the house of reps. 4 years to coincide with the president.

Defenders of Separation of Powers • Close congressional scrutiny of the president has improved policies. • Parliamentary Governments have not performed better then our system. • Example: British Parliament • Economics, Environment, National Security • Congressional interference is a positive, allowing the voters voices to be heard. • Rebuttals to all points of view for ……

Making the System Less Democratic • The second critic of the constitution think that the government does TOO MUCH. • Special interest and citizens want smaller government, but not if it will cut their benefits. • Leading to politicians that are elected on promises of giving to those groups that are dissatisfied. • To fix this the critics feel a constitutional amendment that would limit the amount of money the government could collect in taxes each year or a balanced budget amendment. • Critics believe • shift government focus to the BIG PICTURE. • A Total Budget to work with not just adding on and on

Chapter 2 The Constitution