I. The Origins of the Constitution (28-33)

A. The Road to Revolution

By eighteenth-century standards, life was not bad for most people in America at the time of the revolution. As a result of the French and Indian War, Britain passed a series of taxes on the colonists. These taxes resulted in colonial protests and economic pressure from the British.

B. Declaring Independence

The Continental Congress met through most of 1775 and 1776, adopting the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. The Declaration was a polemic, announcing and justifying a revolution.

C. The English Heritage: The Power of Ideas

Many of the ideas in the Declaration were borrowed from the English philosopher John Locke, who argued that human beings have natural rights, not dependent on governments. Locke argued that government must be built on the consent of the governed and should be a limited government, with restrictions on what rulers can do. Two important limits on government are that governments must provide laws so that people know whether their acts are acceptable and that the government cannot take a man’s property without his consent.

D. Jefferson’s Handiwork: The American Creed

Locke’s thought and Jefferson’s language in the Declaration of Independence is very similar. Jefferson also borrowed from the well-established English opposition to the Crown. He placed great importance on the individual, who was “created equal”” and endowed with “unalienable rights,” and the consent of the governed.

E. Winning Independence

Although outnumbered and outmatched, the colonists eventually defeated the British.

F. The “Conservative” Revolution

The American Revolution did not drastically alter the colonists’’ way of life. The colonists did not feel the need for great social, economic, or political upheavals. The revolution did not create class conflicts that would have split society.

II. The Government That Failed: 1776-1787 (33-36)

A. The Articles of Confederation

In 1776, the Continental Congress adopted our first constitution, the Articles of Confederation. The Articles established a government dominated by the states. There was no president and the Congress had few powers outside of maintaining an army and navy. Congress could not levy a tax and depended on the states to send money. The national government was weak and ineffective while all power rested in the states. Thus the national government could not deal with the hard times that faced the new nation.

B. Changes in the States

The states were experiencing a dramatic increase in democracy and liberty. States adopted bills of rights and liberalized voting requirements. Expanded political participation brought a new middle class to power. State legislatures held most of the power and were more responsive to the people.

C. Economic Turmoil

Economic issues were at the top of the agenda after the revolution. A postwar depression left small farmers without the ability to pay their debts. State legislators were sympathetic to the debtors. Some printed tons of worthless paper money to help the debtors pay their debts.

D. Shays’ Rebellion

In 1786 a small band of farmers in Massachusetts rebelled at losing their land to creditors. Shays’ Rebellion was a series of attacks on courthouses to prevent judges from foreclosing. Neither Congress nor the states could stop the rebellion, which further illustrated the weakness of the Articles of Confederation.

E. The Aborted Annapolis Meeting

In 1786 continental leaders met in Annapolis, Maryland, to discuss the Articles of Confederation. Although the meeting failed, they called for a meeting of the states to discuss the constitution. This resulted in the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787.

III. Making a Constitution: The Philadelphia Convention (36-39)

A. Gentlemen in Philadelphia

The 55 men who attended the Convention were a select group of economic and political notables. They were wealthy, educated, and mostly coastal and urban residents.

B. Philosophy in Action

At the core, the delegates had a certain amount of agreement on some basic philosophical issues:

1. A cynical view of human nature

2. A belief that the primary source of political conflict was the unequal distribution of wealth, resulting in the growth of factions

3. A belief that the principal objective of government was the preservation of individual rights to acquire and hold wealth

4. The belief that government should be balanced with power set against power, and limited, to contain checks on its power

IV. The Agenda in Philadelphia (39-44)

A. The Equality Issues

Three major equality issues dominated the Convention. One was whether the Congress would be represented equally by state (New Jersey Plan) or according to population (Virginia Plan). The Connecticut Compromise established two houses; the Senate, with two members from each state; and the House of Representatives, based on population. In effect, the Connecticut Compromise gives more power to less populated states, especially when it comes to some of the crucial policy decisions reserved for the Senate.

A second equality issue concerned slavery. Slavery was not forbidden, but Congress could limit the importing of slaves. The issue of how to count slaves in determining representation in Congress was settled by the three-fifth compromise, which counted a slave as three-fifths of a person.

The delegates dodged the issue of political equality and who should have the right to vote. It was decided to leave this issue to the states.

B. The Economic Issues

The delegates felt the need to address the issues of tariffs against products from other states, paper money printed by the states, and how Congress can raise money. The delegates were an economic elite whose interests affected the decisions they made. The delegates made Congress the chief economic policymaker. Congress could obtain revenues through taxation and borrowing. It was given the power to help build the nation’s infrastructure. Congress was given means to protect property rights and to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. All these measures helped create the conditions within which markets could flourish. The delegates also prohibited the states from maintaining their own monetary systems and placing duties on imports from other states.

C. The Individual Rights Issues

The delegates believed that a limited government and checks and balances provided sufficient protection of individual rights. The Constitution says little about personal freedoms. It does prohibit the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, the passing of bills of attainder and ex post facto laws, the imposition of religious qualifications for holding office, narrowly defines treason, and upholds the right to trial by jury in criminal cases.

V. The Madisonian Model (44-48)

A. Thwarting Tyranny of the Majority

James Madison believed that to prevent the tyranny of the majority we must place as much of the government as possible beyond the direct control of the majority, separate the powers of different institutions, and construct a system of checks and balances. His plan placed only the House of Representatives within direct control of the majority. Separation of powers was accomplished by establishing three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial) each relatively independent of one another. Each branch required the consent of the others for many of its actions, creating a system of checks and balances. The Founders also established a federal system of government that divided the power of government between a national government and the individual states.

B. The Constitutional Republic

The founders did not want the people to directly make all decisions. Their solution was to establish a republic, which is based on the consent of the governed in which representatives of the public exercise power. The system has a conservative bias, which favors the status quo since change usually requires a sizable majority and victory at many stages, while opposition to change must win only once.

C. The End of the Beginning

The final version of the Constitution was voted on and passed with no states voting against, but South Carolina’s delegates were divided.

VI. Ratifying the Constitution (49-52)

A. Federalists and Anti-Federalists

The Federalists supported the Constitution while the Anti-Federalists opposed it. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay wrote a series of articles known as the Federalist Papers in support of the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists objected that the Constitution was class-based and ensured that an economic elite would control government. They also objected to the lack of a Bill of Rights. In response, the Federalists promised to add amendments to protect individual liberties. The first ten amendments to the Constitution became known as the Bill of Rights.

B. Ratification

The Federalists specified that the Constitution be ratified by special conventions in each of the states, rather than state legislatures where opposition was more likely. The Constitution was finally ratified and George Washington took office as the first president on April 30, 1789.

VII. Constitutional Change (52-58)

A. The Formal Amending Process

An amendment may be proposed either by a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress or by a national convention called by Congress at the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures. An amendment may be ratified either by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states or by special state conventions called in three-fourths of the states. Formal amendments have made the Constitution more egalitarian and democratic. Some amendments, like the Equal Rights Amendment, have been proposed but not ratified.

B. The Informal Process of Constitutional Change

There are several ways the Constitution changes informally. Through judicial interpretation the Supreme Court has the right to decide whether the actions of the legislative and executive branches of state and national governments are in accord with the Constitution. This power of judicial review was granted in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). The Constitution can also change through political practice. For example, political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution but have become an important part of how government is organized. Through practice, electors in the Electoral College have become nothing more than rubber stamps. Technology has also changed the Constitution. The media has facilitated the questioning of government policies and helped shape citizens’ opinions. Electronic communications and atomic weapons have given greater significance to presidential power. Increasing demands of policymakers has changed the Constitution by giving powers to the government and the president that were not seen by the founders.

D. The Importance of Flexibility

Changes reflect the flexibility of the Constitution. This flexibility has ensured the Constitution’s and the nation’s survival. The Constitution is a very short document. Many of our governing units are not mentioned in the Constitution. The framers allowed future generations to determine their needs within the constitutional framework.

VIII. Understanding the Constitution (58-60)

A. The Constitution and Democracy

The Constitution itself is rarely described as democratic. The framers did not want to permit the majority’s preference to become policy. The Constitution did create a republic, which permitted substantial movement toward democracy. The Constitution has gradually been amended, both formally and informally, to expand voting rights and diminish the separation of the people from those who exercise power.

B. The Constitution and the Scope of Government

The Constitution created the rules of the game of politics and policymaking, many of which limit government action. Most of these limitations protect liberty and open the system to more participants. The Constitution reinforces individualism yet allows groups to flourish by giving them access to policymaking at many different points. The Constitution also encourages hyperpluralism by providing so many effective access points, thus making it difficult for government to act. Many scholars argue that so many checks have reduced the ability of government to reach effective policy decisions.