Constitutional Underpinnings

I. PATH TO INDEPENDENCE

Until French and Indian War-- colonists free-- more liberty, wealth and equality than most of the wld-- King and Parliament only concerned w/ trade and foreign affairs

Britain reasoned that colonists must share the financial burden of adm and defense of their new land-- new taxes on paper, tea, glass, paint, official documents

New taxes gave practical voice to colonial leaders influenced by enlightenment philosophers

Locke-- Natural rights to life, liberty and property that cannot be taken away or given up. Govt' derives power from consent of governed and exists to secure rights.

Declaration of Independence created to rationalize revolution -- listing 27 abuses of power by King George

II. ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION

First constitution-- loose confederation of states

National legislature-- one house 1 vote/state

New laws 9/13 states-- no exec-- no judiciary-- no power to tax

No power to regulate commerce,

Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts -- a series of court house demonstrations designed to keep courts closed to prevent foreclosures-- no organized militia to stop the rebellion

III. THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

Purpose stated-- revise articles-- scrapped early in meetings

55 leaders-- planters, lawyers, merchants-- young, experienced in politics

Motives? Protection of property interests (Beard) or dedicated nationalists (Roche)

ARGUMENTS--

Representation in Congress-- NJ Plan (small states) v. VA Plan (lg states) led to Conn Compromise--House by Population/ Equal reps in Senate

Slavery Compromise-- slaves worth 3/5 for taxes and apportionment

Voting-- states set requirements

Economic-- National government given power to make economic policy and protect property (powers to tax, borrow, regulate commerce and create currency given to Congress)

Individual Rights--Assumed states would protect individual rights but listed-- habeas corpus, bills of attainder, ex post facto, treason and trial by jury

IV. Madison: Architecture &

Underpinning Ideas

Feared factions of self interested individuals banding together to create tyranny--

To prevent evils of faction he proposed the following:

Separation of powers by function: each branch independent yet can't operate without the other two

Checks and Balances--each branch will check the power of the other two-- veto power (stem cell research only Bush veto) vs. congress may refuse to confirm certain Pres appointments (Harriet Meir-- SCOTUS)

Limits on Majority--feared power of masses and worked to limit control-- House was the only directly elected body-- Senate by state legislatures--Pres by Electoral College, Judges appt for life by Pres and confirmed by Senate

Federalism--authority shared between national and state governments to check tyranny of national gov

RATIFICATION

9/13 required for approval (framers feared those who wanted states to retain all powers-- therefore ignored requirement of unanimous consent)

V. Ratification Debate--Federalists

Advocates of Const.

Madison, Hamilton and Jay wrote a series of articles to gather support for ratification among literate public.

Federalist 10-- dangers of factions and strategies to deal with them

Federalist 51--checks and balances as solution to faction

VI. ANTI-FEDERALISTS

Opponents of Const

Argued that national govt too distant from people and absorb powers belonging to states

National govt would tax citizens too heavily

SCOTUS would overrule state courts

Pres would command large standing army

No bill of rights_________________________

Special conventions outside of state legislatures were convened for ratification -- completed 1788 w/ BOR added 1791

VII. AMENDMENTFormal process

Proposal -- 2/3 vote of both houses or convention called by 3/4 of state legislatures

Ratification-- 3/4 of state legislatures or state conventions in 3/4 of states

All but one-- proposal by Congress and ratified by state legislatures

Informal process

Judicial interpretation (began w/ Marbury v. Madison) -- court settles disputes re: interpret of const.

Changing political practices -- no mention of political parties or 2 party system--

No mention of--tradition requiring electors in EC to be bound by popular vote in state-- winner take all

Pres now has powers far beyond those envisioned by Framers

Test of Time

US has oldest functioning constitution in the world because of it's flexibility-- despite huge historical change, size and diversity of population-- still operates effectively and legitimately.

-- Why?

-- Continuing Debate– Is the Constitution a living/flexible framework designed to adapt to the needs of society OR Should the language of the document be enforced strictly –language means exactly what it says– nothing more?