CHAPTER 3- THE CONSTITUTION
3.1- THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors; they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.
Every time you vote, every time you grumble about the government, every time you chew gum, select your dinner, choose your occupation, deliberate over where to go to school, practice or don’t practice a religion, watch a movie, use the internet, shoot a gun, read a book, or choose an outfit, you are exercising rights given under the Constitution. Although the Constitution does not explicitly guarantee the right to do any of these things, under the system of government provided by our Constitution, we are allowed to do anything that is not forbidden. It is easy to take this for granted.
You may say to yourself, “Why shouldn’t I be able to decide how I’m going to live my life? Of course I’m going to choose my religion and my career. And why wouldn’t I be able to chew gum?” For those of us who have never experienced anything different, it seems obvious that we are entitled to make our own choices and, essentially, to control our own fate. However, not all people have had—or do have—the same freedoms we enjoy. For example, chewing gum was prohibited in Singapore in 1992. China and Saudi Arabia have strong restrictions on internet access. Under the Communist government of the old USSR, religion was prohibited.
Different governments throughout history have taken different approaches to ruling people. The government of a country both demonstrates and influences the character of the country. In this unit, we will learn about the character of America by exploring how and why we have our Constitution and the significance of the Constitution in our lives.
Every time you vote, every time you grumble about the government, every time you chew gum, select your dinner, choose your occupation, deliberate over where to go to school, practice or don’t practice a religion, watch a movie, use the internet, shoot a gun, read a book, or choose an outfit, you are exercising rights given under the Constitution. Although the Constitution does not explicitly guarantee the right to do any of these things, under the system of government provided by our Constitution, we are allowed to do anything that is not forbidden. It is easy to take this for granted.
You may say to yourself, “Why shouldn’t I be able to decide how I’m going to live my life? Of course I’m going to choose my religion and my career. And why wouldn’t I be able to chew gum?” For those of us who have never experienced anything different, it seems obvious that we are entitled to make our own choices and, essentially, to control our own fate. However, not all people have had—or do have—the same freedoms we enjoy. For example, chewing gum was prohibited in Singapore in 1992. China and Saudi Arabia have strong restrictions on internet access. Under the Communist government of the old USSR, religion was prohibited.
Different governments throughout history have taken different approaches to ruling people. The government of a country both demonstrates and influences the character of the country. In this unit, we will learn about the character of America by exploring how and why we have our Constitution and the significance of the Constitution in our lives.
THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION
The Political Situation and Previous Attempts at Governing America In 1786, America was being governed under the Articles of Confederation. This weak government was adopted in 1777 by the Second Continental Congress. The Articles, which took effect in 1781 after all thirteen states had ratified them, rapidly proved inadequate. The Articles granted no power to tax or regulate commerce among the states. The national government consisted of a single house. Each state was granted one vote. Nine states formed a majority; a majority vote from the state representatives allowed the federal government to create laws. A unanimous vote was required to amend the Articles. There was no court system to settle disputes between individuals; the Articles only set up a court system to settle disputes between the states. No single person possessed executive powers; rather, there was an executive committee. The government had no power to enforce treaties.
The Articles of Confederation had been deliberately set up to be a weak government. After dealing with the British monarchy (a monarchy is a nation ruled by a king), the colonists were wary of giving up too much power and enabling their new government to oppress them. Unfortunately, their hesitance to create a strong government left them with a government incapable of enforcing laws or regulating behavior. George Washington called the government under the Articles of Confederation “a half-starved limping government, that appears to be always moving upon crutches and tottering at every step.”
In the year 1786, fifty-five delegates from twelve of the thirteen states met in Philadelphia to modify the Articles of Confederation. Instead, they produced the document known as the Constitution. These men are often called the Founding Fathers, or the Founders, because they established the basis for the American government.
We know John Dickinson wrote the first draft of the Articles of Confederation, and we know that he led the committee designated by the Second Continental Congress to finalize the Articles, but we do not know exactly who was on that committee. With the exception of Dickinson, who participated in the Constitutional Convention, the writers of the Articles and the writers of the Constitution may not have been all the same men. However, it is certain that the goal of the writers of the Constitution was different than that of the writers of the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation were written to provide the thirteen colonies with a form of government that would not threaten (in the form of a monarchy) their individual independence. The Constitution, however, was designed to create a strong central government while maintaining the greatest amount of personal freedom possible.
To get a better idea of what the Founding Fathers were hoping to accomplish, read the following quotes from a philosopher, two of the Founding Fathers, and a British contemporary of these men. Commentary is interspersed with these quotes to help you better understand their meanings. As you read, the footnotes will direct you to the definitions of the more difficult words in the passage.
John Locke
The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others, which cannot be where there is no law; and is not, as we are told, “a liberty for every man to do what he lists.”. For who could be free, when every other man’s humour might domineer over him? But a liberty to dispose. and order freely as he lists his person, actions, possession, and his whole property within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own.
According to Locke, laws should preserve freedom. Freedom is not a condition where you can do as you wish. Rather, freedom is the ability to do what you want as long as your actions do not take away another’s ability to enjoy his or her rights.
Thomas Jefferson
The way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to . . . What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body. . . . And I do believe that if the Almighty has not decreed that man shall never be free, (and it is a blasphemy to believe it,) that the secret will be found to be in the making himself the depository. of the powers respecting himself, so far as he is competent to them, and delegating only what is beyond his competence.
Jefferson believed good and safe government comes when we divide responsibilities, not when we place all the governing powers in the hands of one or a few. He made an important point when he said that we should only give the government those responsibilities which we can’t handle. Jefferson’s ideas leave the private citizen with great freedom and power and therefore great responsibility.
Edmund BurkeFor it is not, perhaps, so much by the assumption of unlawful powers, as by the unwise or unwarrantable use of those which are most legal, that governments oppose their true end and object: for there is such a thing as tyranny, as well as usurpation. . . . So that, after all, it is a moral and virtuous discretion, and not any abstract theory of right, which keeps governments faithful to their ends.
James Madison
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.
As Madison said, it is difficult to create a system of government that has enough power to make the citizens obey the laws it creates yet is prevented from using its power to abuse the citizens.
The Political Situation and Previous Attempts at Governing America In 1786, America was being governed under the Articles of Confederation. This weak government was adopted in 1777 by the Second Continental Congress. The Articles, which took effect in 1781 after all thirteen states had ratified them, rapidly proved inadequate. The Articles granted no power to tax or regulate commerce among the states. The national government consisted of a single house. Each state was granted one vote. Nine states formed a majority; a majority vote from the state representatives allowed the federal government to create laws. A unanimous vote was required to amend the Articles. There was no court system to settle disputes between individuals; the Articles only set up a court system to settle disputes between the states. No single person possessed executive powers; rather, there was an executive committee. The government had no power to enforce treaties.
The Articles of Confederation had been deliberately set up to be a weak government. After dealing with the British monarchy (a monarchy is a nation ruled by a king), the colonists were wary of giving up too much power and enabling their new government to oppress them. Unfortunately, their hesitance to create a strong government left them with a government incapable of enforcing laws or regulating behavior. George Washington called the government under the Articles of Confederation “a half-starved limping government, that appears to be always moving upon crutches and tottering at every step.”
In the year 1786, fifty-five delegates from twelve of the thirteen states met in Philadelphia to modify the Articles of Confederation. Instead, they produced the document known as the Constitution. These men are often called the Founding Fathers, or the Founders, because they established the basis for the American government.
We know John Dickinson wrote the first draft of the Articles of Confederation, and we know that he led the committee designated by the Second Continental Congress to finalize the Articles, but we do not know exactly who was on that committee. With the exception of Dickinson, who participated in the Constitutional Convention, the writers of the Articles and the writers of the Constitution may not have been all the same men. However, it is certain that the goal of the writers of the Constitution was different than that of the writers of the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation were written to provide the thirteen colonies with a form of government that would not threaten (in the form of a monarchy) their individual independence. The Constitution, however, was designed to create a strong central government while maintaining the greatest amount of personal freedom possible.
To get a better idea of what the Founding Fathers were hoping to accomplish, read the following quotes from a philosopher, two of the Founding Fathers, and a British contemporary of these men. Commentary is interspersed with these quotes to help you better understand their meanings. As you read, the footnotes will direct you to the definitions of the more difficult words in the passage.
John Locke
The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others, which cannot be where there is no law; and is not, as we are told, “a liberty for every man to do what he lists.”. For who could be free, when every other man’s humour might domineer over him? But a liberty to dispose. and order freely as he lists his person, actions, possession, and his whole property within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own.
According to Locke, laws should preserve freedom. Freedom is not a condition where you can do as you wish. Rather, freedom is the ability to do what you want as long as your actions do not take away another’s ability to enjoy his or her rights.
Thomas Jefferson
The way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to . . . What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body. . . . And I do believe that if the Almighty has not decreed that man shall never be free, (and it is a blasphemy to believe it,) that the secret will be found to be in the making himself the depository. of the powers respecting himself, so far as he is competent to them, and delegating only what is beyond his competence.
Jefferson believed good and safe government comes when we divide responsibilities, not when we place all the governing powers in the hands of one or a few. He made an important point when he said that we should only give the government those responsibilities which we can’t handle. Jefferson’s ideas leave the private citizen with great freedom and power and therefore great responsibility.
Edmund BurkeFor it is not, perhaps, so much by the assumption of unlawful powers, as by the unwise or unwarrantable use of those which are most legal, that governments oppose their true end and object: for there is such a thing as tyranny, as well as usurpation. . . . So that, after all, it is a moral and virtuous discretion, and not any abstract theory of right, which keeps governments faithful to their ends.
James Madison
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.
As Madison said, it is difficult to create a system of government that has enough power to make the citizens obey the laws it creates yet is prevented from using its power to abuse the citizens.
3.2- Writing the Constitution:
Forming a Republic
Originally, the men who gathered at the convention that eventually produced the Constitution did not meet to form a new government. They gathered to revise the Articles of Confederation. When they decided that a new government would be necessary, many different ideas regarding the best form of government were proposed. The general consensus was that the new government would be a republic, not a pure democracy. One reason the Founding Fathers chose to form a republic was to avoid a tyranny of the majority. They believed that a group of elected officials would be less likely to get caught up in public opinion. They believed that a republic would, as James Madison wrote,
refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium1Links to an external site. of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern. the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may be happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant. to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened. for the purpose..
Madison thought a group of people elected by the public would be more likely to act for the public good than the public itself would. This seems likely because elected officials dedicate a good deal of time to learning about issues that affect the public and to acting in a manner that will best please the people. They are motivated to act for the public good because if the people are not pleased with their performance, they will not be elected again. If the people as a whole made every decision, individuals would have no compelling reason to act in the best interest of the public rather than his or her own interest. Furthermore, private citizens, whose lives are not dedicated to politics but to whatever their vocation may be, are less likely to be informed on important issues than elected officials.
Originally, the men who gathered at the convention that eventually produced the Constitution did not meet to form a new government. They gathered to revise the Articles of Confederation. When they decided that a new government would be necessary, many different ideas regarding the best form of government were proposed. The general consensus was that the new government would be a republic, not a pure democracy. One reason the Founding Fathers chose to form a republic was to avoid a tyranny of the majority. They believed that a group of elected officials would be less likely to get caught up in public opinion. They believed that a republic would, as James Madison wrote,
refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium1Links to an external site. of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern. the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may be happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant. to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened. for the purpose..
Madison thought a group of people elected by the public would be more likely to act for the public good than the public itself would. This seems likely because elected officials dedicate a good deal of time to learning about issues that affect the public and to acting in a manner that will best please the people. They are motivated to act for the public good because if the people are not pleased with their performance, they will not be elected again. If the people as a whole made every decision, individuals would have no compelling reason to act in the best interest of the public rather than his or her own interest. Furthermore, private citizens, whose lives are not dedicated to politics but to whatever their vocation may be, are less likely to be informed on important issues than elected officials.
Delegates representing the different states at the Constitutional Convention had many competing ideas about how the government should be structured and operated. They debated some issues for months before agreeing to reach a compromise. The issue they debated most heavily concerned fair representation in the legislative branch. The Founders discussed two plans—the Virginia Plan, from which most of the Constitution was taken, and the New Jersey Plan, which was proposed by the smaller states to counteract the Virginia Plan’s approach to legislative representation.
The Virginia Plan
James Madison wrote the Virginia Plan, which called for three branches of government—legislative, executive, and judicial. This plan would have given each state a certain number of seats in the legislature based on the state’s population. The smaller states opposed this plan because it would have essentially given the larger states control over the smaller states.
The New Jersey Plan
The New Jersey Plan was proposed by the representatives of the smaller states who sought to counter what they perceived as the large-state tyranny proposed by the Virginia Plan. In the New Jersey Plan, the legislative branch would be composed of a single house, as in the Virginia Plan, but the number of representatives granted to each state would be equal, not based on population. The large states felt this plan was unfair because it set the powers, and therefore the needs, of small groups of people equal to those of larger groups of people.
The states became caught in a bitter lock-up between the two plans; they couldn’t reach a decision that was acceptable to enough states to be ratified.
The Virginia Plan
James Madison wrote the Virginia Plan, which called for three branches of government—legislative, executive, and judicial. This plan would have given each state a certain number of seats in the legislature based on the state’s population. The smaller states opposed this plan because it would have essentially given the larger states control over the smaller states.
The New Jersey Plan
The New Jersey Plan was proposed by the representatives of the smaller states who sought to counter what they perceived as the large-state tyranny proposed by the Virginia Plan. In the New Jersey Plan, the legislative branch would be composed of a single house, as in the Virginia Plan, but the number of representatives granted to each state would be equal, not based on population. The large states felt this plan was unfair because it set the powers, and therefore the needs, of small groups of people equal to those of larger groups of people.
The states became caught in a bitter lock-up between the two plans; they couldn’t reach a decision that was acceptable to enough states to be ratified.
Resolution
The solution to the conflict between the New Jersey Plan and the Virginia Plan was the Great Compromise, proposed by Oliver Ellsworth and Roger Sherman. Under the Great Compromise, the legislative branch of the government would be bicameral, or composed of two houses. Seats in the House of Representatives would be apportioned according to population. In the Senate, each state would have an equal number of representatives. Both the House and the Senate would have power to veto measures approved by the other.
To build a strong government—but one that could not trample the people’s rights—the Founders decided to pattern their government in part after the Roman government, with a legislative, an executive, and a judicial branch. The governing powers of making, enforcing, and interpreting the law are split between the three branches, and each branch has the power to veto, or reject, a decision made by another. This division of power is what enables our country to have a strong government that cannot easily overcome the people’s rights or control the individual state governments.
Three-Fifths Compromise
Another source of conflict between the states had to do with the slaves. The slave-holding states wanted to be able to count the slaves as part of their population to increase their states’ voting power (though they did not want to give slaves the right to vote). Neither did they want the slaves to be counted for taxation purposes, because the slave-holding states would have been required to pay higher taxes. The other states wanted to limit the population used to determine voting rights to free men, but they wanted the slaves to be counted for taxation purposes. The Founders finally reached a decision that many view as a moral setback: they would count each slave as three-fifths of a person, for the purposes of voting and taxation.
So what did the Northern States get out of the compromise? There was an agreement that the Southern States would reduce slavery with slavery being no longer utilized in the States after 80 years. However, shortly after the signing of the Constitution a massive depression followed by a surge in the demand for cotton due to the Industrial Revolution left the South more beholden to Slavery than ever. However, the Northern States continued to push for the abolition of slavery. The constitution was completed in 1787 + 80 years= 1867. There was a reason that tensions were building in the 1850s leading to the Civil War.
The Commerce and Slavery Compromise
Delegates from the northern states wanted the national Congress not the individual states to have the power to regulate trade and commercial activities.
- Between States
- Between a state and other countries
Delegates from southern states which exported tobacco, rice, and other products to foreign countries and imported slaves, did not want the national government to have this important power. These agricultural, slave states feared that Congress might use this power to regulate and collect taxes on:
- Their farm exports to other countries.
- The importing of slaves they needed.
- Congress would not do anything to stop the import of slaves for the next 20 years. Slavery would be weaned off from the Southern States during this time.
- Congress would have the power to regulate international and interstate commerce for all states.
Important Decisions:
President:
Courts:
Congress:
Electoral College:
Who can vote:
President:
- A president would carry out the laws passed by Congress.
- The president would have the power to veto an act of Congress
- A vote of two-thirds of the members of each of two houses of Congress would be required to override, or undo, a presidential veto.
Courts:
- The president would nominate judges for a Supreme Court, which would be the highest court in the country.
- The Senate would have to approve them.
- Congress would have authority to establish lower courts.
Congress:
- Congress would have the power to impose taxes and collect them directly from the people.
- By comparison, under the Articles of Confederation, only the states had the power to tax people.
Electoral College:
- The president would be elected, but neither directly by the voters nor by Congress.
- Each State would have electors equal to the number of Representatives plus the number of Senators.
- Electors would vote for the president
- State legislatures would choose the electors. (In most states, the voters soon got to choose their electors.)
- The person getting the most electoral votes would become president. The person with the second highest number of votes would become vice president, even if he differed from the president on all major issues.
Who can vote:
- Some delegates believed that only white, male freeholders- property owners- should have a vote. However most states already let people other than freeholders vote in state elections. the delegates agreed that those qualified in each state to vote for members of the larger house of their state legislature would also be eligible to vote for federal representatives.
- This meant each state would decide what people could vote in national elections not the federal government.
The Struggle for Ratification:
The Constitution could not become law of the land until at least nine states voted to ratify- officially approve- it. Two groups quickly argued its merits- the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.
The Federalists
Those who supported the Constitution were called Federalists. They supported the plan's strong central government that would share certain powers with the states.
The Anti Federalists
the Anti-Federalists opposed ratification of the Constitution. In general, they wanted to keep the Articles of Confederation, perhaps adding some items from the New Jersey plan. Anti-Federalists did not want a powerful central government at the expense of the state powers.
Influence of the Federalist Papers
Federalists and Anti-Federalists waged a bitter struggle in New York, where there was a strong opposition to the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, with the help of James Madison and John Jay, published a series of 85 articles that explained the Constitution and argued for ratification. The pro-Constitutional forces hoped that the federalist papers would sway New Yorkers and people from other states to ratify the Constitution.
Racing to Ratify:
Delaware quickly ratified the Constitution on December 7, 1787, and is now known as the "First State." Pennsylvania ratified on December 12th. A few weeks later New Jersey and Georgia voted for ratification. By May 23, 1788, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, and South Carolina had all voted in favor, bringing the number of states ratifying the Constitution to eight. The Federalists needed one more vote to reach the necessary nine state approvals.
Although the Federalists focused a lot of effort on New York, New Hampshire voted to ratify next, on June 21, 1788, just before Virginia. The Constitution became the law of the land before New York had even voted. However, on July 26, 1788, New York did vote for ratification in a closed vote. By 1790, North Carolina had also ratified the Constitution, and that year Rhode Island finally did so too.
On March 4, 1789, the Congress that had been set up by the Articles of confederation declared the Constitution in effect. On April 30, George Washington was inaugurated as the first president of the United States under the Constitution.
Government Principles in the Constitution
The framers based the Constitution on five basic principles:
Popular Sovereignty:
When the people consent to be governed and spell out the rules by which they will allow that governing to happen, this is called popular sovereignty. Our Constitution is a realization of this principle. The people- not a king, dictator, or president- are supreme.
Limited Government:
In the Constitution the people grant the government limited powers to act on their behalf. Article 1 of the Constitution identifies the powers that the government has and has not been granted. This established citizen rights, as opposed to government rights.
Federalism:
The Founding Fathers established a system of shared power called federalism. In this system, the states keep certain powers while giving up other powers to a strong central government.
The Constitution could not become law of the land until at least nine states voted to ratify- officially approve- it. Two groups quickly argued its merits- the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.
The Federalists
Those who supported the Constitution were called Federalists. They supported the plan's strong central government that would share certain powers with the states.
The Anti Federalists
the Anti-Federalists opposed ratification of the Constitution. In general, they wanted to keep the Articles of Confederation, perhaps adding some items from the New Jersey plan. Anti-Federalists did not want a powerful central government at the expense of the state powers.
Influence of the Federalist Papers
Federalists and Anti-Federalists waged a bitter struggle in New York, where there was a strong opposition to the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, with the help of James Madison and John Jay, published a series of 85 articles that explained the Constitution and argued for ratification. The pro-Constitutional forces hoped that the federalist papers would sway New Yorkers and people from other states to ratify the Constitution.
Racing to Ratify:
Delaware quickly ratified the Constitution on December 7, 1787, and is now known as the "First State." Pennsylvania ratified on December 12th. A few weeks later New Jersey and Georgia voted for ratification. By May 23, 1788, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, and South Carolina had all voted in favor, bringing the number of states ratifying the Constitution to eight. The Federalists needed one more vote to reach the necessary nine state approvals.
Although the Federalists focused a lot of effort on New York, New Hampshire voted to ratify next, on June 21, 1788, just before Virginia. The Constitution became the law of the land before New York had even voted. However, on July 26, 1788, New York did vote for ratification in a closed vote. By 1790, North Carolina had also ratified the Constitution, and that year Rhode Island finally did so too.
On March 4, 1789, the Congress that had been set up by the Articles of confederation declared the Constitution in effect. On April 30, George Washington was inaugurated as the first president of the United States under the Constitution.
Government Principles in the Constitution
The framers based the Constitution on five basic principles:
- Popular Sovereignty
- Limited Government
- Federalism
- Separation of Powers
- Checks and Balances
Popular Sovereignty:
When the people consent to be governed and spell out the rules by which they will allow that governing to happen, this is called popular sovereignty. Our Constitution is a realization of this principle. The people- not a king, dictator, or president- are supreme.
Limited Government:
In the Constitution the people grant the government limited powers to act on their behalf. Article 1 of the Constitution identifies the powers that the government has and has not been granted. This established citizen rights, as opposed to government rights.
Federalism:
The Founding Fathers established a system of shared power called federalism. In this system, the states keep certain powers while giving up other powers to a strong central government.
Separation of Powers:
To prevent any group of government from gaining too much authority, the Constitution divides the federal government into three branches.
Checks and Balances:
The Founders were very smart. They set up the federal government in a way that lets the three branches keep an eye on each other's powers and authority in a system of checks and balances.
To prevent any group of government from gaining too much authority, the Constitution divides the federal government into three branches.
- The Legislative Branch: or Congress- makes the laws. Congress consists of a House of Representatives and the Senate.
- The Executive Branch: headed by the president, carries out the laws.
- The Judicial Branch: consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts, interprets the laws as it decides cases.
Checks and Balances:
The Founders were very smart. They set up the federal government in a way that lets the three branches keep an eye on each other's powers and authority in a system of checks and balances.
3.3- THE STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION
The Constitution consists of an introductory paragraph called the Preamble, seven articles, and 27 amendments that were added over time.
The Preamble:
The Preamble lists six goals for the United States government:
The seven articles describe how the government is organized and how it works.
Article 1- The Legislative Branch
Article 6- Debts, Federal Supremacy, Oaths of Office
(We will talk about the Bill of Rights and Amendments 11-27 in the next chapter.)
The Preamble:
The Preamble lists six goals for the United States government:
- To form a more Perfect Union.
- To establish justice.
- To ensure the domestic tranquility or peace.
- To provide for the common defense.
- To promote the general welfare.
- To secure the blessings of liberty.
The seven articles describe how the government is organized and how it works.
Article 1- The Legislative Branch
- Section 1- The Congress
- Section 2- The House of Representatives
- Section 3- the Senate
- Section 4- Elections and Meetings of Congress
- Section 5- Rules of Procedure for Congress
- Section 6- Privileges and Restrictions of the Members of Congress
- Section 7- How Laws are Made
- Section 8- Powers Granted to Congress
- Section 9- Powers Denied to Congress
- Section 10- Powers Denied to the States.
- Section 1- Office of the President and Vice President
- Section 2- Powers Granted to the President
- Section 3- Duties of the President
- Section 4- Removal from Office.
- Section 1- Federal Courts
- Section 2- Powers of the Federal Courts
- Section 3- Crime of Treason
- Section 1- Recognition by Each State of Acts of Other States.
- Section 2- Rights of Citizens in States They Do Not have Residence.
- Section 3- Treatment of New States and Territories
- Section 4- Guarantees to the States.
Article 6- Debts, Federal Supremacy, Oaths of Office
- Section 1- Prior Debts
- Section 2- The Supreme Law of the Land
- Section 3- Oaths of Office.
(We will talk about the Bill of Rights and Amendments 11-27 in the next chapter.)
3.4- AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION
The amendment process allows law makers to change or add to the Constitution, but not easily. Since 1788, several thousand amendments- formal changes or additions to the Constitution- have been proposed, but only 27 have been passed. The first 10 Amendments- which protect the rights of citizens from the power of the Federal Government- are called The Bill of Rights.
Formal Process:
The amendment process is a power shared between the Federal and State governments.
Proposing an Amendment:
The amendment process lists two different ways by which an amendment to the Constitution may be proposed.
Ratifying an Amendment:
The Constitution also specifies two different ways that states can ratify amendments.
Informal Process:
An amendment is the most formal way to revise the Constitution. There are, however, other ways to bring about change in our government. However- without it being a Formal part of the Constitution- it is not binding.
Examples:
Political Parties, not mentioned in the Constitution, formed shortly after the Constitution was ratified. These are not a formal part of our Governmental System, but they are a part of our government due to general consensus by the population.
Federal Legislation on Education: The Constitution does not give the Federal Government power or authority over Education. If you look at the chart above, you will see that Schools are a State power. However, the Federal Government gives money to the States to implement programs such as Title 9, Special Education, and ESL programs. If the States do not follow Federal Guidelines, they will not get the money for these programs. This gives the Federal Government some authority over Public Education despite not being granted that power by the Constitution.
Formal Process:
The amendment process is a power shared between the Federal and State governments.
Proposing an Amendment:
The amendment process lists two different ways by which an amendment to the Constitution may be proposed.
- Two-thirds of the members of both houses of the federal Congress must vote to propose an amendment.
- Two-thirds of the state legislatures must vote to ask congress to hold a special convention. The states have never (to date) chosen to propose an amendment.
Ratifying an Amendment:
The Constitution also specifies two different ways that states can ratify amendments.
- Three-fourths of the State Legislatures must vote to approve the amendment.
- Conventions in three-fourths of the states must approve the amendments. (Direct vote by the people)
Informal Process:
An amendment is the most formal way to revise the Constitution. There are, however, other ways to bring about change in our government. However- without it being a Formal part of the Constitution- it is not binding.
Examples:
Political Parties, not mentioned in the Constitution, formed shortly after the Constitution was ratified. These are not a formal part of our Governmental System, but they are a part of our government due to general consensus by the population.
Federal Legislation on Education: The Constitution does not give the Federal Government power or authority over Education. If you look at the chart above, you will see that Schools are a State power. However, the Federal Government gives money to the States to implement programs such as Title 9, Special Education, and ESL programs. If the States do not follow Federal Guidelines, they will not get the money for these programs. This gives the Federal Government some authority over Public Education despite not being granted that power by the Constitution.