Download
1 / 27
270 likes | 273 Views
Explore the colonial background of America and the importance of limited self-government. Learn about the factors that led to the Declaration of Independence and the rise of republicanism. Understand the challenges of the Articles of Confederation, the first form of government in the United States.
E N D
The Colonial Background • Conditions in the early English settlements were unimaginable by today’s standards. Why were so many people willing to relocate in America? How important was the concept of limited self-government? • The first New England colony was established in 1620. The people were dissatisfied with the Church of England and sought a place where they could practice their religious beliefs. The compact they formed set forth the idea of consent of the governed.
The Colonial Background • People in each of the colonies became accustomed to making decisions that affected the internal order of the colony. While each colony had only limited authority to make decisions, in practice most governmental actions that affected the people were made within the colony. As time progressed and more colonies were established, the actual control the crown exercised over the colonies decreased. • It is a mistake to think of the colonies as being united as a political force prior to the First Continental Congress (1774). Each colony was separate with its own decision-making government. As each colony prospered, the people had more time to focus on the governing process and a greater stake in the policies enacted.
British Restrictions and Colonial Grievances • From the perspective of the British, the collective colonial governments were creating problems. In order to resolve such problems, in 1763 the British Parliament began to pass laws which treated the colonies as a unit. The major reason for these laws was to raise revenue to help pay off the war debt incurred during the French and Indian Wars (1756-1763).
The Colonial Response: The Continental Congresses • The colonists’ began to gradually realize they were similar in many respects and that as a political unit they would have more influence with Parliament if they were united. Still, the focus of these political meetings was to restore the political structure that was in existence prior to the passage of legislation affecting the internal operations of each colony by Parliament. Had the Crown and Parliament relented on many of their demands it is possible the Declaration of Independence would never have occurred.
Declaring Independence • The birth of the nation is linked to the date 1776. However, it is not correct to think of the government of the United States as beginning in 1776. The government as provided by the Constitution did not begin until 1789. Many events had to occur for the development of the Constitution and each of these events happened over a 13-year time frame. One way to illustrate this point is to subtract the following: 1789 2005(or 13 years from the current date) - 13 - 13 1776 1992 • There have been dramatic changes in the world in the last 13 years, changes that no one could have correctly predicted 13 years ago. The same was true for the changes the people in United States encountered in the 13 years from 1776 to 1789.
Declaring Independence • People have natural rights including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Does it matter how the term “people” is defined? Did the members of the Second Continental Congress mean all people? What of the rights of women? What of the rights of Native Americans? What of the rights of slaves? • An important component of the Declaration of Independence was the concept of a social contract, that came from the experiences of the formers of the Mayflower Compact. Like that compact more than 200 years before, the Declaration of Independence was based on the idea of consent of the governed, and that governments had the responsibility to protect the natural right rights of its citizens. If the government failed to do so, the people had the right to revolt.
The Rise of Republicanism • Republican as used here is not related to the current Republican party. The Republican party of today did not begin until 1856, 80 years after this group known as republicans. While republicans were opposed to rule by the British, they also were opposed to rule by any central authority. They were very much in opposition to a permanent Union of the States. Each state was seen as the sovereign authority and the only legitimate ruling force.
The Articles of Confederation: Our First Form of Government • A confederation is a difficult concept for most modern Americans to grasp. We have come to think of the United States as a large political unit, which has secondary levels of smaller political units (i.e., state and local governments). What exists today is a vastly different form of government than the form that existed under the Articles of Confederation. A modern Confederacy might look something like the Confederation of Independent States (the government formed by the states of the former Soviet Union.) • States retained most of the power and the central government had a very limited role in the governing process. The loyalty most citizens had was to their state first and foremost.
The Articles of Confederation: Our First Form of Government • The primary reason for the establishment of the Articles was to organize the states so they could defeat the British forces and gain independence from Great Britain. Once independence was granted there were less pressure on the states to organize for the collective good. • The lack of a strong central authority to resolve disputes between the states, and to organize the states for the collective good, including the organization of a militia, was crucial to the development of the Constitutional Convention. • Events like Shays’ Rebellion convinced many political leaders that the national government, under the Articles of Confederation, and individual state governments were incapable of resolving the most pressing problems. The solution appeared to be the establishment of a stronger central government.
Drafting the Constitution • Establishing a stronger central government would prove to be a very difficult task. A major obstacle was the republicans who opposed any centralization of power. Those who favored a stronger government became known as Federalists. However, there was no agreement among the Federalists concerning the structure and division of power for this new government. • By today’s standards, it is easy to assume that nearly everyone favored a new government. Although there were major problems, each state still had total control within its jurisdiction. A new government would mean a loss of power for state governments and less opportunity for the people to influence the government.
Drafting the Constitution • In drafting the Constitution, several key compromises were reached. On important one was the Great Compromise, which was a compromise between more populous states, who advocated representation based on population (the Virginia Plan) and the small states, who advocated representation equal for each state (the New Jersey Plan). The Great Compromise (or the Connecticut Plan) provided for a bicameral legislature with one house based on population, another with equal representation for each state. • Another compromise concerned the issue of slavery. Northern states wanted to ban the importation of slaves, while Southern states did not. Yet, southern states wanted slaves counted in the population for the purposes of determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives. The Three-Fifths compromises compromised by stating that 3/5 of the slaves would be counted (or each slave would count as 3/5 of a person.)
The Final Document • The founding fathers produced a government that did have considerable more power for a central authority. However, it is also clear that these men were distrustful of those who would hold this power and of the people who would select the governmental officials. • Power was divided between the three major branches and each branch was encouraged to seek more power from the other two branches. This idea was based on the assumption that “ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” Since each branch of government would attempt to gain more power each branch would serve to check the power of the other two branches. • Power also was diffused by the creation of our federal system of government, where both the national and the state governments each have their own sphere of influence.
The Difficult Road to Ratification • The Constitution was not made public until September 17, 1787. The public had no input as to what the document would include. Furthermore, the Constitution violated the provision in the Articles of Confederation for alterations to the government. What would public reaction be today if Congress passed a major legislative proposal where the public had no forewarning? Would it be difficult for Congress to persuade the public such legislation was in the public’s best interest? What would be the reaction of the media and political leaders at the state level to decisions that violated the Constitution?
The Difficult Road to Ratification • The Federalist Papers were an attempt to persuade the public to support the new form of government. Federalist #10 and Federalist #51 (see Appendix D in the text) provide an excellent view of James Madison’s political theory concerning human nature. Madison’s ideas are as relevant today as they were in 1787. • What would Madison think about interest groups in modern society? • Would Madison approve of the current two political party system which controls virtually all levels of government in the United States? • In Federalist #51, Madison indicates “in a republican government the legislative branch naturally predominates.” Would Madison approve of the expansion of the power of the executive branch? What would Madison think of the line-item veto passed by the 104th Congress in 1996? Would Madison agree with the Supreme Court’s 1997 determination that the line-item veto violated separation of powers?
The Difficult Road to Ratification • What would have occurred if one or more of the states had rejected the Constitution? If a large state like New York or Virginia had voted to reject the Constitution would the United States government have taken economic and/or political sanctions against such a state? Could a single state have managed to survive outside the Union of states?
The Bill of Rights • Contrary to popular belief, the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments. The restrictions only were applicable to the national government until the 14th amendment incorporated some of these rights. Even though these restrictions were only applicable to the national government, they were never the less still very important for the protection of the people. • There were twelve proposed amendments in the Bill of Rights but only ten were ratified by the original thirteen states. The other two proposed amendments in this package were left in limbo. Eventually (1992), one of these two amendments was ratified by the requisite number of states and is now the 27th amendment. This leads to an interesting question: Are the Bill of Rights the first ten amendments, or does the Bill of Rights include the 27th amendment?
Altering the Constitution: The Formal Amendment Process • The founding fathers realized the Articles of Confederation were too difficult to alter. Therefore, the amendment process to the Constitution was made less difficult, but it still would be a rigorous process. The basic reasoning for this was that every government needs to be able to cope with new and unforeseen problems and changes in the original document. However, any change should be taken with extreme caution. If the process to amend the Constitution is rigorous, there should be ample time to consider the merits of such a change.
Altering the Constitution: The Formal Amendment Process • How difficult is it to amend the Constitution? • From 1789 through 2003, 27 amendments passed, which represents one amendment every 7.9 years—a misleading ratio since 10 of those amendments came within the first four years. • From 1791 through 2003 there have only been 17 amendments. That represents one amendment every 12.4 years. • Although there are always numerous recommendations for alterations to the Constitution, few of these recommendations, especially controversial ones, have a realistic chance of success.
Informal Methods of Constitutional Change • While it is very difficult to amend the Constitution, the Constitution has changed through interpretation. Since the case of Marbury v. Madison the federal courts have made major decisions concerning the meaning of the Constitution. • Such interpretation has not been limited to the federal judiciary. Both the legislative and executive branches have interpreted the Constitution. Once an interpretation has been made and there is no challenge to this type of action, there has been a change in the meaning of the Constitution.
