ANG W1

2 The U.S. Constitution Roel Smart/iStock/Thinkstock Learning Objectives By the end of this chapter, you should be able to• Describe early forms of American government, and explain how they formed the basis for the U.S. Constitution.

• Explain the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, and describe how these weaknesses helped lead to the Constitutional Convention.

• Describe the Constitutional Convention, and analyze the various proposals presented.

• Analyze separation of powers and checks and balances.

• Describe the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists over the inclusion of a bill of rights in the U.S. Constitution. fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 23 3/24/16 1:39 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. On October 1, 2013, the U.S. government shut down. This meant that “non-essential” govern- ment services—parks and museums, certain regulatory agencies, and other services—were suspended while federal employees who performed non-essential services were instructed not to work. These services did not resume until October 17, 2013.

What normally causes a government shutdown is a failure between the president and Con- gress to agree on a budget. While the Constitution does not require a budget, the government cannot function without one. The budget is a legislative process like any other—majorities within each house of Congress must pass the same budget while the president must sign it for it to take effect. If no agreement is made, then the government cannot operate and is effectively shut down, normally in early October because Congress’s budget designations for a given fiscal year expire on September 30.

Because Congress has the “power of the purse,” many believe that the budget originates in Congress. However, for many years now the practice has been that the president collects bud - get estimates and requests from all the agencies and departments in the executive branch, puts them together, and then submits a budget proposal to Congress. Following much debate and many modifications, Congress then passes a budget, appropriating , or designating, what funds can be spent for a specific purpose. The budget then goes back to the president for his or her signature. In essence, when the president presents the proposed budget to Congress, the president signals to Congress that if the proposed budget is passed as presented it will not be vetoed and government will continue to function without interruption.

In 2013, the U.S. House of Representatives, dominated by Republicans, disagreed with the U.S. Senate, composed of a majority of Democrats, on an appropriations continuing resolution that would have kept the government running. House Republicans wanted to delay or defund the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) (discussed in Chapter 1) in exchange for supporting a budget resolution. The Democratic-led Senate refused and passed several resolutions that would maintain current funding levels and spending cuts. Even if the Senate had agreed to House demands, President Barack Obama had threatened to veto any budget that delayed the PPACA. The Constitution requires that the president must either accept the budget as it is or reject the budget because the president may not veto any part of the budget.

The president may not accept some parts of the budget and reject others. These fundamental disagreements caused the government to shut down until a budget resolution was passed.

Certainly, both sides pointed fingers blaming the other for the government shutdown— Republicans blamed Democrats, the House blamed the Senate, the Senate blamed the House, and the House blamed the president. In some respects, this was for good reason: The U.S. Con- stitution provides that both houses of Congress and the president cannot operate without the cooperation of the others. The Framers intended Congress to have the “power of the purse,” or control of the nation’s finances. The president can propose a budget, but he or she cannot spend public monies unless Congress has appropriated them. However, the appropriation of money cannot be final until the president signs it into law. If no agreement is made, then the government cannot operate and is effectively shut down.

Why did the Framers not make it easier for the government to maintain operations? Because they wanted to incorporate a system of checks and balances, as well as a system of separa - tion of powers. If each branch could act on its own without the agreement of the others, each might have sufficient power to limit individual liberties. By dividing power, it would be much fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 24 3/24/16 1:39 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 2.1 Early American Government more difficult for government to act on much of anything, thus preserving individual liber- ties. Checks and balances, as we will see, are the cornerstone of the American constitutional system.

As the 2013 shutdown illustrates, there are two ways to look at checks and balances. One is to say that the system is a prescription for endless gridlock—in essence, a political stalemate— and ineffective government. Another is to view it as a prescription for government by consen - sus, because everybody needs to work together to get things done.

In this chapter, we look at the U.S. Constitution, the process by which it was formed, and the rights and restrictions that it provides to the states and to the American people. As one of the nation’s foundational documents, the Constitution establishes the framework for the federal government. It also functions as a contract between the national government and the states that created it.

2.1 Early American Government The U.S. Constitution is actually modeled on the earlier governments found in the colonies.

Specifically, it has roots in the early American settlements of the 1600s. American govern - ment as it is known today began as something small and private and evolved into a larger self-government.

The First English Settlements The first English settlements in colo- nial America began as private compa- nies composed of individuals seeking economic gain. The first successful English settlement began in James- town, Virginia, in 1607, after King James I granted a charter to the Virginia Company to establish a settlement in the Chesapeake region. The Virginia Company in turn encouraged people to settle the new colony by offering to pay their travel expenses. In exchange, the settlers were expected to send the company a share of their profits. (The settlers hoped to find gold, but in the colony’s early years they primarily col - lected lumber, tar, pitch, and iron for export back to England.) By granting the charter, the king gave the company authority over the colony, and by sending profit shares back to the company, the settlers effectively paid taxes. Because the company was based in England, the settlers had no more voice in their government than if the king himself retained absolute rule. © Bettmann/Corbis Colonists arrive in Jamestown, Virginia. King James I granted a charter to the Virginia Company, which offered to pay potential settlers’ traveling expenses to the New World. fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 25 3/24/16 1:39 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 2.1 Early American Government In the years following the initial Jamestown settlement, more settlers came to the New World, and by 1619 there were 11 settlements in Virginia. The Virginia Company, however, wanted the colony to grow even faster. To induce more people to come, the company gave property- owning male settlers the right to vote and elect their own assembly, known as the House of Burgesses. This was the beginning of American self-government.

Colonial Assemblies A striking feature of American colonial development was the lack of control by the British government. All but one of the colonies had originally been companies of shareholders or proprietorships whose authority was based in charters granted by the Crown. While the company that received the charter was able to pick a governor for the colony, the principal governing institutions were actually the assemblies elected by the colonists. The assemblies wielded considerable power, including the right to raise troops, to levy taxes, and to pass laws. The one colony that did not develop along these lines was Georgia. Georgia was the last colony founded. Its purpose was to serve as a place for debtors recently released from prison to go to get a fresh start. Georgia was also established to serve as a buffer between Florida and South Carolina to guard against Spanish expansion from Florida. The name of this last colony was selected to honor King George II, who granted the charter for establishing the colony.The colonies never thought of them- selves as subservient to the Crown.

Rather, they viewed themselves as commonwealths, with the assemblies being the locus of rightful power and authority. In Plymouth, Massachu - setts, for instance, the Pilgrims estab - lished a system of self-government based on the Mayflower Compact , an agreement they made on their way to America in 1620. Under the Mayflower Compact, the settlers agreed to abide by the decisions of the majority and conduct their affairs without outside interference, especially from the Brit - ish. The physical distance between America and England left the colonial assemblies with a great deal of autonomy.

Injustice, Rebellion, and the Continental Congress Beginning around 1700, the colonies found themselves absorbed into the larger conflicts plaguing Europe. From 1689 through 1763, a series of wars was fought on the European con - tinent and had much to do with French expansionist ambitions. But a component of those wars was fought in the colonies by British troops. Conflicts extended into the colonies as part of the larger fight between colonial factions for more power and spheres of control. SuperStock/SuperStock The Mayflower Compact was a governing document written by the Pilgrims as they traveled to America. fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 26 3/24/16 1:39 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 2.1 Early American Government During the late 1700s, the British Crown attempted to impose its authority and restrict the liberties of the colonists mostly by imposing new taxes to help pay for the wars. But some of the restrictions were limitations on colonial trade as the British government sought to protect industry at home. The British Parliament, for instance, passed the Wool Act in 1699, which not only increased taxes but also increased control over colonial trade and production.

American colonies were prohibited from exporting wool to markets outside the colonies. The Crown also limited imports of wools and linens from other areas in the British Empire.

Most colonists saw themselves as good English subjects who were entitled to the same rights as their countrymen anywhere else in the world. In England itself, the English people (but not the colonists) were represented in the House of Commons, part of the British Parliament. In the same vein, the colonists saw the colonial assemblies as their own representative bodies. It was one thing for the assemblies to pass laws affecting them. But it was quite another for the British Parliament to impose laws on people who were not represented in that body.

The rallying cry for the American Revolution was “No taxation without representation,” and one of the first taxes that would pave the way for war was the Sugar Act of 1764, which drew colonists’ anger more because of its economic impact than because of its political signifi- cance. The tax hit the colonies during a depression, which many attributed to the tax itself.

The Stamp Act of 1765 represented an attempt by the British government to force the colo - nies to shoulder some of the expense of providing defense during the French and Indian War.

Colonists had to pay a tax on all printed materials, including books, newspapers, magazines, and legal documents, all of which were required to bear an embossed stamp.

Following the Stamp Act, Parliament passed the Townshend Acts of 1767, which were even harsher. Named after Charles Townshend, chancellor of the British Exchequer (the British Treasury), these acts imposed new taxes on glass, lead, paper, paint, and tea. The Townshend Acts were further reinforcement of Britain’s absolute power to enact any laws to govern the colonies. The colonists protested these and other taxes with boycotts and other forms of pro - test, including violence. Many violent protests centered on Boston, and they prompted the British to send in troops to pacify the city.

Ultimately, most of these taxes were repealed, except for the tax on tea. Still, the protests con- tinued, culminating in the Boston Tea Party of 1773. Because officials refused to return three shiploads of tea to Britain, a group of colonists boarded English ships in Boston and dumped hundreds of chests of tea into Boston Harbor to protest the tax. This became known as the Boston Tea Party.

In response to the Boston Tea Party, Parliament passed a series of laws that colonists called the Intolerable Acts. The purposes of these acts included closing the port of Boston until all of the damage caused by the Tea Party was repaid, putting Massachusetts under military rule with more troops arriving in that colony, making it illegal for royal officials to be brought to trial in the colonies (and instead holding their trials in England), ending colonial government in Massachusetts and allowing the royal governor to appoint the colonial legislature, and giv - ing land claimed by Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Virginia to Canada.

Meanwhile, by 1774, the colonies had established the first continental legislative body, or Continental Congress . The British responded by sending even more troops. The Congress fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 27 3/24/16 1:39 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 2.2 Why a New Constitution?

met briefly in Philadelphia in 1774 and consisted of 56 delegates from all 13 colonies. Most of the delegates were not ready to separate from the British; rather, they wanted both the king and Parliament to treat the colonies more fairly. Early the following year, however, skirmishes between armed colonists and British troops turned deadly. By the time the second Continen- tal Congress met in May of 1775, the American Revolutionary War had begun. Although there were still those who wanted to work something out with Britain, there was now a growing movement for independence.

Independence and Confederation The colonies declared their independence on July 4, 1776, with the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration was nothing more than a statement announcing separa - tion—it did not form a government. Actual independence came only through military vic - tory, which required, at a minimum, that the newly independent states remain united. The Continental Congress raised an army and placed it under the command of George Washing- ton (1732–1799). The following year, the Congress drafted the Articles of Confederation to unite the states. The Articles were the first U.S. constitution. Born from a revolutionary spirit suspicious of strong central government, in which authority would be concentrated in a single entity, the Articles of Confederation created a “firm league of friendship” (a phrase from Article III of the Articles) among the states.

The Articles invested the greatest power in the individual states and left the new national government weak and powerless. The revolution was a rebellion against strong centralized power; therefore, it was inevitable that the colonists would not form a government with strong central authority. But the Articles proved inadequate to maintain unity, and, shortly after the War of Independence was over, the confederation began to unravel.

2.2 Why a New Constitution? The Articles had three fatal flaws. First and foremost, they failed to give the national govern - ment the power of the purse, meaning that they granted the government neither the power to levy taxes directly on the people nor the power to force the states to pay their share of expenses. The national government could not even tax to pay its war debts. Second, any amendments to the Articles required the unanimous approval of the state legislatures. And third, they did not provide for a chief executive to carry out essential tasks and deal with crises.

The main problem with the Articles of Confederation was the absence of strong central authority. This meant that the United States would have no common defense if it were attacked. An individual state could easily be overrun by a foreign government. The absence of central authority was a problem for another reason as well. The new government could not regulate commerce, and that threatened the development of a national economy. Associated Press The Articles of Confederation, shown here, were adopted by the Continental Congress in 1777.

The Constitutional Convention , where delegates would meet to revise the Arti - cles and eventually draft the U.S. Con- stitution, was actually preceded by the Annapolis Convention. A small group of delegates met at Annapolis, Maryland, in September 1786 to address another one of the failings of the Articles: the lack of authority to impose uniform commercial regulations among the states. This meet- ing had been called into session by the Continental Congress but was not really a proper convention. Only 12 delegates from five of the 13 states showed up, which meant that the delegates had no authority to do anything and their deci- sions would not represent the will of all of the states.

Those who did show up had some strong views about what needed to be done. James Madison (1751–1836) and Edmund Randolph (1753–1813), both of Virginia, and Alexander Hamilton (1755–1804) of New York, all of whom would attend the Constitutional Conven- tion, were convinced that the new nation needed much stronger central authority.

Hamilton wrote to the Continental Con - gress on behalf of Madison, Randolph, and himself, requesting that the states appoint commissioners to meet in Philadelphia to consider these matters. Those in Annapo - lis, especially Madison and Hamilton, wanted to overhaul the Articles and create a whole new government.

Some of the Framers were also concerned that a fragmented confederation would make it more difficult, if not impossible, to create a national economy. Without a central authority reg - ulating interstate commerce , each state was free to establish its own tariffs. These applied equally to the other states, just as they did to other nations. A national economy would require uniform standards and a central authority empowered to enforce them.

In the early 20 th century, historian Charles Beard (1913) argued that the Constitution was more about serving the economic interests of the Framers than the lofty philosophical and ethical principles found in the Declaration of Independence. As far as Beard was concerned, the Framers sought to promote commerce and protect their property from radical state leg - islatures. It is certainly true that those who participated in the Constitutional Convention were wealthy men who were concerned about the absence of national regulatory authority on matters of commerce. met briefly in Philadelphia in 1774 and consisted of 56 delegates from all 13 colonies. Most of the delegates were not ready to separate from the British; rather, they wanted both the king and Parliament to treat the colonies more fairly. Early the following year, however, skirmishes between armed colonists and British troops turned deadly. By the time the second Continen- tal Congress met in May of 1775, the American Revolutionary War had begun. Although there were still those who wanted to work something out with Britain, there was now a growing movement for independence.

2.2 Why a New Constitution?

The Articles had three fatal flaws. First and foremost, they failed to give the national govern - ment the power of the purse, meaning that they granted the government neither the power to levy taxes directly on the people nor the power to force the states to pay their share of expenses. The national government could not even tax to pay its war debts. Second, any amendments to the Articles required the unanimous approval of the state legislatures. And third, they did not provide for a chief executive to carry out essential tasks and deal with crises.

However, wariness of central authority resulted in a weak, unworkable national government, and many agreed the Articles would need to be revised. fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 29 3/24/16 1:39 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 2.3 The Constitutional Convention Others, such as Alexander Hamilton, stressed the public interest of what they called a “com- mercial republic,” the view that the nation’s public interest was in part defined by free trade and commercial activity, and that this interest could be served by individuals freely pursuing their economic self-interests unfettered by government. By crafting a document that estab- lished the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce while establishing that laws coming from Congress would be the supreme laws of the land, the Framers could create a national government with real power. These views represented Hamilton’s views about gov - ernment regulation of the economy.

2.3 The Constitutional Convention The Constitutional Convention convened in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787 at the direction of the Continental Congress, although the deliberations were kept secret. Dele - gates were charged only with revising the Articles, but it was out of this convention that the U.S. Constitution would emerge. Who Came to the Convention?

Many of those attending the Convention had already achieved great prominence. Several were older and wealthy, while others were relatively young. Because the convention debates were held in secret, only a few people recorded the proceedings. One of these persons was James Madison, who is commonly regarded as the father of the U.S. Constitution. Madison devel - oped, among other provisions, the constitutional system of checks and balances. He, along with Hamilton, pushed for strong national authority.

Most of the other convention delegates came with a strong sense of duty to represent their respec- tive states. Although there was general agreement that the Articles were unworkable, disagreements arose over how to replace them. Madison, for instance, wanted to overturn equal representation of the states. Others argued the need for a strong executive. Delegates from slave states wanted their slaves to be counted in the population so that their states would enjoy greater representation in the as-yet-undeveloped national legislature.

In addition to a strong central government, del- egates to the Constitutional Convention wanted a system that employed checks and balances. The delegates did not trust the masses to govern them- selves yet believed that a legitimate government could exist only if it rested on popular sovereignty.

The delegates wanted a government that would be close to the people while at the same time free to make decisions on behalf of the nation without The White House Historical Association Like Hamilton, James Madison believed in a strong central government. He helped formulate the Virginia Plan. fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 30 3/24/16 1:39 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 2.3 The Constitutional Convention securing public approval for those decisions. To the extent that they sought to establish a democracy, it was to be a representative democracy consistent with republican principles.

They outlined these goals in large part due to their experiences with the British government.

At the same time, the delegates wanted to create a durable system of government that would withstand the test of time. They could achieve this goal if they created a general and broad document that avoided specifics. In this way, the Constitution could be applied to future cir- cumstances. The Preamble of the Constitution declares the basic goals of government, while the seven articles of the Constitution that follow the Preamble establish general rules by which government institutions would operate, but the Framers purposely avoided establish- ing procedures for governing.

Initial Constitutional Proposals Most of the Framers wanted to create a republican government, but different factions still had different ideas of what they wanted to accomplish, as well as how everyone’s interests should be represented. For example, the delegates confronted the contentious issue of how both the large and small population states would be represented in the legislature. Under the Articles, each state was represented in the legislature by one vote, which put all states, regardless of population, on equal footing. Should the new constitution continue providing equal represen - tation for each state regardless of size or population, or would representation be proportion - ate to population, with larger states having more votes than less populous ones?

Democratic principles required that larger states have greater representation. But that was a more difficult issue than it appeared. Many large states, such as Virginia, were also slave states. Would the slave population in those states contribute to the population numbers that determined their representation? Slaves were not considered citizens, and to have them included would, at least in the minds of the small states, give the large states an unfair advan - tage. There was also the issue of state sovereignty, or self-determination. For each state to have one vote, as they did under the Articles of Confederation, was for each state to be equal in its sovereignty. This meant that each state had equal power to participate in national deci- sions. Would state sovereignty be similarly respected in the new national government? Small states believed that if they lost their equality in the legislature that their residents would also lose their political voice, or sovereignty, in the national government. If the large states gained power in the new government (and if this new power was enhanced by counting slaves among the state populations), the small states would be overshadowed by the large states and resi - dents of the small states would lose their sovereignty in the proposed system.

Related to this question was the issue of the chief executive and how powerful that executive would be. A powerful national chief executive could also threaten state sovereignty because the chief executive would govern the nation despite state-level differences. For some, the idea of a chief executive evoked images of a king with centralized power and authority who could call on national troops to force his will on the states, something not provided for in the Arti - cles. But the absence of the legislature during a time of crisis meant that no one could act.

In the previous chapter, we defined politics as who gets what, when, and how, and the Con- stitution would determine exactly that. As lofty as the principles and values of the Framers may have been, each delegate to the Constitutional Convention was also concerned with the interests and relative positions of his state. fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 31 3/24/16 1:39 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 2.3 The Constitutional Convention Virginia Plan During the convention, James Madison joined with two of Virginia’s other delegates, George Washington and Governor Edmund Randolph, to introduce a system that provided for a strong central government. The proposal came to be known as the Virginia Plan, which was drafted by Madison and presented to the convention by Edmund Randolph. (Because Randolph presented it, it also came to be known as the Randolph Plan.) Under the plan, the people would select the House of Representatives as a practical expression of democracy. Its members would be close to the people and would stand for regular elections. Because the number of representatives each state had in the House was to be determined by its popula - tion, the plan favored large states such as Virginia. The legislature’s upper chamber, the Sen- ate, would be selected by the House of Representatives, and the legislature as a whole would choose the president.

The Virginia Plan did not specify terms of office, but it did seek to limit the executive and members of the House to one term. Moreover, it called for an independent judiciary. The plan included other checks and balances. It allowed for legislative acts to be vetoed by a council composed of the executive and selected members of the judicial branch. Their veto could, in turn, be overridden by an unspecified legislative majority.

Large states supported the Virginia Plan because it would grant them greater representation.

The smaller states were generally opposed because they were afraid that they would lose substantial power in the national government. Among the provisions that worried many of the states was one that would have empowered the national government to use military force against those states that might otherwise refuse to comply with national authority. The New Jersey Plan Those opposed to the Virginia Plan favored an alternative that arose from the New Jersey delega - tion. One member of that delegation, William Pat - erson (1745–1806), intended to block any nation - alist plan to overhaul the Articles of Confederation.

He launched an assault on the Virginia Plan. He was particularly concerned about proportional representation—the idea that large states would have more representatives than the small ones. He believed that the large states would dominate the small states and that Virginia specifically intended to undermine the other states’ sovereign powers.

As a counterproposal, he, along with David Brear- ley of New Jersey, Roger Sherman of Connecticut, Luther Martin of Maryland, and John Lansing of New York, offered what came to be known as the New Jersey Plan . Whereas the Virginia Plan called for a supreme national government, the New Jer - sey Plan called for one that would be distinctly © Bettmann/Corbis William Paterson was the main architect of the New Jersey Plan. The plan called for a federal government, with pow- ers divided between national and state governments. fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 32 3/24/16 1:39 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 2.3 The Constitutional Convention federal, with carefully listed powers divided between national and state governments. This meant that a federal government would be the combination of the states and the national gov- ernment, whose power and authority would, in effect, be shared. Under this proposal, there would be a single-chamber national legislature in which each state, regardless of size, would have one vote.

Paterson’s intention was to protect the power of smaller states. While the plan would grant the new government the power to levy taxes on imports and to regulate trade and commerce, the representation of individual states would be no different from how it had been under the Articles of Confederation. Under the New Jersey Plan, the “federal executive” would be elected by the individual states represented in Congress. Again, this was consistent with the executive committee system under the Articles. Nationalists such as Madison thought that the proposal represented a backward step. For a full month, the Convention was deadlocked between large-state nationalists and small-state defenders.

Connecticut Plan and the Great Compromise As a compromise, Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut proposed the Con- necticut Plan (also known as the Great Compromise), which, like the Virginia Plan, would create a bicameral legislature. This plan was designed to please both nationalists and states’ rights proponents. As with the Virginia Plan, representation in the House of Representatives would be based on population, with each member representing a district of a specified num- ber of persons. Larger states would have more representatives than smaller states would. To foster closeness between representatives and the people, House members would serve for 2 years and then stand for reelection. The Connecticut Plan also indicated that all bills for raising taxes had to originate in the House of Representatives. To ensure that each state would get the number of representatives to which it was entitled, a census of all inhabitants of the United States was to be taken every 10 years.

The Senate was designed to be similar to the body proposed by the New Jersey Plan. The Senate would specifically represent the states. In recognition of their equal sovereignty, each state would have two seats, regardless of population. Contrary to the Vir - ginia Plan, which envisioned the House selecting senators, the Connecticut Plan allowed for members to be directly chosen by their respective state legis - latures (a practice that would be replaced by the 17 th Amendment, ratified in 1913, which provided for the popular election of U.S. senators). Senators would serve for terms of 6 years. A 6-year term would suggest that senators would not have to worry about reelection soon after taking office, so they would have greater opportunity to think about the larger public interest. Senate terms would also be staggered so that one third of the Senate would be up for election every 2 years. Elections would Universal Images Group/Getty Images The Connecticut Compromise, painted by Bradley Stevens, depicts Roger Sherman, left, and Oliver Ellsworth drafting the Connecticut Plan, which called for senators to be appointed by their respective legislatures. fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 33 3/24/16 1:39 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 2.3 The Constitutional Convention take place in even-numbered years. Because only a portion of the Senate could potentially be replaced, there would be stability and continuity. Figure 2.1 compares the Virginia Plan, the New Jersey Plan, and the Great Compromise.

Figure 2.1: Comparing the plans The Great Compromise included elements of both the Virginia and the New Jersey Plans.

Adapted from http://chogger.com/fhMeb/great-compromise fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 34 3/24/16 1:39 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 2.3 The Constitutional Convention The Electoral College Madison initially wanted the executive to be chosen by the legislative body. He believed that, because the executive implements legislative actions, the executive should be responsive to it. Further, the concept of a president was that of somebody who presided over legislative hearings. Opponents claimed that this proposal was inconsistent with republican principles of separation of powers. The Framers were also not ready to allow the people to directly elect the president because they were not convinced that the people could make rational, dispas- sionate decisions. Meanwhile, the states wanted a say in selecting the president even though the Framers believed that the states would have too much power if they chose the president.

As a compromise, the Framers created the Electoral College as the body responsible for elect - ing the president. The U.S. Constitution does not outline how electors are chosen, nor does it state what role, if any, the popular vote will play in determining how electors vote when selecting the president. Almost all states require the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state to earn all of that state’s Electoral College votes (the “winner-take-all” system, which is in place in 48 states), while other states (Nebraska and Maine) use a district system for allo - cating Electoral College votes based on the popular vote. The number of members of Congress representing any state equals the number of electors representing that state in the Electoral College. In practical terms, then, the president is indirectly chosen by the people.

The Framers actually hoped that this peculiar system would not work. To win the presidency, a candidate would have to receive a majority of electoral votes. In the elections of 1796 and 1800, this meant that a minimum of 70 electoral votes were needed to win a presidential election. (Today, out of 538 electors, 270 are needed to win; see Figure 2.2. The number of available electoral votes has been 538 since 1964 because the District of Columbia was given three electoral votes with the 23 rd Amendment in 1961. There are 435 members of the U.S.

House of Representatives and 100 senators.) At the time, a presidential election consisted of several candidates. The candidate receiving the second-highest number of electoral votes became the vice president. The Constitution provides that if the Electoral College fails to select a president, the House of Representatives selects the president and the Senate selects the vice president. Each state receives one vote in both decisions. Virginia Plan supporters wanted presidential elections to happen this way. fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 35 3/24/16 1:39 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 2.3 The Constitutional Convention Figure 2.2: The Electoral College The Constitution called for the national executive to be chosen by the Electoral College rather than being directly elected by the people. Note that North Carolina and Rhode Island had not yet ratified the Constitution by the 1789 election, and New York did not choose electors for this election.

Data from “2012 Presidential General Election Results,” by D. Leip, 2012 (http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html) and “U.S.

Electoral College,” by National Archives and Records Administration, n.d. ( http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college /votes/1789_1821.html#1788 ). fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 36 3/24/16 1:39 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 2.3 The Constitutional Convention The Three-Fifths Compromise The Connecticut Plan also offered a compromise between free and slave states. Slave states, such as Virginia, had larger populations because they had slaves (see Figure 2.3). William Paterson was particularly opposed to including slaves in the state’s popula- tion because doing so would indirectly encourage the slave trade. The Con- tinental Congress had initially pro - posed a three-fifths ratio for counting “all other persons” (to avoid using the term “slave”; persons, whether free or slave, included men, women, and chil- dren for Census purposes) as the basis for apportioning legislative representation. In pointing this out at the Convention, Paterson called attention to the hypocrisy of the Virginia delegation, which viewed slaves as people only when it came to demanding more representation. The hypocrisy irked him all the more deeply, perhaps, because Paterson himself was a slave owner. Stepping into the breach, Rufus King of Massachusetts asked the delegates to reaffirm their earlier support of the three- fifths ratio. As King saw it, Northern commercial states would benefit from a more powerful national government that could regulate trade. In return, Paterson was willing to offer the South some representation for their slave wealth.

This imperfect bargain recognized a hard political reality between states seeking to main - tain slavery and those that preferred to fashion a new constitution without it. What followed was a debate focusing on individual state interests rather than moral concerns about slavery.

Under the Three-Fifths Clause, every five slaves were counted as though they were three free citizens for the purposes of increasing representation in slave states. The 13 th Amendment abolished slavery, which nullified the Three-Fifths Clause. SuperStock/SuperStock The Connecticut Plan offered a compromise between slave and free states by counting each slave as three fifths of a person. fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 37 3/24/16 1:39 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 2.3 The Constitutional Convention What the Framers Attempted to Achieve Consider that the Framers wanted a government that would be durable. There was a high probability that the Constitution, being an experiment in liberty, would fail. Durability, they believed, would be achieved through the republican principle of separation of powers. By dividing power among three branches of government, checks and balances could be insti- tuted so that no one branch would have enough power to govern without the cooperation of the others. And, no one branch would have sufficient power to violate individual liberties.

Ultimately, the Framers sought to create a constitutional system that would govern through consensus. The U.S. Constitution’s survival for more than 200 years demonstrates that the Framers’ work was nothing short of remarkable.

Figure 2.3: Slave populations Because slaves made up a substantial portion of the population in many slave-holding states, delegates from those states pushed to count those individuals toward their total population. Members from non- slave-holding states objected on the grounds that it would result in disproportionate representation and possibly encourage the continuation of slavery. In the end, both sides agreed to the Three-Fifths Clause as part of the Great Compromise.

Joeryancivilwar.com fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 38 3/24/16 1:39 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 2.3 The Constitutional Convention The U.S. Constitution requires that laws be enacted with the approval of both legislative chambers. The check of a bicameral legislature makes consensus difficult because each chamber represents different constituencies. A senator takes a statewide approach, while a House member represents 30,000 persons in a single district. Achieving consensus through separation of powers ideally results in a government achieving some republican virtue. Coop- eration is further achieved through the shared functions of appointments and treaty mak - ing. The executive initiates both actions, although both require Senate approval. Because of the requirement for elected senators to approve these actions, the president’s opportunities to impose his or her will and abuse his or her power through these processes are limited.

Rejected treaties (e.g., the Treaty of Versailles, which formed the League of Nations in 1920) or nominations (e.g., U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice nominee Robert Bork in 1987) can- not be vetoed or overturned.

The Constitution retains strict separation between the branches by prohibiting dual office holding. One may not hold an executive branch position while still holding a seat in Congress or on the U.S. Supreme Court. Members of Congress who are appointed by the president to serve in the Cabinet or on the Supreme Court must resign their legislative positions.

Continuity and Change With the British Constitution The Framers sought to create a constitutional system similar to the constitutional monarchy from which they had separated.

They wanted something that would reflect the mixed consti - tution they knew while devel- oping the separation of powers to accomplish this objective.

The institutions they created were not radically different from their British counterparts.

The U.S. House of Represen - tatives resembled the British House of Commons, while the U.S. Senate reflected the elite notion of the British House of Lords. The U.S. executive par- alleled the British monarchy, although the U.S. executive would not hold a hereditary title. What the Framers accom- plished, then, was a cleansing of British institutions built on republican foundations while maintaining continuity with what they saw as the best of British traditions. Juergen Schonnop/iStock/Thinkstock The Framers created institutions that were not radically different from those of the British Parliament. The U.S.

House of Representatives was modeled on the British House of Commons, while the Senate was similar in some ways to the House of Lords. fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 39 3/24/16 1:39 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 2.4 The Three Branches of Government 2.4 The Three Branches of Government The U.S. Constitution is structured around the fundamental principle of separation of powers, the idea that one way to prevent abuse of power, or tyranny, is to separate government pow- ers. The lawmaking process is the greatest of government powers. Consequently, Article I, the legislative branch, is introduced first, followed by the executive branch outlined in Article II.

It is the responsibility of the executive branch to enforce the laws enacted by the legislative branch. The judiciary branch, outlined in Article III, is responsible for resolving legal disputes and adjudicating the laws. Table 2.1 provides a brief listing of some of the branches’ different functions, or powers.

Table 2.1: Branch powers Legislative ExecutiveJudicial • Coin money • Levy taxes • Raise armies • Regulate interstate commerce • Declare war • Confirm presidential appointments • Ratify treaties • Impeach and remove presi- dents and judges • Do what is “necessary and proper” • Act as commander in chief of the military forces • Execute laws • Negotiate treaties • Appoint judges • Appoint ambassadors • Issue pardons • Veto legislation • Conduct foreign policy • Do what is “necessary and proper” • Review laws made by the legislative branch • Engage in constitutional review • Settle disputes between states and national government The Legislative Congress, the legislative branch, is considered the first branch of government. Article I estab - lishes that the Congress will be composed of two chambers: a House of Representatives and a Senate.

Article I, Section 8 deals with the expressed powers of Congress. Among other powers, the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to • impose and collect duties and other taxes necessary to pay national debt and pro- vide for the common defense; • borrow money on U.S. credit; • regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states of the union; • establish uniform rules of naturalization and bankruptcy; • coin money and determine its value; • establish post offices and post roads; • promote the progress of science and useful arts by issuing patents; fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 40 3/24/16 1:39 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 2.4 The Three Branches of Government • create courts and tiers of courts below the Supreme Court; • declare war, raise and support armies, and provide and maintain a navy; • establish rules for government and regulations of land and naval forces; • call forth the militia to execute laws of the union and suppress insurrections and defend against foreign invasions; • organize, arm, and discipline the militia; • exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the district that is to become the national seat of government (Washington, D.C.); and • “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” This last power forms the basis for expansive congressional authority, known as the implied power. The implied power means that, lacking expressed power, Congress may take action if it is “necessary and proper” for fulfilling its expressed powers and obligations. One example is a national bank. While Article I does not empower Congress to create a national bank, Con- gress has inferred that right on the grounds that doing so would be necessary for Congress to fulfill its expressed power of coining money. The Executive The executive branch is considered the second branch of government. Article II of the Consti - tution establishes that executive power shall be vested in the president of the United States, whose term of office will be 4 years. It then establishes the procedures for presidential selec - tion through the Electoral College.

When the president enters office, he or she is required to take the fol - lowing oath: “ I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Abil - ity, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Article II, Section 2 establishes the president as the commander in chief of the armed forces. As commander in chief, the president is said to have the power of the sword, which has also come to reflect the president’s power and authority to enforce national laws. The president’s com - mander in chief power has histori - cally been the basis for presidential prerogative, which will be discussed Scott Andrews-Pool/Getty Images Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts adminis- ters the presidential oath of office to Barack Obama on January 20, 2013. The president’s principal pow- ers are to serve as commander in chief of the armed forces, enforce the laws passed by Congress, and pro- tect and defend the Constitution. fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 41 3/24/16 1:39 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 2.4 The Three Branches of Government further in Chapter 5. For example, during the Civil War (1861–1865), President Abraham Lin- coln did not have the stated authority to use military force against states that sought to leave the union. He justified his action by arguing that preserving and protecting the Constitution would be meaningless if there were no union.

Article II also gives the president the authority to make treaties with foreign governments subject to the advice and consent of the Senate (ratification) and to make Cabinet appoint - ments and ambassador and judicial appointments, all of which require Senate confirmation.

The president is also required to give Congress information on the state of the union “from time to time.” By tradition, this has been an annual report. (Since 1913, with President Wood - row Wilson, the state of the union has been delivered in a speech before a joint session of Congress. Prior to that, presidents would typically send a written report and a clerk would read it before the Congress.) Article I, Section 7 gives the president the power to veto bills passed by Congress. Hamilton viewed the presidential veto as a protection against legislative overreach, such as when Con - gress abused its power in the legislative process. The first presidents rarely used the veto.

George Washington vetoed two bills, while James Madison used the power five times. More recently, President George W. Bush (2001–2009) vetoed 12 bills, while President Bill Clinton (1993–2001) used it 37 times. Congress can override a presidential veto with a two-thirds vote in both chambers.

One key feature of the separation of powers is the procedural due process level of cooperation needed to remove an executive from office. Unlike a parliamentary system, such as in contem - porary England, where the head of the government can be removed through a no-confidence vote, the only mechanism for removing the president is conviction following impeachment, or an accusation of wrongdoing. The president may be removed for “ Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The U.S. House of Representatives has the power of impeach- ment, while the U.S. Senate holds trials that may lead to conviction.

Removing a president requires a coordinated effort between the House and the Senate. The House of Representatives first votes on articles of impeachment. If passed, the president is tried by the U.S. Senate with the U.S. Supreme Court chief justice presiding. Conviction requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate. If convicted, the president is removed from office, and the vice president is sworn in. The bar for impeachment is so high that it is rarely implemented. Only two presidents (Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998) have been impeached, and both were acquitted by the Senate. Still, members of Congress may threaten the president with initiating impeachment proceedings in hopes that the president’s behavior will change.

The Constitution also provides for electing the vice president. Electing the president and vice president together on the same ticket did not originate with the Constitution, which was writ - ten to give the presidency to the person with the most electoral votes and the vice presidency to the person coming in second. In 1804, the Constitution was amended so that the president and vice president would be chosen together on a single ticket.

The Judiciary Article III outlines the national court system and establishes that the judicial power be vested in one Supreme Court and other lower courts as determined by Congress. Supreme Court fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 42 3/24/16 1:39 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 2.4 The Three Branches of Government authority extends to all cases in law arising under the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties. Cases involving disputes between the national and state governments, or between the national government and foreign governments, are heard by the Supreme Court.

The president appoints Supreme Court justices for life “with good behavior.” Senate confirma- tion requires a majority vote. This is simply another example of the Framers’ system of checks and balances (see Figure 2.4 for an illustration of how the three branches check and balance one another).

The Constitution says little else about the judiciary or its authority, in part because the Fram - ers thought that this branch would be little used. We commonly associate the Court’s power of judicial review with the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court gave itself the power of judicial review in 1803, after the Constitution took effect. While the Framers expected the judiciary branch would be the weakest of the three branches, we now look at the national court system as being extremely powerful.

Figure 2.4: The three branches of government Forming three separate branches of government, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial, ensures that the rights and liberties of the people are protected, and no one branch has too much power. The legislative branch (which includes the Senate and House of Representatives) creates the laws; the executive branch (which includes the president, vice president, and Cabinet) carries out the laws; and the judicial branch (which includes the Supreme Court and other federal courts) evaluates the laws. Each government branch checks another, thus establishing a strong and fair national government.

Used with permission from David Miller. fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 43 3/24/16 1:39 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 2.5 Ratifying the Constitution The Basis for National Power The Constitution establishes national power through both the Supremacy Clause in Article VI and the Commerce Clause in Article I. The Supremacy Clause states that laws passed by Con- gress and signed by the president are the supreme laws of the land. The Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate the movement of goods across state lines, seeking to solve one of the problems experienced under the Articles of Confederation. Both of these clauses will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.

The American Constitution as a Living Document Article V of the Constitution provides a constitutional amendment process, although the pro - cess is not easy, because it requires supermajorities to succeed. The Constitution provides for amendments to be proposed by a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress or at a con- vention called by two thirds of the states. Amendments may be ratified by three fourths of the state legislatures or three-fourths ratifying conventions in the states. The Congress-state legislature combination has been used for 26 of the 27 ratified amendments.

The Framers also designed the Constitution to maintain a degree of continuity. Unlike many state constitutions, which are long and detailed, the U.S. Constitution is short and ambiguous.

This allows for its interpretation and reinterpretation. The Constitution is as relevant today as it was when it was written more than 200 years ago, despite the vast differences between then and now.

2.5 Ratifying the Constitution There was considerable debate over how the Constitution should be ratified. Some believed that it should be ratified through the unanimous approval of the states (after all, it would amend, quite significantly, the Articles of Confederation, which required unanimous approval).

Others argued that each state should hold its own convention to approve it. The latter argu - ment prevailed. The next question considered how many states would be needed to approve it. Requiring that all 13 states approve the Constitution might make ratification impossible, as one state could withhold its approval to undermine the entire process (that Rhode Island did not send a representative to the Constitutional Convention should be noted; it feared losing power if the Articles of Confederation changed). Roger Sherman of Connecticut argued that at least 10 states ratifying was needed to be legitimate. Madison proposed a complicated formula where ratification would occur with any seven states entitled to at least 33 members of the House of Representatives. This approach favored large states. The delegates agreed to nine states (roughly two thirds). By deciding on nine states and using specially elected conventions, the delegates made ratification easier, though some argued that requiring the support of only nine states violated the spirit of the resolution that authorized the Convention in the first place.

Federalists Versus Anti-Federalists One critical debate surrounding the ratification of the new constitution occurred between Federalists and Anti-Federalists over the issue of the national Bill of Rights. Federalists fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 44 3/24/16 1:39 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 2.5 Ratifying the Constitution argued that a national bill of rights was unnecessary because many states already had bills of rights in their own constitutions. Protecting individual rights would occur at the state level.

The federal government, they argued, would be concerned only with relations between the states and the national authority.The Federalists maintained that a national bill of rights would threaten individual liberties because the Con- stitution created a blueprint for lim- ited government. To include a sepa- rate bill of rights implied that the national government had powers and authority that were not speci - fied in the Constitution. If the Con - stitution had to spell out what the national government could not do, the implication was that anything not covered would then be allowed.

The Anti-Federalists countered that, because many states already had bills of rights, it was that much more important to have a national bill of rights in order to protect the states.

Including a bill of rights would make it clear what the national govern - ment could not do.

Consider freedom of speech. To pro- hibit the government from infring - ing on free speech does not imply that the government could infringe on free speech in the absence of an express prohibition, Anti-Federalists argued. Rather, the authority to prohibit speech could be assumed based on the Constitution’s silence on questions of free speech.

Put differently, the national government would assume that it had specific powers unless the Constitution clearly prohibited them. In the minds of the Anti-Federalists, the absence of a bill of rights would enable the national government to violate individual rights as well as states’ rights. Moreover, the Anti-Federalists stated that they would oppose ratification unless there was a bill of rights. Ultimately, James Madison promised to seek ratification of the Bill of Rights 2 years after the Constitution was ratified.

The Bill of Rights The Bill of Rights consists of 10 amendments (see Figure 2.5) that establish rights of expres - sion (speech, press, peaceable assembly, petitioning the government, and religious exercise and that Congress will not establish a national religion), the rights of those accused of crimes (including, but not limited to, the right to jury trials and counsel in criminal cases, due pro - cess, and protection from unreasonable search and seizure, self-incrimination, and cruel and unusual punishment), the right to bear arms, and states’ rights. When ratified in 1791, the Bill of Rights applied only to the national government (note that the first word of the Bill of Rights is “Congress,” the national legislature), although U.S. Supreme Court decisions since then Superstock/Superstock The original Bill of Rights. Federalists argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary, while Anti-Federalists argued against ratification without one. fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 45 3/24/16 1:39 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 2.5 Ratifying the Constitution have applied provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states on a case-by-case basis, beginning in 1925 with Gitlow v. New York.

Or consider the Second Amendment, which states, “A well-regulated Mili- tia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Anti-Federalists con - sidered these rights to be crucial to the integrity of state sovereignty because they meant that the national government could not interfere with the right of the people to bear arms individually and as members of their state’s militia.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights, then, was to protect state sovereignty. By prohibiting the national government from only certain actions, the states were free to do what they wanted unless they were forbidden to do so by the Constitution or the Supremacy Clause. The 10 th Amendment, known as the states’ rights amendment, says, “ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohib - ited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people .” In essence, the 10 th Amend- ment allows the states to do what they want unless they are forbidden by the national government to do so.

Interpretation of the Bill of Rights by the U.S. Supreme Court began to change dramatically following ratification of the 14 th Amendment in 1868. The Supreme Court has since established that no state may deny citizens their privileges and immunities and equal protection of the law. Since ratification of the 14 th Amendment, the Supreme Court applies the Bill of Rights to the states on a case-by-case basis (called “selective interpretation”). Superstock/Superstock The Second Amendment gives the right for state residents to bear arms. In effect, it means that the national government cannot disarm the states, and it cuts to the core of the issues of state sovereignty. Figure 2.5: Summary of the Bill of Rights The first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution are collectively known as the Bill of Rights.

Adapted from U.S. Const. amend. I–X. fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 46 3/24/16 1:39 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Summary and Resources The Federalist Papers The debates over what to include in the Constitution and how to ratify it inspired a set of essays known as The Federalist Papers . These essays were penned by John Jay (1745–1829), Alexan - der Hamilton, and James Madison, who were concerned about New York’s reluctance to ratify the Constitution. The Federalist Papers were published anonymously as a series of editorials in New York newspapers. (They used the pseudonym “Publius,” which is derived from the Latin “publicus,” meaning “of the people.”) The authors’ objective was to persuade the people of New York that the proposed constitu- tion was in their best interest. If the people were persuaded, they in turn would petition their state conven- tions to support ratification. These 85 editorials were collected and came to be known as The Federalist Papers, or simply The Federalist.

The Federalist Papers were not typical opinion pieces; they were lengthy and thoughtful essays focusing on various aspects of the proposed constitution, such as the problems of the Articles of Con - federation, the structure of each branch of government, and the characteristics of the new gov - ernment and the proposed Bill of Rights. It was clear that, being published in newspapers, The Fed- eralist Papers were intended for an educated, literate audience. As better educated, more affluent per - sons were also those with political rights, it was expected that readers would pressure their state govern- ment to support ratification.

Summary and Resources Chapter Summary The Framers came to Philadelphia in 1787 to form a more perfect union, provide for the com - mon defense, and promote the general welfare. They convened the Constitutional Convention because the Articles of Confederation proved to be unworkable. Under the Articles, there was no national unity; rather, the confederation was a loose collection of sovereign states. The cen - tral government had no real authority and had no power to respond to a crisis. Because the issue of a new constitution was controversial, the convention had to be held in secret. Once it was under way, several proposals were put forth, but the one that was ultimately adopted was the Connecticut Plan. It established separation of powers on the basis of republican principles. The National Gallery of Art John Jay, along with Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, anonymously published a series of editori- als in New York papers in an effort to persuade New Yorkers that it was in their best interest to ratify the Constitution. The articles were later published as The Federalist Papers. fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 47 3/24/16 1:39 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Summary and Resources Although there is separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government, as put forth in Articles I, II, and III, there are also considerable shared func- tions. Still, there was concern over the issue of state sovereignty, which was expressed in the debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists over the inclusion of a bill of rights. As ultimately adopted, the Bill of Rights was designed to preserve state sovereignty and states’ rights and limit national authority.

Meanwhile, to calm the fears of some, three Framers argued for ratification through The Fed- eralist Papers. James Madison argued in Federalist No. 10 that the federal system would dilute the power of factions. The Federalist Papers argued the case for ratifying and supporting the proposed Constitution. See Timeline: Path to the Constitution for major milestones in the cre- ation of the U.S. Constitution.

Key Ideas to Remember • The U.S. Constitution is modeled on earlier forms of governments that existed in the colonies prior to the American Revolution. • The Framers of the Constitution considered themselves to be good English subjects but found it necessary to separate from the British Crown because it imposed its authority on, and restricted the liberties of, the colonies. • The first American constitution was the Articles of Confederation, but its lack of centralized power and authority proved to be a major weakness. • While some delegates to the Constitutional Convention sought to create a wholly new government from what existed under the Articles of Confederation, others sought to maintain states’ rights. The various proposals before the convention repre- sented these divisions. • The plan that was adopted was the Connecticut Plan. It was also known as the Great Compromise because it allowed for proportional representation in the House of Representatives, which is what the large states wanted, and two senators from each state, which is what small states wanted. • The U.S. Constitution is built on the central idea that if power is divided among three branches of government, and each branch has separate functions, no one branch will have sufficient power to encroach upon the rights and liberties of individuals. • The debate between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists over the inclusion of a national bill of rights was an extension of the debate between advocates of central authority and advocates of states’ rights. • When the Bill of Rights was ratified, it applied only to the national government and not the states, which meant that state sovereignty would be protected. Questions to Consider 1. What is the significance of separation of powers? 2. What is unique about the U.S. Constitution? 3. What are the pros and cons of the New Jersey and the Virginia Plans? 4. In what ways is the U.S. Constitution grounded in historical tradition? 5. As an individual, what rights does the Constitution give you if you are a U.S. citizen? 6. Given the nature of checks and balances, was the government shutdown of 2013 unavoidable? fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 48 3/24/16 1:39 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Summary and Resources Timeline: Path to the Constitution Photo credits (top to bottom): radlovskyaroslav/iStock/Thinkstock, Brand X Pictures/Stockbyte/Thinkstock, peterspiro/iStock/Thinkstock, Photodisc/Photodisc/Thinkstock, amanaimagesRF/Thinkstock. fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 49 3/24/16 1:39 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Summary and Resources Key Terms Annapolis Convention A gathering that preceded the Constitutional Convention, where delegates began to discuss ways to improve the Articles of Confederation. Anti-Federalists Those who opposed the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, in part because it did not include a bill of rights. appropriating The act of the legisla - ture designating money for a specific purpose, such as on a social program or infrastructure. Articles of Confederation The first U.S.

constitution; a document that loosely bound 13 independent sovereign states together. Bill of Rights The first 10 amendments to the Constitution. central government A government in which authority and power are concentrated in a single entity. Connecticut Plan A compromise between the large and small states over how the leg - islative branch would be apportioned; also known as the Great Compromise. Constitutional Convention The meeting in Philadelphia where delegates met in secret to write a new constitution. Continental Congress Legislature repre- senting the U.S. colonies. Electoral College Persons selected at the state level who select the president. expressed powers The duties of Congress as stipulated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution; among them are the ability to collect taxes, borrow money, regulate com- merce, coin money, establish post offices and post roads, and declare war. federal The division of power and author- ity between units of government, such as the states and the national government. Federalists Those who supported the ratifi- cation of the U.S. Constitution even though it did not include a bill of rights. Great Compromise See Connecticut Plan . gridlock In U.S. politics, a situation of extensive disagreement within one house of Congress, between Congress and the presi - dent, or between both houses of Congress that makes it difficult to pass laws. impeachment An accusation of wrongdo - ing against the president or other public offi - cial that triggers a trial; conviction results in automatic removal from office. implied power Power given to Congress that is “necessary and proper” for carrying out its powers listed in Article I, Section 8. interstate commerce Conducting business and moving goods across state lines. Mayflower Compact An agreement among the Pilgrims on board the Mayflower to have self-government in the settlement once they reached the colonies; one of the earlier bases for the U.S. Constitution. New Jersey Plan A proposal for a federal government with carefully listed powers, arising from the New Jersey delegation at the Constitutional Convention. Virginia Plan A proposal for a supreme national government made by the Virginia delegates to the Constitutional Convention. fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 50 3/24/16 1:39 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 52 3/24/16 1:39 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.