LO 1.A.1: Compare how various models of representative democracy are reflected through major institutions, policies, events, or debates in the U.S.
There are several different forms of representative democracy which give varying amounts of direct power to the people. One type is a participatory democracy. In this form of representative democracy, all citizens who are eligible to vote get a direct say in what happens. Decisions are made using majority rule, which means that the decision must represent the preference of more than ½ of the group. However, this type of democracy works better at a smaller, local level, like in Greek city-states or neighborhood councils. Another type of representative democracy is a pluralist democracy. In a pluralist democracy, the government is formed/influenced by competing interest groups. This requires civic participation in groups such as Electrical Workers’ Union or the National Education Association. The U.S. is structured as mainly a pluralist democracy but there is a lack of participation in interest groups. A third type of representative democracy is an elite democracy. In this model, a small group makes most important government decision. This group is usually made up of the wealthy or those with business connections, but could also be the best educated or most qualified to make decisions. Laws that are made tend to favor the ruling minority. This is demonstrated through the influence of wealthy corporate leaders in the U.S. such as Richard Cheney.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution followed the model of a mostly pluralist democracy when writing the document. The government is separated into several branches with checks and balances and state and federal powers, which creates a decentralized government. This is ideal for a pluralist democracy. The federalists ultimately wanted a pluralist or even elite model of government. This is obvious in Federalist 10, where Madison discusses the power of factions, which are essentially interest groups, and the need to prevent an abuse of majority rule by these groups. In addition, federalists wanted a smaller group of representatives with longer terms. This would lead to a more elite democracy because the representatives would be the most qualified, and, therefore, the best educated, making them a minority group with most of the power. In addition, a longer term means the people would have less input because the representatives would be less worried about being voted out and more inclined to do what they feel is best rather than what the people want.
The anti-federalists wanted a more participatory model of government, where people have a lot of direct influence at the local level and are represented by a large group of representatives with shorter terms at the state and federal levels. A larger number of representatives, they reasoned, would better represent the people and the variety of experiences and wishes they have. The shorter terms would hold these representatives accountable to the people. Brutus 1 supports this idea, emphasizing the need for representatives to be like the people rather than from a minority of well educated, highly qualified politicians. Ultimately, the U.S. Constitution falls somewhere between these two viewpoints. While it gives the people some power to choose, the final decision lies with the elected representatives, who are generally from a more elite minority and can be influenced by interest groups who lobby for laws that benefit them.
LO 1.B.1: Analyze and compare democratic ideals reflected in U.S. foundational documents.
U.S. foundational documents draw from a variety of sources. They include the democratic ideals of natural rights, popular sovereignty, republicanism, and social contract. The protection of natural rights is presented as the reason for government’s existence. The Declaration of Independence lists these rights and states that if a government is violating them the people have the right to rebel. The Constitution implements the Bill of Rights as well as separation of powers and checks and balances to protect these rights. This idea was found in John Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government, where he claims that all people have the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and property.
Popular sovereignty is the idea that the power of a government comes from the consent of the governed. This was a departure from the common idea that rulers get their power from God and so cannot be questioned. The idea of popular sovereignty is hard to trace to a specific philosopher but is generally associated with John Locke, whose ideas contributed greatly to the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. The Declaration of Independence demonstrates popular sovereignty when it states outright that the power of the government must come from the consent of the people it governs and that, if this is not the case, the people have the right to abolish that government and form a new one. The U.S. Constitution gives people the power to vote for representatives, thus allowing the people to give the government its power. In addition, the beginning of the preamble states that “We the people of the United States… do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” This is the ultimate depiction of popular sovereignty: the people (in the form of the representatives who attended the Constitutional Conventions and ratified the document) are the ones who approved the framework of the government. Finally, Article V allows elected representatives to amend the Constitution.
Republicanism is a form of government where the popular sovereignty is practiced through elected representatives. The people ultimately hold the power but they exercise it through elected representatives rather than directly. This idea was presented by Aristotle in The Politics. The U.S. Constitution establishes a country based on republicanism in the same articles that support the idea of popular sovereignty. When Article V gives elected representatives the power to amend the Constitution, it also gives the people the right to elect those officials. While the Constitution ultimately gives the power to the governed, it provides a structure in which the governors are elected representatives. Republicanism strongly influenced the structure of U.S. government.
Finally, the idea of a social contract which most influenced the development of the United States government was that of John Locke. This ideal was located in The Second Treatise of Government along with natural rights. John Locke’s concept of a social contract was an agreement between the governed and the governors where the people agree to establish rulers for specific purposes but retain the right to get rid of rulers who overstep their boundaries or do not adequately fulfill their purpose. The idea of a social contract is found primarily in the Declaration of Independence. It is the basis for the idea of popular sovereignty and serves as the justification for the American Revolution.
LO 1.B.2: Compare and interpret Federalist and Anti-Federalist views on central government and democracy.
The federalists and anti-federalists had very different views regarding central government. The federalists believed that a strong central government (though not so strong that it becomes a tyranny) would contribute to democracy by preventing the abuse of minorities by majority factions. This view is strongly expressed in Federalist 10, where Madison argues that a society in which factions are fairly ineffective is more democratic. He believed that a large republic with a pluralist model was ideal.
In contrast, Brutus 1, an anti-federalist writing, states that the people should have as much direct influence as possible in a government operating on majority rule. This implies that anti-federalists would prefer a weaker central government, as a strong one risks removing the people’s influence. They felt that this would prevent tyranny and would contribute to the preservation of people’s natural rights. Though both groups ultimately wanted to create a government that derives its power from the people and protects their rights, the methods proposed by the federalists and anti-federalists differed greatly.
LO 1.C.1: Explain the relationship between key provisions of the Articles of Confederation and the debate over granting greater power to the federal government formerly reserved to the states.
The Articles of Confederation had many weaknesses which were considered in the debate about which rights to grant the federal government in the U.S. Constitution. When they were created, the Articles of Confederation’s main goal was to maintain state’s rights. This led to the states abusing their powers with the national government unable to step in and stop them. States refused to work together despite the “league of friendship” by taxing each other, refusing to create a common form of money, making foreign treaties, and even refusing to honor the laws the federal government had in place.
One specific problem was the league of friendship.” The federal government was too weak to make the states work together and that had disastrous consequences. The United States would have been an easy target for another country at this point in time. When the Constitution was ratified it put a stronger central government with specific responsibilities in place while leaving fewer powers to the states.
Another problem was that Congress had very little power. While it could request that states contribute financially, Congress could not levy taxes. Of course, many states refused. Congress could sign foreign treaties and create post offices but could not regulate interstate or foreign commerce or impose a national currency (though it could coin money, states also had this right and many states simply imposed their own currency). While it could create a national army and navy and declare war, Congress could not draft soldiers. Many of these abilities, such as creating an army and navy or declaring war, are meaningless and useless without powers denied to Congress, such as levying taxes to pay those in the military or drafting soldiers to go fight. The Constitution gave Congress more powers, but limited them to specific written powers so that the states could retain some power of their own.
One of the main points of contention at the Constitutional Convention was that each state had one vote. The states with larger populations felt that because they had more people to represent they deserved more votes. States with smaller populations did not want to be overpowered by the larger states and preferred that each state get the same number of votes. This led to the Great Compromise, in which a bicameral legislative branch was established. Congress was to consist of the House of Representatives, where the number of representatives a state has is based on population, and the Senate, where each state has two representatives regardless of population. In addition, this debate led to the Three-Fifths Compromise, which stated that each slave is counted as 3/5 person and 2/5 property. This compromise was caused by tension between southern states, who wanted slaves to be counted for representation purposes only, and northern states, who wanted slaves to be counted for taxation purposes only.
A fourth major issue is that there was no executive or judicial branch. This caused problems because there was no executive enforcing the laws made by the legislature and no national judiciary interpreting the laws or settling disputes between states. The Constitution created an executive branch and a judicial branch to settle this problem.
Yet another problem was that creating laws or changing the Articles of Confederation was nearly impossible, as the approval of nine out of thirteen states was required to pass laws and all thirteen stated had to approve any changes to the Articles of Confederation. Because each state wanted different things that would benefit them rather than the United States as a whole, legislation was essentially at a standstill. The Constitution made change easier: a majority in each house is required to pass a bill while 2/3 of each house and ¾ of the states need to approve an amendment to the Constitution. The Constitution was built on what the United States learned from the failures of the Articles of Confederation.
LO 1.C.2: Analyze causes and effects of constitutional compromises in addressing political, economic, and regional divisions.
Though many topics brought up at the Constitutional Convention ended in compromise in an effort to gain unanimous approval from the states, there were three major constitutional compromises that defined major parts of the Constitution. These compromises were the Great Compromise (also called the Connecticut Compromise), the Three-Fifths Compromise, and the promise of the addition of the Bill of Rights.
The Great Compromise was the result of debates over the structure of the legislative branch. While more populous states wanted the number of representatives to be determined by population, less populous states preferred a model where every state would be represented equally. The result was a bicameral legislature, consisting of the House of Representatives, in which the number of representatives a state has is determined by population, and the Senate, in which each state has two representatives regardless of population. This allowed small states to have equal representation and larger states to have proportional representation. The legislative model which resulted from the Great Compromise prevents any state from gaining too much power in the legislature while ensuring that the people of each state are adequately represented.
The Three-Fifths Compromise stemmed from a disagreement between southern and northern states. The southern states wanted slaves to be counted only for representation purposes and the northern states wanted slaves to be counted only for taxation purposes. The Three-Fifths Compromise determined that each slave would be counted as 3/5 human and 2/5 property. This prevented states with a large slave population from gaining a huge advantage in governmental influence or from escaping taxes they needed to pay.
The promise of the addition of the Bill of Rights was an important selling point for the anti-federalists. This group feared that the central government would become too strong and would begin to revoke important individual rights. The guarantee of a Bill of Rights assuaged those fears enough to convince the anti-federalists to ratify the Constitution. The first ten amendments guarantee various rights to citizens and ensure that the government must protect these rights. It is difficult enough to revise the Constitution that these rights cannot easily be removed. Compromise was a necessity in the creation of the Constitution of Independence, and those who attended the Constitutional Convention often had to figure out what was needed to satisfy all groups involved.
LO 1.C.3: Explain how the issues raised in the ratification debate are reflected in ongoing philosophical disagreements about democracy and governmental power.
The main issue raised in the ratification debate was the balance between state and federal power. There are many ongoing disagreements about this topic, such as the legalization of same-sex marriage and the legalization of marijuana. The legalization of marijuana is an argument regarding state powers versus federal powers. Article VI states that the Constitution and national laws and treaties take precedence over conflicting state and local laws. Though the national government has declared the use of marijuana for any reason illegal, as of January 20, 2015, the states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, and Hawaii have legalized medical marijuana and the states of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Colorado have legalized marijuana for recreational use.
Same-sex marriage and LGBTQIA+ rights are also a topic of contention. According to the Full Faith and Credit Clause in Article IV, Section I of the U.S. Constitution, “…public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state” are to be honored. This applies to marriages, but 13 states (Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Nebraska) will not recognize same-sex marriage and the other 36 states do. Though Alabama's ban on same sex marriage was removed by federal court order on February 9, 2015, the Alabama Supreme Court told the state's probate judges on March 3, 2015, to no longer issue marriage licenses for same sex marriages. The Full Faith and Credit Clause requires that the 13 states which do not recognize same-sex marriage must recognize the marriage of same-sex couples who move into the state. However, these states still refuse to recognize these marriages for legal purposes. In addition, Idaho, Ohio, and Tennessee will not change birth certificates to reflect the proper sex of a transgender person. Other states will change birth certificates with different amounts of action taken. This affects someone’s ability to obtain documents with their legal sex, including marriage licenses. Many different problems could arise regarding moving from one state to another, especially if the person is married.
LO 1.D.1: Evaluate the relationship between separation of powers and checks and balances.
Separation of powers and checks and balances are commonly confused but are not actually the same thing. Separation of powers refers to the specific responsibilities afforded to each branch of the government while checks and balances refers to the powers each branch is given to keep the others in check and to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful.
The legislative branch makes laws. The executive branch enforces laws. The judicial branch interprets laws. This is the separation of powers in the U.S. government.
The legislative branch can confirm executive appointments, override an executive veto, reject foreign treaties, impeach the President, or hold back money if they disagree with the President’s actions. These are some of the legislative checks on the executive branch. They can also control the salary of federal judges, approve the appointment of federal judges by the President, and create or eliminate courts. These are some of the legislative checks on the judicial branch.
The executive checks on the legislative branch include the ability to call a special meeting of Congress, the ability to veto congressional acts, and the ability to recommend legislation. The executive checks on the judicial branch include the ability to nominate judges and grant pardons.
The judicial checks on the legislative branch include the ability to review judicial acts. Also, the Chief Justice presides over impeachment hearings. The ability to review executive acts is a judicial check on the executive branch.
LO 1.E.1: Assess how the distribution of powers among three federal branches affects policy making
To create and enforce any type of policy, all three branches must work together. The legislative branch has the main role in its creation, the executive branch has the main role in its implementation, and the judicial branch has the main role in its continuation. First, the House or the Senate must propose and pass a bill. This bill may have originated in one of the houses or been recommended by the President. The President must then approve or veto the bill. If it is approved it continues on to implementation (unless the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional) and if it is vetoed the bill returns to Congress. The veto may be overridden by a 2/3 vote in each house. If the veto is overridden, the bill moves on to implementation (again, unless the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional).
After the bill has become a law and moved on to implementation, it is the job of the executive branch to enforce it. This is done as the President creates any necessary committees or agencies and appoints people to the necessary offices. The Senate must approve these appointments and the Supreme Court must review them.
Once the law is being enforced, it moves on to continuation. The judicial branch must, at this point, interpret the policy and will officiate cases brought up between states and the federal government, states and other states, individuals in different states, or appeals from any level regarding this law. Meanwhile, the President can grant pardons and Congress can create or eliminate federal courts as necessary to effectively continue the new policy.
LO 1.F.1: Explain how and why the appropriate balance of power between national and state governments has been interpreted differently over time.
As society changes, so does the way people view the balance between national and state governments. When the United States was first formed the colonists had just finished rebelling against a monarchy and, for the most part, did not want to risk creating another one. This led to the desire for a weaker national government and stronger state governments, which led to the Articles of Confederation.
When people saw that the Articles of Confederation weren’t working very well, they realized that a stronger national government was necessary to keep the states united. After the Constitution was created, power shifted so that the national government’s power was more than that of the states. The Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states that federal laws and the Constitution take precedence. In the case of McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819 this supremacy clause was upheld by the Supreme Court, and in Gibbons v. Ogden in 1824 the Supreme Court strengthened Congress’s powers over interstate commerce.
As time progressed, federalism seemed to evolve from a more distinct separation of powers between state and national governments to an overlap in responsibilities. This change came about largely because of the New Deal. The national and state governments began to work together (sometimes). More recently, more responsibilities (such as some welfare programs) have been given back to the states.
LO 1.F.2: Analyze questions over the allocation and scope of central power within a federal structure.
Within the federal structure of the United States, there are certain powers given only to the national government, certain powers given only to the state or local governments, and certain powers that are shared. There have always been conflicts about what exactly these powers include and how much power each level of government holds. This was a major factor in the secession of southern states during the Civil War era, as those states feared the restriction of state laws allowing slavery. Even before this, right after the Constitution was introduced, disagreements arose. Federalists wanted a stronger national government while the anti-federalists favored stronger state governments.
In 1819, McCulloch v. Maryland stressed the implied powers of the national government (in this case to create a national bank) and established the supremacy of the federal law over state laws. This case has been used as a basis for a stronger national government. In 1824, Gibbons v. Ogden set a precedent for the use of the commerce clause by the national government. It was concluded that the national government had the exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce, and again reinforced national supremacy. These arguments over state vs. national powers led to many new understandings of federalism and clarifications of the way it works in the United States.
More recently, there have been arguments (mentioned above) about state rights to legalize marijuana for medical or recreational use even though there is a federal law banning that substance. There have also been conflicts over same sex marriage (also mentioned above), which is not recognized by some states even if it is performed in a state where it is legal -- which violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution -- and one state, Alabama, is defying an order from the Supreme Court to perform and recognize same sex marriages.
There will always be disagreements over state powers vs. national powers, regardless of whether the U.S. Constitution is clear about what should happen.
Sources
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/state-marijuana-laws-map-medical-recreational.html
http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004857
http://www.lambdalegal.org/publications/changing-birth-certificate-sex-designations-state-by-state-guidelines
There are several different forms of representative democracy which give varying amounts of direct power to the people. One type is a participatory democracy. In this form of representative democracy, all citizens who are eligible to vote get a direct say in what happens. Decisions are made using majority rule, which means that the decision must represent the preference of more than ½ of the group. However, this type of democracy works better at a smaller, local level, like in Greek city-states or neighborhood councils. Another type of representative democracy is a pluralist democracy. In a pluralist democracy, the government is formed/influenced by competing interest groups. This requires civic participation in groups such as Electrical Workers’ Union or the National Education Association. The U.S. is structured as mainly a pluralist democracy but there is a lack of participation in interest groups. A third type of representative democracy is an elite democracy. In this model, a small group makes most important government decision. This group is usually made up of the wealthy or those with business connections, but could also be the best educated or most qualified to make decisions. Laws that are made tend to favor the ruling minority. This is demonstrated through the influence of wealthy corporate leaders in the U.S. such as Richard Cheney.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution followed the model of a mostly pluralist democracy when writing the document. The government is separated into several branches with checks and balances and state and federal powers, which creates a decentralized government. This is ideal for a pluralist democracy. The federalists ultimately wanted a pluralist or even elite model of government. This is obvious in Federalist 10, where Madison discusses the power of factions, which are essentially interest groups, and the need to prevent an abuse of majority rule by these groups. In addition, federalists wanted a smaller group of representatives with longer terms. This would lead to a more elite democracy because the representatives would be the most qualified, and, therefore, the best educated, making them a minority group with most of the power. In addition, a longer term means the people would have less input because the representatives would be less worried about being voted out and more inclined to do what they feel is best rather than what the people want.
The anti-federalists wanted a more participatory model of government, where people have a lot of direct influence at the local level and are represented by a large group of representatives with shorter terms at the state and federal levels. A larger number of representatives, they reasoned, would better represent the people and the variety of experiences and wishes they have. The shorter terms would hold these representatives accountable to the people. Brutus 1 supports this idea, emphasizing the need for representatives to be like the people rather than from a minority of well educated, highly qualified politicians. Ultimately, the U.S. Constitution falls somewhere between these two viewpoints. While it gives the people some power to choose, the final decision lies with the elected representatives, who are generally from a more elite minority and can be influenced by interest groups who lobby for laws that benefit them.
LO 1.B.1: Analyze and compare democratic ideals reflected in U.S. foundational documents.
U.S. foundational documents draw from a variety of sources. They include the democratic ideals of natural rights, popular sovereignty, republicanism, and social contract. The protection of natural rights is presented as the reason for government’s existence. The Declaration of Independence lists these rights and states that if a government is violating them the people have the right to rebel. The Constitution implements the Bill of Rights as well as separation of powers and checks and balances to protect these rights. This idea was found in John Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government, where he claims that all people have the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and property.
Popular sovereignty is the idea that the power of a government comes from the consent of the governed. This was a departure from the common idea that rulers get their power from God and so cannot be questioned. The idea of popular sovereignty is hard to trace to a specific philosopher but is generally associated with John Locke, whose ideas contributed greatly to the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. The Declaration of Independence demonstrates popular sovereignty when it states outright that the power of the government must come from the consent of the people it governs and that, if this is not the case, the people have the right to abolish that government and form a new one. The U.S. Constitution gives people the power to vote for representatives, thus allowing the people to give the government its power. In addition, the beginning of the preamble states that “We the people of the United States… do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” This is the ultimate depiction of popular sovereignty: the people (in the form of the representatives who attended the Constitutional Conventions and ratified the document) are the ones who approved the framework of the government. Finally, Article V allows elected representatives to amend the Constitution.
Republicanism is a form of government where the popular sovereignty is practiced through elected representatives. The people ultimately hold the power but they exercise it through elected representatives rather than directly. This idea was presented by Aristotle in The Politics. The U.S. Constitution establishes a country based on republicanism in the same articles that support the idea of popular sovereignty. When Article V gives elected representatives the power to amend the Constitution, it also gives the people the right to elect those officials. While the Constitution ultimately gives the power to the governed, it provides a structure in which the governors are elected representatives. Republicanism strongly influenced the structure of U.S. government.
Finally, the idea of a social contract which most influenced the development of the United States government was that of John Locke. This ideal was located in The Second Treatise of Government along with natural rights. John Locke’s concept of a social contract was an agreement between the governed and the governors where the people agree to establish rulers for specific purposes but retain the right to get rid of rulers who overstep their boundaries or do not adequately fulfill their purpose. The idea of a social contract is found primarily in the Declaration of Independence. It is the basis for the idea of popular sovereignty and serves as the justification for the American Revolution.
LO 1.B.2: Compare and interpret Federalist and Anti-Federalist views on central government and democracy.
The federalists and anti-federalists had very different views regarding central government. The federalists believed that a strong central government (though not so strong that it becomes a tyranny) would contribute to democracy by preventing the abuse of minorities by majority factions. This view is strongly expressed in Federalist 10, where Madison argues that a society in which factions are fairly ineffective is more democratic. He believed that a large republic with a pluralist model was ideal.
In contrast, Brutus 1, an anti-federalist writing, states that the people should have as much direct influence as possible in a government operating on majority rule. This implies that anti-federalists would prefer a weaker central government, as a strong one risks removing the people’s influence. They felt that this would prevent tyranny and would contribute to the preservation of people’s natural rights. Though both groups ultimately wanted to create a government that derives its power from the people and protects their rights, the methods proposed by the federalists and anti-federalists differed greatly.
LO 1.C.1: Explain the relationship between key provisions of the Articles of Confederation and the debate over granting greater power to the federal government formerly reserved to the states.
The Articles of Confederation had many weaknesses which were considered in the debate about which rights to grant the federal government in the U.S. Constitution. When they were created, the Articles of Confederation’s main goal was to maintain state’s rights. This led to the states abusing their powers with the national government unable to step in and stop them. States refused to work together despite the “league of friendship” by taxing each other, refusing to create a common form of money, making foreign treaties, and even refusing to honor the laws the federal government had in place.
One specific problem was the league of friendship.” The federal government was too weak to make the states work together and that had disastrous consequences. The United States would have been an easy target for another country at this point in time. When the Constitution was ratified it put a stronger central government with specific responsibilities in place while leaving fewer powers to the states.
Another problem was that Congress had very little power. While it could request that states contribute financially, Congress could not levy taxes. Of course, many states refused. Congress could sign foreign treaties and create post offices but could not regulate interstate or foreign commerce or impose a national currency (though it could coin money, states also had this right and many states simply imposed their own currency). While it could create a national army and navy and declare war, Congress could not draft soldiers. Many of these abilities, such as creating an army and navy or declaring war, are meaningless and useless without powers denied to Congress, such as levying taxes to pay those in the military or drafting soldiers to go fight. The Constitution gave Congress more powers, but limited them to specific written powers so that the states could retain some power of their own.
One of the main points of contention at the Constitutional Convention was that each state had one vote. The states with larger populations felt that because they had more people to represent they deserved more votes. States with smaller populations did not want to be overpowered by the larger states and preferred that each state get the same number of votes. This led to the Great Compromise, in which a bicameral legislative branch was established. Congress was to consist of the House of Representatives, where the number of representatives a state has is based on population, and the Senate, where each state has two representatives regardless of population. In addition, this debate led to the Three-Fifths Compromise, which stated that each slave is counted as 3/5 person and 2/5 property. This compromise was caused by tension between southern states, who wanted slaves to be counted for representation purposes only, and northern states, who wanted slaves to be counted for taxation purposes only.
A fourth major issue is that there was no executive or judicial branch. This caused problems because there was no executive enforcing the laws made by the legislature and no national judiciary interpreting the laws or settling disputes between states. The Constitution created an executive branch and a judicial branch to settle this problem.
Yet another problem was that creating laws or changing the Articles of Confederation was nearly impossible, as the approval of nine out of thirteen states was required to pass laws and all thirteen stated had to approve any changes to the Articles of Confederation. Because each state wanted different things that would benefit them rather than the United States as a whole, legislation was essentially at a standstill. The Constitution made change easier: a majority in each house is required to pass a bill while 2/3 of each house and ¾ of the states need to approve an amendment to the Constitution. The Constitution was built on what the United States learned from the failures of the Articles of Confederation.
LO 1.C.2: Analyze causes and effects of constitutional compromises in addressing political, economic, and regional divisions.
Though many topics brought up at the Constitutional Convention ended in compromise in an effort to gain unanimous approval from the states, there were three major constitutional compromises that defined major parts of the Constitution. These compromises were the Great Compromise (also called the Connecticut Compromise), the Three-Fifths Compromise, and the promise of the addition of the Bill of Rights.
The Great Compromise was the result of debates over the structure of the legislative branch. While more populous states wanted the number of representatives to be determined by population, less populous states preferred a model where every state would be represented equally. The result was a bicameral legislature, consisting of the House of Representatives, in which the number of representatives a state has is determined by population, and the Senate, in which each state has two representatives regardless of population. This allowed small states to have equal representation and larger states to have proportional representation. The legislative model which resulted from the Great Compromise prevents any state from gaining too much power in the legislature while ensuring that the people of each state are adequately represented.
The Three-Fifths Compromise stemmed from a disagreement between southern and northern states. The southern states wanted slaves to be counted only for representation purposes and the northern states wanted slaves to be counted only for taxation purposes. The Three-Fifths Compromise determined that each slave would be counted as 3/5 human and 2/5 property. This prevented states with a large slave population from gaining a huge advantage in governmental influence or from escaping taxes they needed to pay.
The promise of the addition of the Bill of Rights was an important selling point for the anti-federalists. This group feared that the central government would become too strong and would begin to revoke important individual rights. The guarantee of a Bill of Rights assuaged those fears enough to convince the anti-federalists to ratify the Constitution. The first ten amendments guarantee various rights to citizens and ensure that the government must protect these rights. It is difficult enough to revise the Constitution that these rights cannot easily be removed. Compromise was a necessity in the creation of the Constitution of Independence, and those who attended the Constitutional Convention often had to figure out what was needed to satisfy all groups involved.
LO 1.C.3: Explain how the issues raised in the ratification debate are reflected in ongoing philosophical disagreements about democracy and governmental power.
The main issue raised in the ratification debate was the balance between state and federal power. There are many ongoing disagreements about this topic, such as the legalization of same-sex marriage and the legalization of marijuana. The legalization of marijuana is an argument regarding state powers versus federal powers. Article VI states that the Constitution and national laws and treaties take precedence over conflicting state and local laws. Though the national government has declared the use of marijuana for any reason illegal, as of January 20, 2015, the states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, and Hawaii have legalized medical marijuana and the states of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Colorado have legalized marijuana for recreational use.
Same-sex marriage and LGBTQIA+ rights are also a topic of contention. According to the Full Faith and Credit Clause in Article IV, Section I of the U.S. Constitution, “…public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state” are to be honored. This applies to marriages, but 13 states (Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Nebraska) will not recognize same-sex marriage and the other 36 states do. Though Alabama's ban on same sex marriage was removed by federal court order on February 9, 2015, the Alabama Supreme Court told the state's probate judges on March 3, 2015, to no longer issue marriage licenses for same sex marriages. The Full Faith and Credit Clause requires that the 13 states which do not recognize same-sex marriage must recognize the marriage of same-sex couples who move into the state. However, these states still refuse to recognize these marriages for legal purposes. In addition, Idaho, Ohio, and Tennessee will not change birth certificates to reflect the proper sex of a transgender person. Other states will change birth certificates with different amounts of action taken. This affects someone’s ability to obtain documents with their legal sex, including marriage licenses. Many different problems could arise regarding moving from one state to another, especially if the person is married.
LO 1.D.1: Evaluate the relationship between separation of powers and checks and balances.
Separation of powers and checks and balances are commonly confused but are not actually the same thing. Separation of powers refers to the specific responsibilities afforded to each branch of the government while checks and balances refers to the powers each branch is given to keep the others in check and to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful.
The legislative branch makes laws. The executive branch enforces laws. The judicial branch interprets laws. This is the separation of powers in the U.S. government.
The legislative branch can confirm executive appointments, override an executive veto, reject foreign treaties, impeach the President, or hold back money if they disagree with the President’s actions. These are some of the legislative checks on the executive branch. They can also control the salary of federal judges, approve the appointment of federal judges by the President, and create or eliminate courts. These are some of the legislative checks on the judicial branch.
The executive checks on the legislative branch include the ability to call a special meeting of Congress, the ability to veto congressional acts, and the ability to recommend legislation. The executive checks on the judicial branch include the ability to nominate judges and grant pardons.
The judicial checks on the legislative branch include the ability to review judicial acts. Also, the Chief Justice presides over impeachment hearings. The ability to review executive acts is a judicial check on the executive branch.
LO 1.E.1: Assess how the distribution of powers among three federal branches affects policy making
To create and enforce any type of policy, all three branches must work together. The legislative branch has the main role in its creation, the executive branch has the main role in its implementation, and the judicial branch has the main role in its continuation. First, the House or the Senate must propose and pass a bill. This bill may have originated in one of the houses or been recommended by the President. The President must then approve or veto the bill. If it is approved it continues on to implementation (unless the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional) and if it is vetoed the bill returns to Congress. The veto may be overridden by a 2/3 vote in each house. If the veto is overridden, the bill moves on to implementation (again, unless the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional).
After the bill has become a law and moved on to implementation, it is the job of the executive branch to enforce it. This is done as the President creates any necessary committees or agencies and appoints people to the necessary offices. The Senate must approve these appointments and the Supreme Court must review them.
Once the law is being enforced, it moves on to continuation. The judicial branch must, at this point, interpret the policy and will officiate cases brought up between states and the federal government, states and other states, individuals in different states, or appeals from any level regarding this law. Meanwhile, the President can grant pardons and Congress can create or eliminate federal courts as necessary to effectively continue the new policy.
LO 1.F.1: Explain how and why the appropriate balance of power between national and state governments has been interpreted differently over time.
As society changes, so does the way people view the balance between national and state governments. When the United States was first formed the colonists had just finished rebelling against a monarchy and, for the most part, did not want to risk creating another one. This led to the desire for a weaker national government and stronger state governments, which led to the Articles of Confederation.
When people saw that the Articles of Confederation weren’t working very well, they realized that a stronger national government was necessary to keep the states united. After the Constitution was created, power shifted so that the national government’s power was more than that of the states. The Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states that federal laws and the Constitution take precedence. In the case of McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819 this supremacy clause was upheld by the Supreme Court, and in Gibbons v. Ogden in 1824 the Supreme Court strengthened Congress’s powers over interstate commerce.
As time progressed, federalism seemed to evolve from a more distinct separation of powers between state and national governments to an overlap in responsibilities. This change came about largely because of the New Deal. The national and state governments began to work together (sometimes). More recently, more responsibilities (such as some welfare programs) have been given back to the states.
LO 1.F.2: Analyze questions over the allocation and scope of central power within a federal structure.
Within the federal structure of the United States, there are certain powers given only to the national government, certain powers given only to the state or local governments, and certain powers that are shared. There have always been conflicts about what exactly these powers include and how much power each level of government holds. This was a major factor in the secession of southern states during the Civil War era, as those states feared the restriction of state laws allowing slavery. Even before this, right after the Constitution was introduced, disagreements arose. Federalists wanted a stronger national government while the anti-federalists favored stronger state governments.
In 1819, McCulloch v. Maryland stressed the implied powers of the national government (in this case to create a national bank) and established the supremacy of the federal law over state laws. This case has been used as a basis for a stronger national government. In 1824, Gibbons v. Ogden set a precedent for the use of the commerce clause by the national government. It was concluded that the national government had the exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce, and again reinforced national supremacy. These arguments over state vs. national powers led to many new understandings of federalism and clarifications of the way it works in the United States.
More recently, there have been arguments (mentioned above) about state rights to legalize marijuana for medical or recreational use even though there is a federal law banning that substance. There have also been conflicts over same sex marriage (also mentioned above), which is not recognized by some states even if it is performed in a state where it is legal -- which violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution -- and one state, Alabama, is defying an order from the Supreme Court to perform and recognize same sex marriages.
There will always be disagreements over state powers vs. national powers, regardless of whether the U.S. Constitution is clear about what should happen.
Sources
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/state-marijuana-laws-map-medical-recreational.html
http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004857
http://www.lambdalegal.org/publications/changing-birth-certificate-sex-designations-state-by-state-guidelines