Constitutional Underpinnings
Why Does
Government
Exist?
Who has the
POWER in
government?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yeA7a0uS3A
What is the
difference
between
POWER
and
INFLUENC
E?
Power
• Power is the ability of one person to get
another person to act in accordance with the
first person’s intentions
• Power is found in all human relationships, but
we will focus power and how it is used to
influence governmental offices and how the
government will behave.
If you have POWER
do you have
AUTHORITY?
Authority
• Authority is the right to use power
• “Formal Authority” is that right to exercise
power which is vested in a government office.
• A president, senator, and federal judge all
have formal authority
• In the US we usually say that a person had
political authority if his or her right to act a
certain way is granted by a law or constitution
What makes
AUTHORITY
LEGITIMATE?
Legitimacy
• Legitimacy is the political authority conferred by law or by state or
national constitution.
• In the US the constitution is widely accepted as a source of
legitimate authority, but that was not always the case.
• Examples:
1) Civil War was a struggle over the legitimacy of the federal
government
2) The New Deal was debated over whether the fact the federal
government should intervene in the economy
3) Today people argue over the thought of an amendment that bans
gay marriage. The MA Attorney General – Martha Coakley – even
sued the federal government over the Defense of Marriage Act
stating that the determination of marriages have been a state
issue not a national issue.
DEMOCRATIC THEORY
• At the time of the founding of the United
States almost all other political systems in the
world were authoritarian regimes in which
rulers fully controlled the government, and
often held sway over economic and social
institutions as well.
• Ironically, the European country with the most
controls on the power of its monarchs was
England, the very political system that the
Americans so protested for its oppressiveness.
• In fact, democratic theory has very strong
roots in British history, although it may be
traced back to much earlier civilizations, such
as Ancient Greece.
• Democracy is a form of government that
places ultimate political authority in the hands
of the people.
• Democratic theory has two basic models:
Direct Democracy
• Direct democracy - In this form of democracy, citizens debate and
vote directly on all laws.
• In Ancient Athens, the legislature was composed of all of the
citizens, although women, slaves, and foreigners were excluded
because they were not citizens.
• Direct democracy requires a high level of participation, and is based
on a high degree of confidence in the judgment of ordinary people.
• Many of the Founders of the United States were skeptical about the
ability of the masses to govern themselves, being too prone to the
influence of demagogues (charismatic leaders who manipulate
popular beliefs) and too likely to overlook the rights of those with
minority opinion.
• The latter leads to majoritarianism, or the tendency for
government to do what the majority of people want.
Representative or Indirect
Democracy
• Representative Democracy - The Founders chose to
establish a republic, or an indirect democracy in which
people elect representatives to govern them and to make
laws and set policies.
• This form is also referred to as an indirect democracy. In
the United States, the people came to hold the ultimate
power through the election process, but all policy decisions
were to be made by elected officials or those that they
appoint.
• A representative democracy, then, is a compromise
between a direct democracy and an authoritarian rule, and
has become the most accepted form of democracy in the
world today
How has political power
been distributed in
America’s representative
democracy?
ELITE THEORY
• How can a republic claim to be a democracy if only a few people
actually make political decisions, even if they are elected by the
people?
• Elite theory holds that a “representative democracy” is not really
based on the will of the people, but that there is a relatively small,
cohesive elite class that makes almost all the important decisions
for the nation.
• Another version of elite theory argues that voters choose from
among competing elites. New members of the elite are recruited
through a merit-based education system, so that the best and
brightest young people join the ranks of the elite.
• Elite theorists argue that the founders believed that a privileged
majority should rule in the name of the people with a controlled
amount of input from citizens.
PLURALIST THEORY
• Another theoretical perspective is pluralism, the argument that
representative democracies are based on group interests that
protect the individual’s interests by representing him or her to the
government.
• The theory is grounded in the notion that in a diverse society such
as the United States, too many interests exist to allow any one
coherent group of elites to rule.
• Government decisions are made in an arena of competing interests,
all vying for influence and struggling to speak for the people that
they represent.
• Some pluralists have argued that the founding fathers represented
different interests (such as rural vs. urban, or north vs. south), and
that many points of view were actually represented.
• The model still works today, as pluralists argue, creating strong links
between government officials and their popular base.
THE INFLUENCE OF THE EUROPEAN
ENLIGHTENMENT
• The European Enlightenment grew out of the
Scientific Revolution of the 16th and 17th
centuries, a time of amazing discoveries that
form the basis of modern science.
• Scientific success created confidence in the
power of reason, which enlightenment thinkers
believed could be applied to human nature in the
form of natural laws.
• Every social, political, and economic problem
could be solved through the use of reason.
THE SOCIAL CONTRACT
• A seventeenth century English thinker of the 1600s - John
Locke - believed that in the "state of nature” people are
naturally free and equal, but that freedom led inevitably to
inequality, and eventually to chaos.
• Locke agreed with other philosophers of the day (such as
Thomas Hobbes) that the state of nature changes because
humans are basically self-centered. However, he believed
that they could be rational and even moral.
• Even though people serve self-interests first, they fear
violence, particularly violent death.
• He argued that people have natural rights from the state of
nature that include the right to "life, liberty, and property."
LOCKE IN THE DECLARATION OF
INDEPENDENCE
• The founders generally were educated men who
had read Locke and Hobbes, as well as French
philosophers, such as Montesquieu, Voltaire, and
Rousseau, who were concerned with freedom,
equality, and justice.
• John Locke, in particular, directly influenced the
thinking of the founders, as reflected in the
Declaration of Independence.
• Compare the words of Jefferson with those of
John Locke:
Second Treatise of Government
• In his Second Treatise of Government, Locke stated that
people form governments to protect these natural
rights, giving up their freedom to govern themselves
through a social contract between government and the
governed.
• The only valid government is one based on the consent
of the governed. This consent creates a social
contract - an agreement between rulers and citizens that both sides are obligated to honor.
• If for any reason the government breaks the contract
through neglect of natural rights, the people have the
right to dissolve the government
LOCKE IN SECOND TREATISE OF CIVIL
GOVERNMENT
•"When any one, or more, shall take upon
them to make laws whom the people have
not appointed so to do, they make laws
JEFFERSON IN THE DECLARATION OF
INDEPENDENCE
•"When in the course of human events, it
becomes necessary for one people to
dissolve the political bands that have
connected them with another, and to
•without authority, which the people are
•not therefore bound to obey; by which
means they come again to be out of
subjection, and may constitute to themselves
a new legislature."
“Whosoever uses force without right...puts
himself into a state of war with those against
whom he so uses it, and in that state all
former ties are canceled, all other rights
cease, and every one has a right to defend
himself, and to resist the aggressor..."
•assume, among the powers of the earth,
the separate and equal station to which the
laws of nature and of nature's God entitle
them..."
“But when a long train of abuses and
usurpations, pursuing invariably the same
object, evinces a design to reduce them
under absolute despotism, it is their right, it
is their duty, to throw off such
government..."
LOCKE IN SECOND TREATISE OF CIVIL
GOVERNMENT
JEFFERSON IN THE DECLARATION OF
INDEPENDENCE
"A state also of equality, wherein all the
power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one
having more than another..."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all men are created equal;"
"[men] have a mind to unite for the mutual
preservation of their lives, liberties,
and....property.”
" that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable rights, that among
these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness."
" To great and chief end, therefore, of men
uniting into commonwealths, and putting
themselves under government, is the
preservation of their property...."
" that to secure these rights, governments
are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the
governed."
Constitutional Underpinnings
• The Founders created the Constitution during the late 18th century,
an era when European philosophers were strongly criticizing
governments dominated by imperialism and monarchy.
• The design of the Constitution reflected the influence of the
European Enlightenment and the newly emerging beliefs in
democracy, liberty for more individuals in society, and the
importance of checking the self-interest inherent in ordinary human
interactions.
• At the same time, the founders were far from unanimous in their
admiration for direct democracy, and the Constitution they created
reflects restraints on democracy.
• While they believed that monarchies were repressive, they knew
that complete freedom would lead to disorder. Their main
challenge was to fashion a government that struck a balance
between liberty and order.
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
• John Locke and other Enlightenment thinkers,
such as Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Jean
Jacques Rousseau, created theories of
democracy, republican government, pluralism,
and elitism that guided the Founders as they
shaped the new government of the United
States in the late 18th century.
The Constitution
• The Constitution reflects the founders'
attempt to balance order with freedom.
• They generally did not believe that people
were fully capable of ruling themselves, but
they also wanted to check any tendency
toward monarchy.
• The Constitution is based on five great
principles designed to achieve this balance.
5 Principals
• Popular Sovereignty - the basic principle that the power to govern
belongs to the people and that government must be based on the
consent of the governed.
• Separation of Powers - the division of government’s powers into three
separate branches: executive, legislative, and judicial
• Checks and Balances - a political system in which branches of government
have some authority over the actions of the others.
• Limited Government - the basic principle that government is not allpowerful, and that it does only those things that citizens allow it to do.
• Federalism - the division of governmental powers between a central
government and the states.
• These principles resulted from the agreements and compromises made at
the Constitutional Convention in 1787.
Articles of Confederation
• During the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress wrote the Articles of
Confederation to provide unity for the separate states that loosely formed the
new country. The Articles allowed state governments to retain their powers,
and the newly formed central government had severe limitations:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The central government consisted only of a Congress in which each state
was represented equally.
No executive or judiciary branches were created.
The central government could not levy taxes. It could only request money
from the states.
The central government could not regulate commerce between states. The
states taxed each other's goods and negotiated trade agreements with other
countries.
No law enforcing powers were granted to Congress.
No process for amending the Articles was provided.
States retained all powers not specifically granted to Congress
Shay’s Rebellion
• When the war was over, the immediate need for unity was past,
and chaos threatened to undo the new nation. States quarreled
over borders and tariffs, the country was badly in debt, and foreign
countries saw the lack of a strong central government as weakness
that could easily be exploited.
• Many leaders began to push for a government strong enough to
settle disputes, to regulate commerce, and levy limited taxes.
• An important turning point occurred when farmers in western
Massachusetts, in debt and unable to pay their taxes, rebelled
against foreclosures, forcing judges out of court and freeing
debtors from jails.
• Shay's Rebellion was eventually controlled, but it encouraged
leaders to seek a stronger central government.
Constitutional Convention
• Fifty-five delegates arrived from the thirteen
states in May 1787. Most were important men
in their states: planters, bankers,
businessmen, and lawyers.
• Many were governors and/or Congressional
representatives, and most had read works by
Hobbes, Locke, and French philosophers, such
as Voltaire and Montesquieu.
Important Delegates
• Alexander Hamilton, the leading proponent of a
strong, centralized government.
• George Washington, the chairman of the Convention,
and the most prestigious member, who also was a
strong supporter of a centralized government.
• James Madison, a young, well-read delegate from
Virginia, who is usually credited with writing large parts
of the Constitution
• Benjamin Franklin, the 81-year-old delegate from
Pennsylvania, who had also attended the Continental
Congress in 1776
Missing Delegates
• Absent were Thomas Jefferson, serving as ambassador
to France, and John Adams, ambassador to England.
• Other absent leaders were Patrick Henry, who refused
to come because he who “smelt a rat” and Samuel
Adams, who was not selected by Massachusetts to
attend.
• The absence of Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams
almost certainly tilted the balance of the convention
toward order and freed the delegates from criticism as
they created a stronger central government
Voting Requirement
• The founders' common belief in a balanced government led them to
construct a government in which no single interest dominated. They
were concerned with the "excesses of democracy" (Elbridge Gerry,
delegate from Massachusetts), demonstrated by Shay's Rebellion, and
they agreed with Locke that government should protect property.
• Benjamin Franklin - a strong proponent of liberty and equality proposed that all white males have the right to vote, but most
delegates believed that only property owners should have the
franchise.
• In their view, ordinary people would either scheme to deprive property
owners of their rights or become the "tools of demagogues."
• In the end the founders did not include specific voting requirements in
the Constitution, leaving each state to decide voter qualifications for its
citizens.
Small vs. Large States
• A major issue at the convention was the balance of
power between the large states and the small.
• The large states favored a strong national government
that they believed they could dominate, and the small
states wanted stronger state governments that could
avert domination by the central government.
• These different interests are apparent in the first
discussions of representation in Congress. Most
favored a bicameral, or two-house, legislature, similar
to the organization of most state legislatures since
colonial times.
Virginia Plan
• The delegates from Virginia opened the Convention with their Virginia
Plan that called for a strong central government. Although proposed by
James Randolph, the plan was almost certainly the work of James
Madison, who, along with Alexander Hamilton, reasoned that a suggestion
as boldly different from the current government would not be accepted,
but might at least inspire major revisions.
• Their plan succeeded beyond their hopes. The delegates took the plan
seriously, and began the debate with the assumption that the central
government would be strengthened greatly. The plan called for a
bicameral legislature: the larger house with members elected by popular
vote and the smaller, more aristocratic house selected by the larger house
from nominees from state legislatures.
• Representation in both houses was to be based on wealth or numbers,
giving the large states a majority in the legislature. The Virginia Plan also
called for a national executive and a national judiciary.
New Jersey Plan
• Delegates from the small states countered with the New
Jersey Plan, presented by William Paterson.
• Just as Madison and Hamilton had hoped, the counter plan
did not argue with the need for a stronger central
government, giving Congress the right to tax, regulate, and
coerce states.
• The legislature would be unicameral, and each state would
have the same vote. The delegates from small states were
determined that the new legislature would not be
dominated by the large states, and the debate between
large and small states deadlocked the Convention.
• Finally, a committee was elected to devise a compromise,
which they presented on July 5.
The Great Compromise
• The Great Compromise (also called the Connecticut
Compromise) called for one house in which each state
would have an equal vote (The Senate) and a second house
(The House of Representatives) in which representation
would be based on population.
• Unlike the Virginia Plan, the Senate would not be chosen by
the House of Representatives, but would be chosen by the
state legislatures.
• The House of Representatives would be directly elected by
all voters, whose eligibility to vote would be determined by
the states. The Compromise was accepted by a very slim
margin, and the Convention was able to successfully agree
on other controversial issues.
Three-Fifths Compromise
• Another disagreement at the Convention was
based on North/South differences, particularly
regarding the counting of slaves for purposes of
apportioning seats in the House.
• The South wanted to count slaves in order to
increase its number of representatives, and the
North resisted.
• The delegates finally agreed on the Three-fifths
Compromise, which allowed southern states to
count a slave as three-fifths of a person, allowing
a balance of power between North and South.
Selection of the President
• Another debate concerned the selection of the
president.
• The initial decision was for the president to be selected
by Congress, but the delegates were concerned about
too much concentration of power in the legislature.
• On the other hand, they feared direct election by the
people, especially since the House of Representatives
were to be popularly elected.
• The Compromise was to leave the selection of the
president to an electoral college - people selected by
each state legislature to formally cast their ballots for
the presidency.
Signing the Constitution
• All but three of the delegates signed the
document on September 17, 1787, with
others who opposed it leaving before that.
The drafting of the Constitution took about
three months, but the document has lasted
for more than two hundred years, making it
the longest lasting Constitution in world
history.
Amending the Constitution
• The Founders designed the amendment
process to be difficult enough that Congress
could not add so many amendments that the
original document would end up with little
meaning.
• The process requires action by BOTH the
national government and the states before an
amendment may be passed.
Formal Amendments
• The Constitution may be formally amended in four ways:
1. Amendments may be proposed by a 2/3 vote of each house of
Congress and ratified by at least 3/4 of the state legislatures. All but
one of the amendments have been added through this process.
2. Amendments may be proposed by a 2/3 vote of each house of
Congress and ratified by specially called conventions in at least 3/4 of
the states. This method was used once for the 21st Amendment that
repealed Prohibition because Congress believed that many state
legislatures would not vote for it.
3. Amendments may be proposed by a national constitutional
convention requested by at least 2/3 of state legislatures and ratified
by at least 3/4 of the state legislatures.
4. Amendments may be proposed by a national constitutional
convention and ratified by specially called conventions in at least 3/4
of the states.
Informal Amendments
• The Constitution is written
broadly enough that change can
occur within our political system
through interpreting the words to
fit changing needs and events. All
three branches have contributed
to informal amendment of the
Constitution.
Informal Amendment – Executive
Branch
• Executive Branch - Presidents may negotiate
executive agreements with other countries, an
authority not mentioned in the Constitution.
• The Constitution requires that foreign treaties be
ratified by the Senate, but executive agreements
do not.
• These agreements are used to circumvent the
formal process, especially for routine matters
that might simply slow the work of the Senate
down.
Informal Amendments – Legislature
• Legislature - Congress has passed laws that
reinterpret and expand Constitutional provisions.
• For example, the Commerce Clause allows
Congress to regulate and promote interstate and
international commerce.
• Over time, Congress has passed many laws that
define the Commerce Clause, including
regulations on forms of commerce that didn’t
exist in 1789, such as railroad lines, air routes,
and internet traffic.
Informal Branch – Judicial Branch
• Judicial Branch - Of all the branches, the judiciary has
been the most influential in interpreting the
Constitution.
• Article III defines the power of the judiciary very
broadly, but does not specifically mention judicial
review - the power of the courts to declare statutes
unconstitutional and interpret the Constitution when
disputes arise.
• That power was first established in Madison v. Marbury
in 1803, when Chief Justice John Marshall claimed
judicial review as a prerogative of the court in his
famous majority opinion issued in the case.
Beard’s Criticism of the Founders
• The founders' interest in protection of property has led some scholars to
question their personal interests as motives in writing the Constitution.
• Charles Beard argued in An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution,
written in 1913, that the founders created a constitution that benefited their
economic interests.
• According to Beard, the major conflicts and compromises resulted from the
clash of owners of land as property, and owners of business or commercial
interests.
• Many scholars today disagree with Beard because voting at the Convention did
not follow these divisions closely. For example, Elbridge Gerry, a wealthy
Massachusetts merchant and politician, refused to sign the Constitution.
• James Madison and James Wilson, men of modest means, were two of its
biggest proponents.
• However, the founders did tend to base their votes on the economic interests
of their states, as reflected in the famous compromises at the convention.
Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist
• The delegates agreed that the Constitution would go into effect as
soon as popularly elected conventions in nine states approved it.
• The debate over ratification or the formal approval of the
Constitution by the states raged throughout the country, with
supporters of the new government calling themselves Federalists,
and their opponents, the Anti-Federalists.
• Federalists supported the greatly increased powers of the central
government and believed that the Constitution adequately
protected individual liberties.
• The Anti-Federalists believed that the proposed government would
be oppressive and that more individual freedoms and rights should
be explicitly guaranteed. Pamphlets, newspapers, and speeches
supported one view or the other.
Federalist Papers
• Ratification of the Constitution was defended
by the Federalist Papers, written by Alexander
Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay.
These documents contain some of the most
basic and brilliantly argued philosophical
underpinnings of American government.
• Two famous papers are Federalist #10 and
Federalist #51
Federalist #10
• The Federalist #10 argued that separation of powers and federalism
check the growth of tyranny: If "factious leaders...kindle a flame
within their particular states..." leaders can check the spread of the
"conflagration through the other states."
• Likewise, each branch of the government keeps the other two from
gaining a concentration of power.
• Federalist #10 also argues that Constitutional principles guard
against the dangers of a direct democracy, or the “common passion
or interest-felt by a majority of the whole-such [direct]
democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and
contention.”
• Madison argues that a long-lived democracy must manage its
interest groups, even though these “factions” can never be
eliminated.
Federalist #51
• The Federalist #51 explained why strong
government is necessary: “If men were angels,
no government would be necessary. If angels
were to govern men, neither external nor
internal controls on government would be
necessary”
Bill of Rights
• A compromise between Federalists and Anti-Federalists was reached with
the agreement to add ten amendments that guaranteed individual
freedoms and rights.
• With this agreement, the Constitution was finally ratified by all the states
in 1789, and the Bill of Rights was added in 1791. Without these crucial
additions, the Constitution would not have been ratified in several key
states.
• Many of the recommendations from state ratifying conventions were
considered by James Madison as he wrote the Bill, and he and a specially
appointed committee submitted seventeen amendments to Congress.
• Congress eliminated five of them, and two were not immediately ratified
by the states. These two did not become part of the original Bill of Rights,
with one (dealing with apportionment of representatives) later clarified by
Supreme Court decisions, and one (addressing salaries of members of
Congress), added as an amendment 203 years later in 1992.
Caitlin Annicelli
Teaching American History
The Constitution and Liberty
Federalist – Anti-Federalist Debate
In 1787, fifty-five delegates came together in Philadelphia to amend the Articles of
Confederation. Instead a group led by James Madison proposed a stronger national government.
After four months of heated debate and compromise the Constitution was created. Just as
independence was not a guarantee there was no guarantee that the Constitution would
successfully unify this fragile nation. The stage then turned to the ratification process. After the
Constitutional Convention a more difficult question needed to be answered and that was whether
the Constitution created a system of government that would respect personal liberties. That
question was debated in the states when the document was presented for ratification. The debate
continued and two sides emerged as proponents and opponents of the new document.
National Standards (Based on Advanced Placement Government)
I.
Constitutional Underpinnings of the United States
Objectives
1. Place Federalist No. 10 and No. 51 in the context of the arguments between the
federalists and the anti-federalists
2. Place Centinel No. 1 and Brutus No. 1 and No. 4 in context of the arguments between the
federalists and the anti-federalists
3. Take the arguments that the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had and connect it to
historical events and today
Time Frame
Two 90 minute periods or 4 45 minute periods
Background
The proponents of the Constitution called themselves the Federalists and the opponents
became known as the Anti-federalists. The Anti-federalists had a variety of objections, but were
in general united by the belief that liberty could be secure only in a small republic were rulers
were physically close and closely checked by the ruled. The dissenters argued that a strong
national government would be distant from the people and would use its powers to annihilate or
absorb the functions that properly belonged to the states. If a stronger national government was
to be created it should include more restrictions then proposed by the Constitution. They
proposed several limitations, including narrowing the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court,
checking the presidents’ power by creating a council that would review his actions, leaving
military affairs in the hands of the state militias, increasing the size of the House of
Representatives, and reducing or eliminating the power of Congress to levy taxes.
In 1787, James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton responded to these
criticisms through a series of articles defending and explaining their positions. Under the pen
name “Publius” they wrote 85 articles. While the identity of the authors was keep secret, it is
now known that Hamilton wrote 52, Madison 26, Jay five, and Hamilton and Madison jointly
authored three. Madison argued in Federalist No. 10 that liberty was the safest in large or
extended republics. According to Madison in small republics is anyone argues or dissents he or
she will have few allies. However, in large republics there will be many opinions and interests;
as a result it would be more difficult for a tyrannical majority to organize with an unpopular
view. Madison was not trying to stifle democracy rather show how democratic government can
work together. In Federalist No. 51 he argued that the coalitions that formed in a large republic
would be more moderate than those formed in a small republic because the bigger the republic
the more variety of interests, and thus the coalition must accommodate a diversity of interests
and opinions.
Procedures
Part I: Establish historical content
A. Through homework, lecture, class discussion, and PowerPoint notes, students will be
familiar with the following
1. The influence of the Enlightenment in the Constitution
2. John Locke’s influence on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution
3. The colonial mind during the creation of the Constitution
4. Five principals needed to achieve a working government (Popular Sovereignty,
Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances, Limited Government, Federalism)
5. Important Delegates (Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, James Madison,
Benjamin Franklin)
6. Factions in the convention (Large vs. Small states, North vs. South)
7. The plans and compromises (Virginia Plan, New Jersey Plan, Great Compromise)
8. The Federalist Papers
9. Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists
Part II: Looking at Primary Sources
A. Duplicate the primary sources and question. Assign students into pairs. One will look at
the Federalist papers and the other Centinel No. 1 and Brutus No. 1 and No. 4. Both
students will answer the questions and then discuss the major differences between the
groups.
1. Explain that these documents examine the major differences that the population had
over the ratification of the Constitution
Part III: The Debate
A. Students will be assigned one team, either Federalist or Anti-Federalist. They will need
to connect the documents and beliefs of their side to events that have happened
throughout history. Students will hold a debate based on the instructions handed out to
them. An instructor can chose whether they want to hand out the questions a day before
the debate or ask the students on the day of the debate.
1. Students will need time to research as a class. Explain that they must connect the
1780s ideas to historical events or issues.
2. On the day of the debate, groups will pass in a 2 page summary with citations of their
argument.
Bibliography
4, By Section. "Anti-Federalist Papers: Brutus #4." TeachingAmericanHistory.org -- Free
Seminars and Summer Institutes for Social Studies Teachers. Web. 23 Sept. 2010.
<http://www.teachingamericanhistory.com/library/index.asp?document=1671>.
8, By Sect. "Centinel I by Centinel." TeachingAmericanHistory.org -- Free Seminars and
Summer Institutes for Social Studies Teachers. Web. 23 Sept. 2010.
<http://www.teachingamericanhistory.com/library/index.asp?document=1635>.
Bernstein, Richard and Daniel M. Lyons, The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.
Web. <http://revolution.h.net.msu.edu/essays/bernsein.confederation.html>.
"Brutus I." TeachingAmericanHistory.org -- Free Seminars and Summer Institutes for Social
Studies Teachers. Web. 23 Sept. 2010.
<http://www.teachingamericanhistory.com/library/index.asp?document=849>.
Jefferson, Thomas: “A Peep into the Antifederal Club” cartoon. Photograph. Encyclopædia
Britannica Online. Web. 22 Sep. 2010
Serow, Ann G. and Everett C. Ladd, ed. The Lanahan Readings in the American Polity, 4th
edition. Baltimore, Maryland: Lanahan Publishers, Inc. 2007
Wilson, James Q. and John DiLulio. American Government, 12th edition. Boston, Massachusetts:
Houghton Mifflin Company 2010
Fear of despotism or anarchy under a consolidated
government
Directions: Read the following documents and complete the questions
Centinel No. 1, 5 October 1787
[I]f the united states are to be melted down into one empire, it becomes you to consider, whether
such a government, however constructed, would be eligible in so extended a territory; and
whether it would be practicable, consistent with freedom? It is the opinion of the greatest writers,
that a very extensive country cannot be governed on democratical principles, on any other plan,
than a confederation of a number of small republics, possessing all the powers of internal
government, but united in the management of their foreign and general concerns.
It would not be difficult to prove, that any thing short of despotism, could not bind so great a
country under one government; and that whatever plan you might, at the first setting out,
establish, it would issue in a despotism.
If one general government could be instituted and maintained on principles of freedom, it would
not be so competent to attend to the various local concerns and wants, of every particular district,
as well as the peculiar governments, who are nearer the scene, and possessed of superior means
of information, besides, if the business of the whole union is to be managed by one government,
there would not be time. Do we not already see, that the inhabitants in a number of larger states,
who are remote from the seat of government, are loudly complaining of the inconveniencies and
disadvantages they are subjected to on this account, and that, to enjoy the comforts of local
government, they are separating into smaller divisions.
Fear of despotism or anarchy under a consolidated
government
Directions: Read the following documents and complete the questions
Brutus No. 1, 18 October 1787
The laws cannot be executed in a republic, of an extent equal to that of the United States, with
promptitude. The magistrates in every government must be supported in the execution of the
laws, either by an armed force, maintained at the public expence for that purpose; or by the
people turning out to aid the magistrate upon his command, in case of resistance.
In despotic governments, as well as in all the monarchies of Europe, standing armies are kept up
to execute the commands of the prince or the magistrate, and are employed for this purpose when
occasion requires: But they have always proved the destruction of liberty, and [are] abhorrent to
the spirit of a free republic…
A free republic will never keep a standing army to execute its laws. It must depend upon the
support of its citizens. But when a government is to receive its support from the aid of the
citizens, it must be so constructed as to have the confidence, respect, and affection of the
people…[B]ut the people will not be likely to have such confidence in their rulers, in a republic
so extensive as the United States, as necessary for these purposes.
The confidence which the people have in their rulers, in a free republic, arises from their
knowing them, from their being responsible to them for their conduct, and from the power they
have of displacing them when they misbehave: but in a republic of the extent of this continent,
the people in general would be acquainted with very few of their rulers: the people at large
would know little of their proceedings, and it would be extremely difficult to change them. The
people in Georgia and New-Hampshire would not know one another's mind, and therefore could
not act in concert to enable them to effect a general change of representatives. The different parts
of so extensive a country could not possibly be made acquainted with the conduct of their
representatives, nor be informed of the reasons upon which measures were founded. The
consequence will be, they will have no confidence in their legislature, suspect them of ambitious
views, be jealous of every measure they adopt, and will not support the laws they pass. Hence the
government will be nerveless and inefficient, and no way will be left to render it otherwise, but
by establishing an armed force to execute the laws at the point of the bayonet — a government of
all others the most to be dreaded…
In so extensive a republic, the great officers of government would soon become above the
controul of the people, and abuse their power to the purpose of aggrandizing themselves, and
oppressing them…The command of all the troops and navy of the republic, the appointment of
officers, the power of pardoning offences, the collecting of all the public revenues, and the power
of expending them, with a number of other powers, must be lodged and exercised in every state,
in the hands of a few. When these are attended with great honor and emolument, as they always
will be in large states, so as greatly to interest men to pursue them, and to be proper objects for
ambitious and designing men, such men will be ever restless in their pursuit after them. They
will use the power, when they have acquired it, to the purposes of gratifying their own interest
and ambition, and it is scarcely possible, in a very large republic, to call them to account for their
misconduct, or to prevent their abuse of power.
There are some reasons by which it appears, that a free republic cannot long subsist over a
country of the great extent of these states. If then this new constitution is calculated to
consolidate the thirteen states into one, as it evidently is, it ought not to be adopted.
Fear of despotism or anarchy under a consolidated
government
Directions: Read the following documents and complete the questions
Brutus No. 4, 29 November 1787
There can be no free government where the people are not possessed of the power of making the
laws by which they are governed, either in their own persons, or by others substituted in their
stead.
Experience has taught mankind, that legislation by representatives is the most eligible, and the
only practicable mode in which the people of any country can exercise this right, either prudently
or beneficially. But then, it is a matter of the highest importance, in forming this representation,
that it be so constituted as to be capable of understanding the true interests of the society for
which it acts, and so disposed as to pursue the good and happiness of the people as its ultimate
end…
The small number which is to compose this legislature, will not only expose it to the danger of
that kind of corruption, and undue influence, which will arise from the gift of places of honor
and emolument, or the more direct one of bribery, but it will also subject it to another kind of
influence no less fatal to the liberties of the people…[I]t will not possess the confidence of the
people. The execution of the laws in a free government must rest on this confidence, and this
must be founded on the good opinion they entertain of the framers of the laws…In order for the
people safely to repose themselves on their rulers, they should not only be of their own choice.
But it is requisite they should be acquainted with their abilities to manage the public concerns
with wisdom. They should be satisfied that those who represent them are men of integrity, who
will pursue the good of the community with fidelity; and will not be turned aside from their duty
by private interest, or corrupted by undue influence; and that they will have such a zeal for the
good of those whom they represent, as to excite them to be diligent in their service; but it is
impossible the people of the United States should have sufficient knowledge of their 2
representatives, when the numbers are so few, to acquire any rational satisfaction on either of
these points. The people of this state will have very little acquaintance with those who may be
chosen to represent them; a great part of them will, probably, not know the characters of their
own members, much less that of a majority of those who will compose the federal assembly;
they will consist of men, whose names they have never heard, and whose talents and regard for
the public good, they are total strangers to; and they will have no persons so immediately of their
choice so near them, of their neighbours and of their own rank in life, that they can feel
themselves secure in trusting their interests in their hands. The representatives of the people
cannot, as they now do, after they have passed laws, mix with the people, and explain to them the
motives which induced the adoption of any measure, point out its utility, and remove objections
or silence unreasonable clamours against it. — The number will be so small that but a very few
of the most sensible and respectable yeomanry of the country can ever have any knowledge of
them: being so far removed from the people, their station will be elevated and important, and
they will be considered as ambitious and designing. They will not be viewed by the people as
part of themselves, but as a body distinct from them, and having separate interests to pursue; the
consequence will be, that a perpetual jealousy will exist in the minds of the people against them;
their conduct will be narrowly watched; their measures scrutinized; and their laws opposed,
evaded, or reluctantly obeyed…
If then this government should not derive support from the good will of the people, it must be
executed by force, or not executed at all; either case would lead to the total destruction of liberty.
Centinel No. 1 and Brutus No. 1 and No. 4
Directions: read the documents, Centinel No. 1 and Brutus No. 1and No. 4, and answer the
questions on the worksheet.
Question
1. What evidence does the Centinel give to
suggest that a large extended republic
will result in dissention or rebellion
among citizens?
2. In Brutus No. 1, why does Brutus believe
an extended republic will eventually have
to use force against its citizens?
3. In Brutus No. 1, why does Brutus believe
that rulers in an extended republic will
abuse their powers and violate the rights
of citizens?
4. In Brutus No. 4, what problems will likely
arise from having too few representatives
in Congress?
5. In Brutus No. 4, why does Brutus believe
that an extended republic will lead to an
elite class of rulers distinct from the
people?
Answer
Constitutional Underpinnings
Questions on Madison's Federalist Number 10
1. How does Madison define “faction”? What are some examples of factions today?
2.
What are the two methods of curing the mischiefs caused by factions?
3.
What are the two ways of eliminating the causes of faction? Why are both
unacceptable?
4.
According to Madison, what is the primary cause of conflict?
5.
What issues divided mankind in 1787? Are those issues similar to the causes of
today’s divisions?
6.
What are the two remedies for controlling the effects of factions?
7.
Why are factions more easily controlled in large republics?
8.
How does federalism control factions?
9.
What portions of Madison’s arguments are most persuasive? What is the least
persuasive?
10.
Does Madison have an optimistic or pessimistic view of human nature? How did
this viewpoint impact the drafting of the Constitution?
11.
Was Madison right, or have factions sometimes gained control of our
government?
Constitutional Underpinnings
Questions on Madison's Federalist Number 51
1. What are the three branches of government?
2. Which branch did Madison think would be the weakest?
3. Which methods does Madison suggest to check the powers of
government?
4. How is the separation of powers between the three branches assured?
5. Give two examples of the "checks and balances" in the U.S.
constitutional system.
6. Which branch appears as an exception to the separation of powers
norm? Why is this exception not dangerous?
7. What is federalism?
8. What are the two great advantages of federalism, according to Madison?
9. What is the "end" (supreme goal) of government, according to Madison?
10. What is Madison's view of human nature and how does it
affect his prescriptions for the republic?
It’s Up For Debate!
It was the debate to end all debates--Two powerhouse groups of rich white guys who argued
about how the U.S. government should rule the American people! Patrick Henry on the left,
James Madison on the right—this was a showdown not to be missed! Now you get the honor of
recreating it for the 21st century!
• Moderator (Me) -- calls the debate to order, poses the debatable point/question, and introduces the debaters
and their roles.
• Lead Debater/Constructor -- presents the main points/arguments for his or her team's stand on the topic of
the debate.
• Questioner/Cross-Examiner -- poses questions about the opposing team's arguments to its Question
Responder.
• Question Responder -- takes over the role of the Lead Debater/Constructor as he or she responds to
questions posed by the opposing team's Questioner/Cross-Examiner.
• Rebutter -- responds on behalf of his or her team to as many of the questions raised in the crossexamination as possible.
• Summarizer -- closes the debate by summarizing the main points of his or her team's arguments, especially
attempts by the opposition to shoot holes in their arguments.
Here you will find the order for the debate:
• Opening Argument (5 minutes) Federalist
• Opening Argument (5 minutes) Anti-Federalist
• Opening Question
• Teams meet for response (10 minutes)
• Response (4 minutes) Anti-Federalist
• Response(4 minutes) Federalist
• Cross Examine (2 minutes) Anti-Federalist
• Rebuttal (3 minutes) Federalist
• Speed Round: Second Question
• Teams meet for rebuttal (3 minutes)
• Response (3 minutes) Federalist
• Response (3 minutes) Anti-Federalist
• Cross Examine (2 minutes) Federalist
• Second Rebuttal (3 minutes) Anti-Federalist
• Teams meet for closing statements (6 minutes)
• Closing Statements (3 minutes) Anti-Federalist
• Closing Statements (3 minutes) Federalist
•
Each team will be assigned one of the following political parties to represent:
• Federalist(James Madison, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton)
• Anti-Federalist (Patrick Henry, Robert Yates, Richard Henry Lee)
The task:
As a team, you need to research and create a debate platform based on historical evidence from
your party. You will need to research how your party thinks, what major issues they have
considered, and what your opponents argue. When debating, you must follow the rules for order
and must be professional. Be thorough in your research and work together as a team to form your
points for discussion and argument.
I have provided you with a research packet to help you. You will need to read both your party’s
material and your opponents. Know thy enemy! You may also want to translate the primary
sources into modern day language to make it clearer. Make sure you include modern and
historical evidence to support your views on federalism. Good luck!
Assessment:
Grades will be issued to the TEAM according to the following rubric:
CLASSROOM DEBATE RUBRIC
Levels of Performance (Points Possible)
Criteria
5
10
15
20
1. Organization and
Clarity:
viewpoints and responses are
outlined both clearly and
orderly.
Unclear in most
parts
Clear in some
parts but not
over all
Most clear and
orderly in all
parts
Completely clear and
orderly presentation
2. Use of Arguments:
reasons are given to support
viewpoint.
Few or no
relevant reasons
given
Some relevant
reasons given
Most reasons
given: most
relevant
Most relevant reasons
given in support
3. Use of Examples and
Facts:
examples and facts are given
to support reasons.
Few or no
relevant
supporting
examples/facts
Some relevant
examples/facts
given
Many
examples/facts
given: most
relevant
Many relevant supporting
modern and historic
examples and facts given
4. Use of Rebuttal:
arguments made by the other
teams are responded to and
dealt with effectively.
No effective
counterarguments made
Few effective
counterarguments made
Some effective
counterarguments made
Many effective counterarguments made
5. Presentation Style:
tone of voice, use of gestures,
and level of enthusiasm are
convincing to audience.
Few style
features were
used; not
convincingly
Few style
features were
used
convincingly
All style features
were used, most
convincingly
All style features were used
convincingly
**NOTE: In order to receive their points, each team needs to submit a typed 2 page summary of
their arguments along with a bibliography of sources used in MLA format. Summaries should be
proofread and spell-checked prior to submission.
Opening Question
Federalism dictates that the constitution is the supreme law of
the land, but allows states to make laws not addressed by the
federal government. This has allowed a wide variety of states
laws to be passed including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Anti-slavery
Literacy tests for voting
Doctor assisted suicide
Gay marriage (for and against)
Gun laws
State minimum wages
How have these laws and others you might have researched
affected your view of federalism?
Speed Round Question
In recent years we have seen fundamental shifts in federalism
with more power being turned over to the states by virtue of
devolution. The "Devolution Revolution" is a shift in authority
from the federal government to state and local authorities. This
means more grants and mandates (funded and unfunded) are
being passed onto the states. Does your group like the idea of
devolution? Please justify your responses.