MS-1B
The U.S. Constitution
READING FOCUS
Read “The U.S. Constitution and Fascinating Facts About It.”
Cognitive Lesson Objective: Comprehend the key ideas and documents behind the
development of and the key features of the U.S. Constitution.
Cognitive Samples of Behavior:
1. Describe Locke’s general principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution.
2. List ways to amend the U.S. Constitution.
3. Describe the five parts of the Declaration of Independence.
Affective Lesson Objective: Respond positively to the importance of the U.S.
Constitution to members of the U.S. Armed Forces.
Affective Samples of Behavior:
1. Independently read the assigned student reader and the book “The U.S. Constitution
and Fascinating Facts About It.”
2. Willingly ask questions concerning the key ideas and documents behind the
development of and the key features of of the U.S. Constitution.
3. Describe how the U.S. Constitution is important to them as members of the U.S.
Armed Forces.
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither
external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government, which is
to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the
government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on
the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind
the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 51.
13
The two issues that delayed the newly formed government of Iraq’s completion of their
constitution, in the summer of 2005, are some of the same issues with which our founding fathers
struggled greatly during the creation of our own constitution – federalism and the role of religion in
government. Framing a constitution is no doubt the single most difficult step in the creation of a new
democracy. The struggles which follow are a necessary part of becoming a society “for the people and
by the people.”
The History
The Federal Convention convened in the State House (Independence Hall) in Philadelphia on
May 14, 1787, to revise the Articles of Confederation. At the time, the Articles were judged by many
to be too weak and decentralized to effectively govern national affairs. Because the delegations from
only a few states were present, the members adjourned from day to day until a quorum of seven states
was obtained on May 25. Through discussion and debate it became clear by mid-June that, rather
than amend the existing Articles, the Convention would draft an entirely new frame of government.
All through the summer, in closed sessions, the delegates debated, and redrafted the articles of the new
Constitution. Among the chief points at issue were how much power to allow the national
government, how many representatives in Congress to allow each state, and how these representatives
should be elected--directly by the people or by the state legislators. The work of many minds, the
Constitution stands as a model of cooperative statesmanship and the art of compromise.
The Constitution’s framers never corresponded with one another via e-mail or conducted research
on the internet. Human embryos were not cultured in a petri dish and placed in deep freeze. Social
policy concepts like affirmative action and diversity held no meaning in a world where only white
men attended college, owned property, or voted in an election. Yet the framers managed to create a
living document that continues to define the ground rules and set the parameters for an increasingly
complex set of political, social and economic issues brought about by technological and cultural
transformations not likely conceived two hundred years ago. That the Constitution continues to
provide meaning and force to such basic issues as individual freedom, justice and power is testimony
to the strength and integrity that most Americans place in their founding charter.
Founding Fathers - A Brief Overview
The 55 delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention were distinguished men who
represented a cross section of 18th-century American leadership. Almost all of them were welleducated men of means who were dominant in their communities, states, or national affairs. Virtually
every one had taken part in the Revolution; at least 29 had served in the Continental forces, most of
them in positions of command. Although 55 delegates attended the Constitutional Convention
sessions, only 39 actually signed the Constitution. The delegates ranged in age from Jonathan
Dayton, aged 26, to Benjamin Franklin, aged 81, who was so infirm that he had to be carried to
sessions in a sedan chair.
14
Political Experience
The group, as a whole, had extensive political experience. Four-fifths, or 41 individuals, were or
had been members of the Continental Congress. Eight men had signed the Declaration of
Independence. Six had affixed their signatures to the Articles of Confederation. But only two, Roger
Sherman and Robert Morris, underwrote all three of the nation’s basic documents.
Occupations
The delegates practiced a wide range of occupations, and many men pursued more than one
career simultaneously. Thirty-five were lawyers or had benefited from legal training, although not all
of them relied on the profession for a livelihood. Some had also become judges. At the time of the
convention, 13 individuals were businessmen, merchants, or shippers. Eleven speculated in securities
on a large scale. Twelve owned or managed slave-operated plantations or large farms. Madison, for
example, was a slave owner, while Jacob Broom and William Few were small farmers. James McClurg,
James McHenry, and Hugh Williamson were physicians, and William Johnson was a university
president. Abraham Baldwin had been a minister.
Geographic and Educational Background
Most of the delegates were natives of the 13 colonies. Only eight were born elsewhere: four in
Ireland, two in England, one in Scotland, and one in the West Indies. Reflecting the mobility that has
always characterized American life, many of them had moved from one state to another. Sixteen
individuals had already lived or worked in more than one state or colony. Several others had studied
or traveled abroad.
The educational background of the Founding Fathers was diverse. Some, like Franklin, were
largely self-taught and had received little formal training. Others had obtained instruction from
private tutors or at academies. About half of the individuals had attended or graduated from college in
the British North American colonies or abroad. Some men held advanced and honorary degrees. For
the most part, the delegates were a well-educated group.
Longevity and Family Life
For their era, the delegates to the convention were remarkably long-lived. Their average age at
death was almost 67. Johnson reached the age of 92, and five lived into their eighties. The first to die
was William Houston in 1788; the last, James Madison in 1836.
15
Most of the delegates married and raised children. Sherman fathered the largest family, 15
children by 2 wives. Four were lifelong bachelors. In terms of religious affiliation, the men mirrored
the overwhelmingly Protestant character of American religious life at the time and were members of
various denominations. Only two were Roman Catholics.
Post-Convention Careers
The delegates’ subsequent careers reflected their abilities as well as the vagaries of fate. Most were
successful, although seven suffered serious financial reverses that left them in or near bankruptcy.
Two, William Blount and Jonathan Dayton, were involved in possibly treasonous activities. Yet, as
they had done before the convention, most of the group continued to render outstanding public
service, particularly to the new government they had helped to create.
Washington and Madison became President of the United States. Elbridge Gerry served as
Madison’s Vice President. Nineteen men became U.S. Senators. Thirteen served in the House of
Representatives, of these, Dayton served as Speaker. Four men served as federal judges, four more as
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court. John Rutledge and Oliver Ellsworth also held the position of
Chief Justice. Not surprisingly, many of their sons and other descendants were to occupy high
positions in American political and intellectual life.
Constitutional Concepts
The subject of the origins of the Constitution could fill many hours of study and research. A brief
overview of the origins can give an insight to the ideas and experiences that helped shape the events of
1787.
Philosophical Ideas
John Locke (1632-1704) was one of the most influential philosophers
with respect to the United States form of government and the content of
the Constitution. He believed in the natural rights philosophy. This
philosophy involved how human beings would act in a "state of nature," a
condition in which there was no government. Locke believed that there are
certain rights one cannot be denied, among them the rights to life, liberty,
and property. In a state of nature, there would be people who would take
advantage of the lawlessness by depriving others of their natural rights.
People form governments in order to protect themselves and keep this from
happening. The people enter into a "social contract" with their
government. They agree to give up some of their rights so that the
John Locke
government may protect the people's natural rights. The laws are there to
protect the people from each other and to secure their natural rights, the ones that they cannot be
denied.
16
Locke’s writings contained several principles the early settlers took for granted, including:
•
Equality. Although he and his American followers failed to extend this idea to women, Native
Americans, or other racial minorities, this emphasis on equality was revolutionary for the time.
It directly challenged the medieval emphasis on fixed--and politically unequal--social classes,
thus making democracy possible.
•
Natural Law and Natural Rights. This argument held that societies, as well as governments,
should operate in a manner in line with the laws of nature, or natural rights for all people.
Obviously, some natural rights were sacrificed to form a society, but others--life, liberty, and
property--could not be given up.
•
Social Contract. A method by which citizens of a nation state could join together for the
mutual protection of their rights. It was designed to protect natural rights and formed the
only legitimate foundation for the subsequent exercise of political power. The drafting and
eventual ratification of the Constitution, to the Founding Fathers in 1787, was a virtual
reenactment of the social contract.
The Declaration of Independence
The Declaration of Independence consists of five distinct parts: the introduction; the preamble;
the body, which can be divided into two sections; and a conclusion. The introduction states that this
document will “declare the causes” that have made it necessary for the American colonies to leave the
British Empire.
Having stated in the introduction that independence is unavoidable, even necessary, the preamble
sets out principles that were already recognized to be “self-evident” by most 18th century Englishmen,
closing with the statement that “a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations... evinces a Design to reduce
them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and
to provide new Guards for their future Security.”
The first section of the body of the Declaration gives evidence of the “long Train of Abuses and
Usurpations” heaped upon the colonists by King George III. The second section of the body states
that the colonists had appealed in vain to their “British Brethren” for a redress of their grievances.
Having stated the conditions that made independence necessary and having shown that those
conditions existed in British North America, the Declaration concludes that “these United Colonies
are, and of Right ought to be FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from
all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of
Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved.”
17
At the same time that Thomas Jefferson was drafting the Declaration, members of the
Continental Congress were developing a new form of government for the confederated colonies. On
7 June 1776, in addition to the resolution for independence, Richard Henry Lee moved, “that a plan
of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and
approbation.” On 12 June, one delegate from each colony was chosen to sit on a committee “to
prepare and digest the form of confederation to be entered into between these colonies...”
Articles of Confederation
The first constitution in our nation’s history was the Articles of Confederation that has sometimes
been referred to as the “Articles of Confusion.” It was a plan of government based upon the principles
fought for in the American Revolutionary War, and as a result, contained crucial weaknesses. It had
no power of national taxation, no power to control trade, and it provided for a comparatively weak
executive. Therefore, it could not enforce legislation. It was a “league of friendship” based upon the
concept of a confederation opposed to any type of national authority.
The Articles of Confederation’s greatest weakness, however, was that it had no direct origin in the
people themselves, but knew only state sovereignty. Dsepite this weakness, there were some major
accomplishments of our first constitution. Under the Articles of Confederation we began to function
as a nation. It conducted the affairs of the country during the last two years of the Revolutionary War,
helped to negotiate the Treaty of Paris in 1783, and it produced two monumental pieces of legislation
in the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. It would have been very
difficult for our country to create a stronger second constitution without learning from the mistakes
of the first. The Articles of Confederation served as a transition between the Revolutionary War and
the Constitution.
The replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution occurred because of a loss
of power on a national level by the “radicals” (Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, John Hancock, Paul
Revere, etc.) who were the architects of the war for independence against Great Britain. Once the
“radicals” had won control of their local self-governments, the balance of power on a national level
began to shift towards the “conservative patriots.”
With Shays’ Rebellion being the catalyst, there was a call to do something to stabilize the
economic situation in the country under the Articles of Confederation. Using methods previously
employed by the “radicals” such as propaganda, organization, communication, and effective
leadership, the “conservative patriots” (the so-called “founding fathers”) successfully engineered a
counter-revolution and established a new national government under the Constitution.
Shays’ Rebellion
In force since 1781, the Articles of Confederation seemed to some, specifically James Madison, as
woefully inadequate. With the states retaining considerable power, the central government, he
believed, had insufficient power to regulate commerce. It could not tax and was generally impotent in
18
setting commercial policy; it could not effectively support a war effort. It had little power to settle
quarrels between states. Saddled with this weak government, the states were on the brink of economic
disaster. The evidence was overwhelming. Congress was attempting to function with a depleted
treasury; paper money flooded the country, creating extraordinary inflation (a pair of boots, for
example, was priced at $600); and the depressed condition of business took its toll on many small
farmers. Some of them were thrown in jail for debt, and numerous farms were confiscated and sold
for taxes.
In August 1786 some of the farmers fought back. Led by Daniel Shays, a former captain in the
Continental army, a group of armed men prevented the Massachusetts Supreme Court from sitting
and threatened to seize muskets stored in the arsenal at Springfield. Although the insurrection was put
down by state troops, the incident confirmed the fears of many wealthy men that anarchy was just
around the corner. Embellished day after day in the press, the uprising made upper-class Americans
shudder as they imagined hordes of vicious outlaws descending upon them. From his idyllic Mount
Vernon setting, Washington wrote to Madison: “Wisdom and good examples are necessary at this
time to rescue the political machine from the impending storm.”
The Virginia Plan
On Tuesday morning, May 29, Edmund Randolph, the tall, 33-year-old governor of Virginia,
opened the debate with a long speech decrying the evils that had befallen the country under the
Articles of Confederation and stressing the need for creating a strong national government. Randolph
then outlined a broad plan that he and his Virginia compatriots had put together in the days
preceding the convention. James Madison had such a plan on his mind for years. The proposed
government included three branches--legislative, executive, and judicial-- and each branch was
structured to check the other. Highly centralized, the government would have veto power over laws
enacted by state legislatures. The plan, Randolph confessed, “…meant a strong consolidated union in
which the idea of states should be nearly annihilated.” This was the very thing that the “radicals”
feared.
The introduction of the so-called Virginia Plan at the beginning of the convention was a tactical
coup. The Virginians had forced the debate into their own frame of reference and in their own terms.
For 10 days the members of the convention discussed the sweeping and, to many delegates, startling
Virginia resolutions. The critical issue, described succinctly by Gouverneur Morris on May 30, was
the distinction between a federation and a national government. Morris explained, “the former being
a mere compact resting on the good faith of the parties; the latter having a complete and compulsive
operation.” Morris favored the latter, a “supreme power” capable of exercising necessary authority, not
merely a shadow government, fragmented and hopelessly ineffective.
19
The New Jersey Plan
This nationalist position revolted many delegates who cringed at the vision of a central
government swallowing state sovereignty. On June 13, delegates from smaller states rallied around
proposals offered by New Jersey delegate William Paterson. Paterson proposed a single chamber
legislative body where each state was represented equally regardless of size. The plan also enabled the
Congress more easily to raise revenues and regulate commerce and would have provided that acts of
Congress and ratified treaties be “the supreme law of the States.” The New Jersey Plan called for these
proposals as only revisions to the existing Articles. For 3 days the convention debated Paterson’s plan,
finally voting for rejection. With the defeat of the New Jersey resolutions, the convention was moving
toward creation of a new government, much to the dismay of many small-state delegates. The
nationalists, led by Madison, appeared to have the proceedings in their grip. In addition, they were
able to persuade the members that any new constitution should be ratified through conventions of the
people, and not by the Congress and the state legislatures--another tactical coup. Madison and his
allies believed that the constitution they had in mind would likely be scuttled in the legislatures,
where many state political leaders stood to lose power. The nationalists wanted to bring the issue
before “the people,” where ratification was more likely.
Hamilton’s Plan
On June 18, Alexander Hamilton presented his own ideal plan of
government. Erudite and polished, the speech nevertheless failed to win a
following. Calling the British government “the best in the world,”
Hamilton proposed a model strikingly similar: an executive to serve during
good behavior or life with veto power over all laws; a senate with members
serving during good behavior; and a legislature to have power to pass “all
laws whatsoever.” Hamilton later wrote to Washington that the people
were now willing to accept “something not very remote from that which
they have lately quitted.” What the people had “lately quitted,” of course,
was a monarchy. Some members of the convention fully expected the
country to turn in this direction. Hugh Williamson of North Carolina, a
wealthy physician, declared that it was “pretty certain...that we should at Alexander Hamilton
some time or other have a king.” Newspaper accounts appeared in the
summer of 1787 alleging that a plot was under way to invite the second son of George III, Frederick,
Duke of York, the secular bishop of Osnaburgh in Prussia, to become “king of the United States.”
Strongly weighing against any serious attempt to establish monarchy was the hostility in the
revolutionary period toward royalty and the privileged classes. Some state constitutions had even
prohibited titles of nobility. Most delegates were well aware that there were too many memories of
British rule and too many ties to a recent bloody war, to accept a king. As the debate moved into the
specifics of the new government, Alexander Hamilton and others of his persuasion would have to
accept something less. By the end of June, debate between the large and small states over the issue of
20
representation in the first chamber of the legislature was becoming increasingly acrimonious.
Delegates from Virginia and other large states demanded that voting in Congress be according to
population; representatives of smaller states insisted upon the equality they had enjoyed under the
articles. With the oratory degenerating into threats and accusations, Benjamin Franklin appealed for
daily prayers. Dressed in his customary gray homespun, the aged philosopher pleaded that “the Father
of lights...illuminate our understandings.” Franklin’s appeal for prayers was never fulfilled; the
convention, as Hugh Williamson noted, had no funds to pay a preacher.
On June 29, the delegates from the small states lost the first battle. The convention approved a
resolution establishing population as the basis for representation in the House of Representatives, thus
favoring the larger states. On a subsequent small-state proposal that the states have equal
representation in the Senate, the vote resulted in a tie. With large-state delegates unwilling to
compromise on this issue, one member thought that the convention “was on the verge of dissolution,
scarce held together by the strength of an hair.”
By July 10, George Washington was so frustrated over the deadlock that he bemoaned in a letter
to Alexender Hamilton, “having had any agency” in the proceedings and called the opponents of a
strong central government “narrow minded politicians or are under the influence of local views.”
Luther Martin of Maryland, perhaps one whom Washington saw as “narrow minded,” thought
otherwise. A tiger in debate, not content merely to parry an opponent’s argument but determined to
bludgeon it into eternal rest, Martin had become perhaps the small states’ most effective, if irascible,
orator. The Marylander leaped eagerly into the battle on the representation issue declaring, “The
States have a right to an equality of representation. This is secured to us by our present articles of
confederation; we are in possession of this privilege.”
The Great Compromise
Also crowding into this complicated and divisive discussion over representation was the NorthSouth division over the method by which slaves were to be counted for purposes of taxation and
representation. On July 12, Oliver Ellsworth proposed that representation for the lower house be
based on the number of free persons and three-fifths of “all other persons,” a euphemism for slaves. In
the following week the members finally compromised, agreeing that direct taxation be according to
representation and that the representation of the lower house be based on the white inhabitants and
three-fifths of the “other people.” With this compromise and with the growing realization that such
compromise was necessary to avoid a complete breakdown of the convention, the members then
approved Senate equality. Roger Sherman had remarked that it was the wish of the delegates “that
some general government should be established.” With the crisis over representation now settled, it
began to look again as if this wish might be fulfilled.
In this period of welcome calm, the members decided to appoint a Committee of Detail to draw
up a draft constitution. The convention would now at last have something on paper. The country had
come a long way.
21
The Ratification Debate
By January 9, 1788, five states of the nine necessary for ratification had approved the
Constitution: Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut. But the eventual
outcome remained uncertain in pivotal states such as Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia. On
February 6, with Federalists agreeing to recommend a list of amendments amounting to a bill of
rights, Massachusetts ratified by a vote of 187 to 168. The revolutionary leader, John Hancock,
elected to preside over the Massachusetts ratifying convention but unable to make up his mind on the
Constitution, took to his bed with a convenient case of gout. Later seduced by the Federalists with
visions of the vice presidency and possibly the presidency, Hancock suddenly experienced a
miraculous cure and delivered a critical block of votes. With Massachusetts now safely in the
Federalist column, the recommendation of a bill of rights was a significant victory for the antiFederalists. Six of the remaining states later appended similar recommendations.
When Federalists adjourned the New Hampshire convention, sensing imminent defeat, and when
Rhode Island on March 24 turned down the Constitution in a popular referendum by an
overwhelming vote of 10 to 1, the Federalist leaders were apprehensive. Looking ahead to the
Maryland convention, Madison wrote to Washington, “The difference between even a postponement
and adoption in Maryland may... possibly give a fatal advantage to that which opposes the
constitution.” But Madison had little reason to worry. The final vote on April 28 was 63 for, 11
against. In Baltimore, a huge parade celebrating the Federalist victory rolled through the downtown
streets, highlighted by a 15-foot float called “Ship Federalist.” The symbolically seaworthy craft was
later launched in the waters off Baltimore and sailed down the Potomac to Mount Vernon.
On July 2, 1788, the Confederation Congress, meeting in New York, received word that a
reconvened New Hampshire ratifying convention had approved the Constitution. With South
Carolina’s acceptance of the Constitution in May, New Hampshire thus became the ninth state to
ratify. The Congress appointed a committee “for putting the said Constitution into operation.”
In the next 2 months, thanks largely to the efforts of Madison and Hamilton in their own states,
Virginia and New York both ratified while adding their own amendments. The margin for the
Federalists in both states, however, was extremely close. Hamilton figured that the majority of the
people in New York actually opposed the Constitution, and it is probable that a majority of people in
the entire country opposed it. Only the promise of amendments had ensured a Federalist victory.
22
Constitutional Principles
and Provisions
Federalism
Federalism refers to the apportioning of power between the federal government and the states. By
the time the American Revolution had been waged and won, state governments were fully
entrenched. It was unlikely, therefore, that the states would agree to the creation of a powerful central
government at the total expense of its self-governing authority. Granting the states specific selfgoverning powers and rights was not only politically expedient, but also served the Framers’ intent to
limit the central government’s authority. The sharing of power between the states and the national
government was one more structural check in an elaborate governmental scheme of checks and
balances.
Separation of Powers and a System of Checks and Balances
The first three articles of the Constitution establish our three branches of government. By
distributing the essential business of government among three separate but interdependent branches,
the framers ensured that the powers of the government were not concentrated in the hands of any
single branch. Allocating governmental authority among three separate branches also prevented the
formation of too strong a national government capable of overpowering the individual state
governments.
The Separation of Powers is one of the basic doctrines in the U.S. Constitution. Nevertheless,
governmental powers and responsibilities intentionally overlap. For example, congressional authority
to enact laws can be checked by an executive veto, which in turn can be overridden by a two-thirds
majority vote in both houses; the President serves as commander-in-chief, but only the Congress has
the authority to raise and support an army, and to declare war; the President has the power to appoint
all federal judges, ambassadors, and other high government officials, but all appointments must be
affirmed by the Senate; and the Supreme Court has final authority to strike down both legislative and
presidential acts as unconstitutional. This balancing of power is intended to ensure that no one
branch grows too powerful and dominates the national government.
The Bill of Rights
The Constitution’s Preamble contains its founding principles. To form a more perfect union, to
provide for a common defense, to establish justice and secure the blessings of liberty for present and
future generations. For many, the guarantee of justice and liberty was crucial to their support of a
national charter.
23
However, when first drafted and submitted to the states for ratification, the Constitution did not
include any reference to individual rights. The Framers assumed that the powers of the newly formed
national government were so carefully constrained that individual rights required no expressed
protection. Moreover, the Federalists, who supported a strong federal government, argued that by
enumerating a bill of rights, those rights deemed essential, yet left unspecified, would be vulnerable to
government encroachment.
But the demand to secure a definitive roster of individual rights against government infringement
persisted. Unless assured that a bill of rights would be passed, many states threatened to withhold
ratification of the Constitution. Consequently, in 1789, the First Congress of the United States
proposed the first ten amendments to the Constitution, known collectively as the Bill of Rights.
Ratification of these amendments by the required number of states occurred two years later. The
Ninth Amendment, by expressly protecting fundamental rights not specifically described in the
Constitution, laid to rest the Federalists’ concern that the singling out of any right for protection
jeopardized the protection of all other rights not similarly identified.
The Bill of Rights restricts government invasion of certain individual liberties, including freedom of
speech, press, assembly, and religion. It also prohibits the “establishment” of any official religion. The
values embodied in the Bill of Rights center on individual worth and dignity, and refer to certain
inalienable rights that inhere to us all as human beings, and as citizens of a constitutional democracy.
Nearly two-thirds of the Bill of Rights is devoted to safeguarding the rights of persons suspected
or accused of crime. These rights include due process of law, fair trial, and freedom from selfincrimination, cruel and unusual punishment and being held in jeopardy twice for the same crime.
The Bill of Rights, when first adopted, applied only to the actions of the federal government. An
individual whose civil liberties had been violated by the state had to rely on that particular state’s
constitution or bill of rights for recourse. Restraining state incursions into civil liberties was the
subject of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the so-called Reconstruction
Amendments, ratified in 1865, 1868, and 1870 respectively, and intended to dismantle the
institution of slavery. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery and the Fifteenth Amendment
granted newly freed male slaves the right to vote, but the amendment that paved the way for a broad
and comprehensive application of the Bill of Rights to the states was the Fourteenth Amendment.
Over the past 100 years, many of the liberties articulated in the first ten amendments have been
incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee to state citizens due process and equal
protection under the law.
For the first 150 years following its adoption, the Bill of Rights was rarely invoked on the subject
of judicial interpretation. But beginning in the 1920s, the Constitution’s first ten amendments have
played an increasingly active role in resolving difficult questions of public policy, from school prayer
and mandatory drug testing laws, to birth control and capital punishment. Meanwhile, founding
principles such as “justice” or “liberty” and constitutional precepts such as “due process” and “equal
protection under the law” have been given new meaning by succeeding generations, reflecting changes
in human sensibilities, values and ethos over the past two hundred and twenty plus years.
24
Bibliography:
1. “The Constitution of the United States of America, With Explanatory Notes.” Adapted from the
World Book Encyclopedia, World Book, Inc., 1997. Available from http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/constitution
2. The Founding Fathers. The American Revolution, 2005. Available from http://www.americanrevolution.com/FoundingFathers.htm
3. The U.S. Constitution and Fascinating Facts About It, 7th ed. Naperville, IL: Oak Hill Publishing,
2001. Available from www.constitutionfacts.com
4. Journals of the Continental Congress. The Library of Congress, 1937. Available from http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwjc.html
5. Lloyd, Gordon. “Why was the New Jersey Plan Introduced?” Major Themes at the Constitution
Convention. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University, 2004. Available from
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/themes/
6. Madison, James. Federalist Paper No. 51. Available from http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=10&page=transcript
7. A More Perfect Union: The Creation of the United States Constitution. Washington, DC: National
Archives Trust Fund Board, 1986. Available from http://www.archives.gov
8. “UN Condemns Iraq Charter Change.” BBC News, 4 October 2005. Available from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4309164.stm
25
26