Reading Assignments:
We the People lessons 9-11, 16, 17
Text Chapter 7 & 8
The Constitution


We the People Lessons 9, 10, & 11 homework
1. What was the most common occupation in America in 1787?
2. What kind of standard of living did most Americans of that era enjoy? What attitudes were created by that standard of living?
3. What differences of race and wealth were there in American society? How do these differences compare with America today?
4. Do you think the diversity of Americans increased their acceptance of people with different beliefs and lifestyles? Why or why not?
5. Americans in 1787 valued their freedoms highly. What limitations were placed on these freedoms and opportunities we usually associate with freedom?
6. Why do you think newspapers were so popular with Americans in 1787? (Not simply because the society was so literate. Think about this issue.)
7. Why did the nation's founders create such a weak national government in the Articles of Confederation?
8. The passage of the Northwest Ordinance was a major achievement of the United States while under the Articles of Confederation. What did it do and why was this law so significant?
9. What was Shays' Rebellion? Why did it lead to the call for a new national government?
10. Why might people from states with smaller populations have been satisfied with the government set up by the Articles of Confederation?
11. Why do you think some people today still oppose a strong national government? Name some issues that states might prefer to decide for themselves.
12. What was the original purpose for calling a meeting in Philadelphia in 1787? Why was the purpose changed? By whose authority was it changed?
13. In what ways were the delegates representative of the American people? In what ways were they not representative?
14. What important American leaders of the time did not attend the Philadelphia convention?
15. What basic concepts of government did the delegates agree on that came from the Declaration of Independence?
16. Should the topics being debated at the Philadelphia Convention have been reported to the public during the debate? Why or why not? Do you think that Congress today should be allowed to hold secret debates and meetings where decisions are made?

CREATING A NEW GOVERNMENT
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
in class

A. Important people at the convention: identify the state each represented and describe why each played a significant role.
George Washington
James Madison
Benjamin Franklin
Roger Sherman

B. Preamble:
Copy the Preamble here and memorize it to pass off in class.
What was the purpose of the Preamble?

C. Structure of the Constitution: Give the basic subject covered in each article:

Conflicts between the Large and Small States
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
in class

Representation in the Legislative Branch

What is the difference between equal representation and proportional representation?  Which states supported each type of representation?

What was the plan for equal representation called?  How did this plan organize the legislative branch?

What was the plan for proportional representation called?  How did this plan organize the legislative branch?

This conflict was solved by the Great Compromise.  What were the basic concepts of this compromise?

Conflicts between the Northern and Southern States
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
in class

What were the major differences between the northern and southern states?

How did the positions of the northern and southern states differ on the issue of protective tariffs?

The southern states wanted to keep their institution of slavery while many in the northern states thought that it should be prohibited.  What compromise was made on the issue of the slave trade?

The conflict over slavery wasn't focused only on whether or not to have slavery, but on how to count the slaves in the population.  How did the southern states want to count the slaves and why?

How did the northern states want to count the slaves and why?

What was the eventual compromise regarding slavery?

Dividing and Allocating the Powers of Government
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
in class

What experiences of the Framers might have influenced their ideas about how much power they should give the national government?  Give concrete details (examples).

Even after some powers were denied to the federal government and given to the states, there was a lot of discussion over how to allocate the powers within the federal government itself.  The framers developed a system called separation of powers.  In this system all of the power of federal/national government is not given to any one branch.  Instead, some of the power is given to each; the legislative, executive, and judicial branches all have different tasks in governing.  What is the major task for each branch?

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH:
EXECUTIVE BRANCH:
JUDICIAL BRANCH:

Why do you think the Framers devoted so much of the Constitution to the legislative branch?

Why do you think the Framers made the executive branch share some of its powers with Congress?

One of the main compromises came over how to elect the President.  What were the major issues and how was the conflict resolved?

Why do you think the framers wanted to protect the judicial branch from political influence?

Dividing and Allocating Powers of Gov’t. Cont’d.

What is the system of checks and balances and why did the framers use it?
List at least three ways the Legislative Branch checks the Executive Branch:
List at least three ways the Legislative Branch checks the Judicial Branch:
List at least three ways the Executive Branch checks the Legislative Branch:
List at least three ways the Executive Branch checks the Judicial Branch:
List at least three ways the Judicial Branch checks the Executive Branch:
List at least three ways the Judicial Branch checks the Legislative Branch:

THE PRINCIPLE OF FEDERALISM homework
DEFINING FEDERALISM
In 1787 the framers of the Constitution created our federal system of government. The founders created this federal system to solve a tough political problem. They needed to convince fiercely independent states to join together to create a strong central government.

James Madison explained the dilemma in a letter to George Washington before the start of the Constitutional Convention. He said the creation of “one single republic” excluding the states would be “unattainable.” Madison, in trying to address the problem, said, “I have sought for a middle ground which may at once support a due supremacy of national authority, and not exclude (the states).” Federalism was the answer.

Federalism today means the division of governmental powers between the national and state governments. Both levels of government may act directly on citizens through their own officials and laws. Both levels of government derive their power to act from our Constitution. Each level of government has certain subjects over which its powers are supreme. Both levels of government must also agree to any changes in the U.S. Constitution.

Federalism is a major principle of the American Constitution. Presented here are three key ideas behind the concept of federalism:
∙ two levels of government at work
∙ a constitutional division of power
∙ a sometimes changing and unclear line between national and state powers

TWO LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
One key idea of federalism is that two levels of government -- national and state -- each have independent powers to act on the citizens of the United States. Under federalism, for example, the state of Utah has formal authority over its residents, but so does the federal government in Washington, D.C. Utah’s residents must obey Utah’s laws as well as those passed by the national government. These same residents must also pay taxes to both the state of Utah and to the federal government.

DIFFERENT KINDS OF GOVERNMENT
Before our government was established under the Constitution, most nations had one of two forms: a Unitary government of a Confederation. Unitary Governments were those in which central governments acted directly upon their citizens. Local and state governments received their powers from the central governments and were under its control. As a result, central governments were much stronger than local and state governments. Great Britain had this type. Confederations were central governments organized for such limited purposes as defense and regulation of trade. The state governments in a confederation kept full control over anything that affected their own citizens and territory. The separate states were considered stronger than the central government. The United States under the Articles of Confederation had this type.

CHARACTERISTICS OF FEDERALISM
The framers of the Constitution drew on ideas from both the unitary and confederation forms of government to create a federation or “federal republic.” All true forms of federal systems share common characteristics.
National or Federal Powers
Federal systems give the national government certain powers to exercise directly over the people. In our government there are some specific powers reserved only for the national government like creating post offices, controlling interstate and foreign trade, declaring and conducting war, and creating a national currency.
State Powers
Federal systems give the states certain rights and powers beyond the control of national government. Most daily issues and laws are from the state governments like intrastate trade, public schools, motor vehicle laws, and marriage and divorce practices.
There are some powers and responsibilities that are shared by the national and state governments like taxing and providing for health and welfare. Our system of federalism gives states and people all powers not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Sign your name here to receive five points if you read this entire page.

Making the Constitution Work homework
Once the writers of the Constitution had finished the first three articles, they had done most of their work. They had divided the federal government into three branches and described the major rights, duties, and powers of each branch. There were, however, still important subjects that were not dealt with in those articles. The delegates still had to describe how the state governments should relate to one another and to the federal government. A way to change or amend the constitution needed to be worked out. And finally, once these problems were solved, how would the Constitution be ratified, or approved? Articles IV, V, VI, and VII list the provisions that deal with these subjects. These articles were necessary because the framers of the Constitution had devised a federal system of government. These articles reflect this sharing of powers that takes place in a federal system. By reading these articles in the Constitution, along with the explanations given in your text, answer the following questions. Cite the applicable section of the Constitution.

1. How is each state supposed to treat the laws of the other states?
2. What rights do citizens from one state have in the other states?
3. If a person accused of a crime in one state runs away to another state, what can officials do?
4. Who admits new states into the Union?
5. What restrictions are there on the formation of new states?
6. What branch of government has the power to provide fo the governing of territories?
7. In what two ways can amendments to the Constitution be proposed?
8. In what two ways can amendments to the Constitution be ratified?
9. Why is Article VI called the "Supremacy Clause"?

We the People Lessons 16 & 17 homework
A. Identify / define the following terms:
pardon
treason
simple majority vote
bill of rights
ratify
The Federalist Papers
Anti-Federalists
Federalists
B. Answer the following questions using complete sentences.
1. Describe Benjamin Franklin's attitude toward the Constitution. In your opinion, which of his reasons for signing the Constitution do you think might have been most persuasive to the other delegates?
2. What do you think were George Masons most important arguments? Why?
3. Why didn't the Federalists want the Constitution submitted to the existing Congress or state governments for ratification?
4. How did the Federalists answer the criticism that the Constitution gave the federal government too much power?
5. The Anti-Federalists lost their battle to prevent the adoption of the Constitution; however, their struggle left a permanent impact on the Constitution. How was this accomplished?

 How Powerful Should the National Government Be? Great Debates homework

BACKGROUND
Colonial Americans fought a revolution to free themselves from the abusive power of the British crown. This revolution gave birth to independent states, not a unified country. Although New Yorkers and Virginians were no longer British subjects, the still identified more with their states than with the new nation. As a result of the war with Britain, they were also suspicious of political authority. The 1787 convention in Philadelphia went far beyond its original instructions to revise the Articles of Confederation. The delegates decided to scrap the Articles and replace them with a new constitution, one that would establish a more powerful national government. Two groups emerged during the heated debate over the Constitution's approval -- the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Anti-Federalists were a loose coalition of people who campaigned against the approval of the Constitution because they claimed it did not reflect the rights of the people or the states. They believed in the republican ideal of the "consent of the governed," and they viewed the proposed Constitution as a threat to liberty and the spirit of the American Revolution.
The Federalists, on the other hand, claimed that the Articles of Confederation had produced a weak, ineffective central government. They feared that rivalries and conflicts between states were gradually pushing the nation into a state of anarchy. The Federalists argued that ratification of the Constitution would unify the states and create a strong national government. In their view a strong central government would make it possible to regulate commerce and provide for a common defense.
The following debate contains two speeches delivered at the Virginia ratifying convention in 1788. Virginia was the largest, wealthiest, and most populous of the states. Its support was crucial to the success of the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalist Patrick Henry was a passionate believer in state's rights. Henry refused to attend the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia because, as he put it, "he smelt a rat." At the Virginia ratifying convention he spoke against approval of the new Constitution. Edmund Pendleton, former governor of Virginia, emerged from retirement to lead the Federalists in their fight for ratification. Virginia eventually approved the Constitution by a close vote, but only after the Federalists promised the addition of a bill of rights.

Read the two speeches and answer the questions that follow.

PATRICK HENRY:
Mr. Chairman, the public mind, as well as my own, is extremely uneasy at the proposed change of government.... A year ago, the minds of our citizens were at perfect repose. Before the meeting of the late federal Convention at Philadelphia, a general peace and a universal tranquility prevailed in this country; but, since that period, they are exceedingly uneasy and disquieted....
If our situation be thus uneasy whence has arisen this fearful jeopardy? It arises from this fatal system; it arises from a proposal to change our government -- a proposal that goes to the utter annihilation of the most solemn engagements of the states...
This proposal of altering our federal government is of a most alarming nature! ... you ought to be extremely cautious, watchful, jealous of your liberty; for, instead of securing your rights, you may lose them forever. If a wrong step be now made, the republic may be lost forever. If this new government will not come up to the expectation of the people and they shall be disappointed, their liberty will be lost, and tyranny must and will arise. I repeat it again, and I beg gentlemen to consider that a wrong step made now will plunge us into misery, and our republic will be lost...
And here I would make this inquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late federal Convention ... I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand -- What right had they to say, "We, the people"? ... Who authorized them to speak the language of "We, the people," instead of "We, the states"? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government of the people of all the states.... The people gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear....
The federal Convention ought to have amended the old system... Let us take a review of the facts. New Hampshire and Rhode Island have refused to become federal. New York and North Carolina are reported to be strongly against it. From high authority give me leave to tell that New York is in high opposition. Will any gentleman say that North Carolina is not against it?...
Sir, without a radical alteration, the states will never be embraced in one federal pale. If you attempt to force it down men's throats and call it union, dreadful consequences must follow....
I am persuaded that one government cannot reign over so extensive a country as this is without absolute despotism. Compared to such a consolidation, small confederacies are little evils...
Mr. Chairman, the necessity of a Bill of Rights appears to me to be greater in this government than ever it was in any government before....
It was expressly declared in our Confederation that every right was retained by the states, respectively, which was not given up to the government of the United States. But there is no such thing here. You, therefore, by a natural and unavoidable implication, give up your rights to the general government....
If you give up these powers, without a Bill of Rights, you will exhibit the most absurd thing to mankind that ever the world say -- a government that has abandoned all its powers of direct taxation, the sword, and the purse. You have disposed of them to Congress, without a Bill of Rights -- without check, limitation, or control.

EDUMUND PENDLETON:
Mr. Chairman, my worthy friend [Mr. Henry] has expressed great uneasiness in his mind an informed us that a great many of our citizens are also extremely uneasy at the proposal of changing our government...
...an objection is made to the form: the expression "We, the people" is thought improper. Permit me to ask the gentleman who made this objection, who but the people can delegate powers? Who but the people have a right to form government?...
If the objection be that the Union ought to be not of the people but of the state governments, then I think the choice of the former very happy and proper. What have the state governments to do with it? Were they to determine, the people would not, in that case, be the judges upon what terms it was adopted....
The Confederation is no government at all. It has been said that it has carried us through a dangerous war... Not that Confederation but common danger, and the spirit of America, were bonds of our Union..."United, we stand -- divided, we fall!" echoed and reechoed through America -- from Congress to the drunken carpenter... It was the spirit of America, and not the Confederation, that carried us through the war...
[The Confederation] is wholly ineffectual for the purposes of its institution. Its whole progress since the peace proves it. Shall we then, sir, continue under such a government, or shall we introduce that kind of government which shall produce the real happiness and security of the people?...
Government must have its complete powers, or be ineffectual; a legislature to fix rules, impose sanctions, and point out the punishment of the transgressors of these rules; an executive to watch over officers and bring them to punishment; a judiciary to guard the innocent, and fix the guilty, by a fair trial. Without an executive, offenders would not be brought to punishment; without a judiciary, any man might be taken up, convicted, and punished without a trial. Hence the necessity of having these three branches. "Shall we then, sir, continue under such an ineffectual government, or shall we introduce that kind of government which shall produce the real happiness and security of the people?
--Edmund PendletonIt is a government of laws, not of men.
But it is represented to be a consolidated government, annihilating that of the states -- a consolidated government, which so extensive a territory as the United States cannot admit of without terminating in despotism... Let us consider whether it be such a government or not. I should understand a consolidated government to be that which should have the sole and exclusive power, legislative, executive, and judicial, without any limitation. Is this such a government? Or can it be changed to such a one? It only extends to the general purposes of the Union. It does not intermeddle with the local, particular affairs of the states. In one word, can they make a single law for the individual, exclusive purpose of any one state?
It is the interest of the federal [government] to preserve the state governments.... The Senate derives its existence immediately from the state legislatures; and the representatives and the president are elected under their direction and control; they also preserve order among the citizens of their respective states, and without order and peace no society can possibly exist.... When, therefore, the federal government is, in so many respects, so absolutely dependent on the state governments, I wonder how any gentleman, reflecting on the subject, could have conceived an idea of a possibility of the former destroying the latter.


Great Debates QUESTIONS:
1. What issue is at the heart of the debate between Patrick Henry and Edmund Pendleton?
2. List three major objections to the Constitution made by Patrick Henry.
3. List three reasons Edmund Pendleton favors the ratification of the Constitution.
4. What is the most powerful point in each debater's argument?
5. How would Patrick Henry explain / define the phrase "consent of the governed."
6. How would Edmund Pendleton explain / define the phrase "consent of the governed."
7. How does Patrick Henry view the phrase "We, the people?" Why does he object to its use? If he were to write a Constitution, what phrase do you think he would use instead?
8. How might each of the men respond to the following proposal? "To improve education in America, the federal government will require all high school students to pass a national graduation exam."
9. Evaluate the arguments on both sides of the debate. Which side's arguments are most effective and convincing? Use specific reasons and examples to support your position.
10. How is the basic issue of state's rights still addressed in our society today?