AP Gov Unit 1

Philosopher

State of Nature / Nature of Man

Role of Government

Ideal Government

U.S. used this idea . . .

Group 1: Hobbes

People are naturally equal but also selfish, violent, and in constant competition. Life in the state of nature is “nasty, brutish, and short.”

To impose law and order, keep peace, and prevent civil war.

Absolute monarchy with a strong sovereign (king) who holds total authority.

The Founders rejected absolute monarchy but used Hobbes’ idea that government is needed to avoid chaos and protect society.

Group 2: Locke

People are naturally free, equal, and rational. They have natural rights to life, liberty, and property.

To protect natural rights, especially property. If government fails, people have the right to overthrow it.

Representative democracy with consent of the governed.

Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence (“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”); Constitution’s limits on government.

Group 3: Montesquieu

He believed that the state of nature for men was that without society people are timid and fearful, but with society they become competitive and are driven to conflict and war.

He believed that the role of the government was to keep the other branches in check and to maintain law and order and personal liberties.

His ideal government is one that maintains order, liberty, and individual rights and also has power that is separated and limited through the practice of checks and balances.

The U.S. used this idea to implement the separation of powers between the branches of the government.

Group 4: Rousseau

People are naturally good, free, peaceful, and happy, but society corrupts them—especially through property and inequality.

To carry out the general will of the people and promote equality.

Direct democracy based on popular sovereignty, with people directly involved in lawmaking.

“We the People” in the Constitution; popular sovereignty and majority rule in U.S. democracy.

[3] Perhaps this country never saw so critical a period in their political concerns. We have felt the feebleness of the ties by which these United-States are held together, and the want of sufficient energy in our present confederation, to manage, in some instances, our general concerns. Various expedients have been proposed to remedy these evils, but none have succeeded. At length a Convention of the states has been assembled, they have formed a constitution which will now, probably, be submitted to the people to ratify or reject, who are the fountain of all power, to whom alone it of right belongs to make or unmake constitutions, or forms of government, at their pleasure. The most important question that was ever proposed to your decision, or to the decision of any people under heaven, is before you, and you are to decide upon it by men of your own election, chosen specially for this purpose. If the constitution, offered to [your acceptance], be a wise one, calculated to preserve the invaluable blessings of liberty, to secure the inestimable rights of mankind, and promote human happiness, then, if you accept it, you will lay a lasting foundation of happiness for millions yet unborn; generations to come will rise up and call you blessed. You may rejoice in the prospects of this vast extended continent becoming filled with freemen, who will assert the dignity of human nature. You may solace yourselves with the idea, that society, in this favoured land, will fast advance to the highest point of perfection; the human mind will expand in knowledge and virtue, and the golden age be, in some measure, realised. But if, on the other hand, this form of government contains principles that will lead to the subversion of liberty — if it tends to establish a despotism, or, what is worse, a tyrannical aristocracy; then, if you adopt it, this only remaining asylum for liberty will be [shut] up, and posterity will execrate your memory

1. Who is the intended audience of Brutus #1?

The intended audience of Brutus #1 is New York Citizen. 

2. How is Brutus appealing to people reading his argument?

He is saying the future is in their hands to decide the liberty of individuals 

3. Why might people curse or express loathing (execrate)  for those citizens who support the Constitution?

Because they may feel as if these people are voting against their freedom.

[4] ...But remember, when the people once part with power, they can seldom or never resume it again but by force. Many instances can be produced in which the people have voluntarily increased the powers of their rulers; but few, if any, in which rulers have willingly abridged their authority. This is a sufficient reason to induce you to be careful, in the first instance, how you deposit the powers of government.

4. What warning does Brutus give?

He warns the people that once people are in power they will not want to leave their power. 

[5] The first question that presents itself on the subject is...whether the thirteen United States should be reduced to one great republic, governed by one legislature, and under the direction of one executive and judicial; or whether they should continue thirteen confederated republics, under the direction and control of a supreme federal head for certain defined national purposes only?

5. What essential question is Brutus asking here?

He is asking people whether or not they want to join under one nation with lots of power in the national government. 

[7] This government is to possess absolute and uncontrollable power, legislative, executive and judicial, with respect to every object to which it extends, for by the last clause of section 8th, article Ist, it is declared “that the Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution, in the government of the United States; or in any department or office thereof.” And by the 6th article, it is declared “that this constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and the treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution, or law of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” It appears from these articles that there is no need of any intervention of the state governments, between the Congress and the people, to execute any one power vested in the general government, and that the constitution and laws of every state are nullified and declared void, so far as they are or shall be inconsistent with this constitution, or the laws made in pursuance of it, or with treaties made under the authority of the United States. — The government then, so far as it extends, is a complete one, and not a confederation. 

6. According to Brutus, is there a need for state governments under the new Constitution?

He says there is no need for a state government since congress has the power to make laws. 

[8] It might be here shewn, that the power in the federal legislative, to raise and support armies at pleasure, as well in peace as in war, and their control over the militia, tend, not only to a consolidation of the government, but the destruction of liberty. 

7. What does Brutus assert will happen if there is a standing national army?

He says the army will destroy liberty. 

[9] The judicial power of the United States is to be vested in a supreme court, and in such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The powers of these courts are very extensive...One inferior court must be established, I presume, in each state at least, with the necessary executive officers appendant thereto. It is easy to see, that in the common course of things, these courts will eclipse the dignity, and take away from the respectability, of the state courts. These courts will be, in themselves, totally independent of the states, deriving their authority from the United States, and receiving from them fixed salaries; and in the course of human events it is to be expected, that they will swallow up all the powers of the courts in the respective states.

8. Why is Brutus against establishing a federal supreme court?

He is against it because it will supersede State court and make those courts pointless when they should be more important because they are more grounded in the states interest. 

[10] How far the clause in the 8th section of the Ist article may operate to do away all idea of confederated states, and to effect an entire consolidation of the whole into one general government, it is impossible to say. The powers given by this article are very general and comprehensive, and it may receive a construction to justify the passing almost any law. A power to make all laws, which shall be necessary and proper, for carrying into execution, all powers vested by the constitution in the government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof, is a power very comprehensive and definite, and may, for ought I know, be exercised in a such manner as entirely to abolish the state legislatures. — By such a law, the government of a particular state might be overturned at one stroke, and thereby be deprived of every means of its support.

9. Does Brutus favor or oppose the elastic clause?  Why?

He opposes the elastic clause because he feels it will take away all rights of the state. 

[12] Let us now proceed to enquire, as I at first proposed, whether it be best the thirteen United States should be reduced to one great republic, or not? It is here taken for granted, that all agree in this, that whatever government we adopt, it ought to be a free one; that it should be so framed as to secure the liberty of the citizens of America, and such an one as to admit of a full, fair, and equal representation of the people. 

10. What is the essential question Brutus seeks to answer?

Whether or not the 13 states should join under a national government. 

[13] If respect is to be paid to the opinion of the greatest and wisest men who have ever thought or wrote on the science of government, we shall be constrained to conclude, that a free republic cannot succeed over a country of such immense extent, containing such a number of inhabitants, and these increasing in such rapid progression as that of the whole United States…. “It is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist. In a large republic there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are trusts too great to be placed in any single subject; he has interest of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy, great and glorious, by oppressing his fellow citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country. In a large republic, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views; it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents. In a small one, the interest of the public is easier perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses are of less extent, and of course are less protected.” 

11. Why would a republic fail in America, according to Brutus?

A republic in America would fail because the leaders in charge would turn corrupt and gain pleasure from oppressing citizens. 

[14] History furnishes no example of a free republic, any thing like the extent of the United States. The Grecian republics were of small extent; so also was that of the Romans. Both of these, it is true, in process of time, extended their conquests over large territories of country; and the consequence was, that their governments were changed from that of free governments to those of the most tyrannical that ever existed in the world.

12. Is there a historical precedent for a free republic?

The grecian republic is an example but Brutus argues they were a lot smaller than the United States. 

[16] In a free republic, although all laws are derived from the consent of the people, yet the people do not declare their consent by themselves in person, but by representatives, chosen by them, who are supposed to know the minds of their constituents, and to be possessed of integrity to declare this mind.
In every free government, the people must give their assent to the laws by which they are governed. This is the true criterion between a free government and an arbitrary one. The former are ruled by the will of the whole, expressed in any manner they may agree upon; the latter by the will of one, or a few.….  Now, in a large extended country, it is impossible to have a representation, possessing the sentiments, and of integrity, to declare the minds of the people, without having it so numerous and unwieldy, as to be subject in great measure to the inconvenience of a democratic government.

13. In a free society, where does the government get its power?

The government gets the power from the governed. 

14. What is Brutus arguing here?

It is impossible for the government to represent all people due to vastly different opinions and ways of living. 

[17] The territory of the United States is of vast extent; it now contains near three millions of souls, and is capable of containing much more than ten times that number. Is it practicable for a country, so large and so numerous as they will soon become, to elect a representation, that will speak their sentiments, without their becoming so numerous as to be incapable of transacting public business? It certainly is not.

15. Create  a #hashtag to summarize this section:

#Toomanypeoplenotenoughrepersentation #smh #untrustworthy

[18] In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this be not the case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other. This will retard (obviously not PC -edited by Mr. Eller) the operations of government, and prevent such conclusions as will promote the public good. If we apply this remark to the condition of the United States, we shall be convinced that it forbids that we should be one government. The United States includes a variety of climates. The productions of the different parts of the union are very variant, and their interests, of consequence, diverse…. The laws and customs of the several states are, in many respects, very diverse, and in some opposite; each would be in favor of its own interests and customs, and, of consequence, a legislature, formed of representatives from the respective parts, would not only be too numerous to act with any care or decision, but would be composed of such heterogeneous and discordant principles, as would constantly be contending with each other.

16. What argument is Brutus making here?

Brutus is saying each state is significantly different and diverse in their opinions. He says that representatives would never get anything done because each state has different principles. He argues it would be easier for each individual state to govern their own people. 

[22] A free republic will never keep a standing army to execute its laws. It must depend upon the support of its citizens…. 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 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.

17. Have Brutus’ fears been realized?  Why or why not?

Yes Brutus talks about the downfall of having the army enforce the state and national laws. He also feared that if there was no enforcement people would never follow laws and it would fall into chaos. This is where Police officers came into play, they are enforcers of each city, but they are not the army. 

[24] In so extensive a republic, the great officers of government would soon become above the control of the people, and abuse their power to the purpose of aggrandizing themselves, and oppressing them. The trust committed to the executive offices, in a country of the extent of the United-States, must be various and of magnitude. 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.

18. Would John Locke agree with this view of human nature? (Think back to our reading and primitive politics activity).

John Locke in his understanding of human nature agrees with Brutus when it comes to smaller states governing citizens. John Locke believed that smaller governments are better able to represent their people and do what the citizens want, they are also easier to overthrow in case of violation of natural rights. 

[25] These are some of the 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.

[26] Though I am of opinion, that it is a sufficient objection to this government, to reject it, that it creates the whole union into one government, under the form of a republic…. that they ought to determine every man, who is a friend to the liberty and happiness of mankind, not to adopt it. I beg the candid and dispassionate attention of my countrymen… this scheme is defective in the fundamental principles — in the foundation upon which a free and equal government must rest.

19. According to Brutus, should the citizens of New York encourage their representatives to ratify the constitution and create a republic?  Why?

Brutus doesnt want citizens to encourage their representatives to ratify the constitution. He discourages it because he believed the constitution would take away natural rights due to the national government having too much power. 

Sovereignty: The authority of a state to govern itself.

Confederation: An organization which consists of a number of parties or groups united in an alliance or league.

Ratification: Signing or giving formal consent to a treaty contract or agreement making it officially valid. 

The only relationship is that all states must agree on any federal government laws. The States have all the power though so they don't really interact with the national government.

It makes all states feel as if they are their own separate countries. 

I believe it wouldn’t create a successful government due to the lack of communication among the states about national problems. A weak central government would make it extremely difficult for necessary taxes imposed on the entire country for debt.

The states have decided to work together when international issues arise. 

It is only for their general welfare. 

Its significance is that as a league of “friendship” it isn't necessarily binding or legal. It still shows however that they are committed to the overall welfare of the nation though. 

People moving across the nation is showing that the countries are united and it gives extra freedom to citizens to choose their own lives and destinies. 

No slaves are seen as property thus the article of confederation says that they cant be taken away from their owners. 

No it isn't fair since each state has a drastically different number of people so in some states less people are represented per vote so they get more say than people in big states who have too many people per vote. 

This disproportionately disadvantages Big states, but helps small states so it will cause tension between big and small states over the power of the vote. 

They can be amended if everyone in the congress and legislative branch agrees on the change. 

This process seems very impractical as it would be nearly impossible to get everybody in these two branches to agree upon a change in the articles of confederation. 

It could potentially mean God or Natural Laws.

I believe it is because among the colonies there are lots of different religions, so the founding fathers wanted to be respectful of different religions by not outright stating God. 

It demonstrates that the Authors were religious, but respectful of other religions. 

The Articles Of Confederation were created in a time of turmoil. They were created after the declaration of Independence was written. The Articles were formed to create a government for the American people. They felt the need to put a document together quickly due to the Revolution occurring at the same time. The document has lots of restriction on the Federal Government because of how King George had restricted and abused the colonists rights. 

The point of view is from the continental congress and lots of representatives coming together to form a Government nothing like the British Government. The Articles of Confederation were written for the American citizens in order to show that the new government would be nothing like the government that had come before. The purpose of the articles of confederation was to create a government with lots of rules and regulations to prevent tyranny. This doesn't change my understanding of the document, it is still the same to me written to show the people a new way of governing. 

It gives the federal government no power which makes the overall country extremely weak. Congress couldn't tax citizens which in turn made the overall debt the United States was in increase rapidly. There were no executive laws that made it impossible for all states to agree upon certain laws which often took lots of time and made it impossible to pass anything. States often acted like their own countries since State Governments had all the power this was bad since they weren't very united.