Declaration of Independence – Jefferson

• Three main sections

  • Preamble 

  • List of grievances against King George III

  • Resolution for Independence

• Preamble → Justifies America’s split from English government

  • Explains that there are justified reasons for the split

  • Specific natural rights + that the right to govern should derive from the people

  • Popular sovereignty + social contract

  • Government meant to protect natural rights 

  • When government infringes rights or fails to protect them, people have right to throw out and reform government to be better

Federalist 10 - Madison

• Addressed how the new Constitution would protect the people against tyranny of the majority 

• Madison discusses the dangers of violent factions + their threat to liberty

• Madison poses 2 solutions to factions

  • Stop factions from forming in the first place – risks obstruction of liberty

  • Limit their effects – not possible because you can’t stop having varying opinions 

• Only way to control factions is through a republican government

  • This dilutes the power of each faction + forces factions to compromise

Brutus 1 – Author debated

• First anti-federalist paper argued against Federalist 10

• Arguse on the basis of whether or not a confederate government will suffice for the new nation, which Brutust one argues against

• Argued that a confederation is better than a republican government

• Arguments against the Constitution:

  • Necessary and proper clause + supremacy clause both allow tyranny from federal government 

  • State power will cease 

  • Republican form of government will not work for a country as big or as populated as the American colonies → the people won’t really know their leaders or their proceedings

Articles of Confederation

• The first Constitution of the United States

• 13 states formed a confederacy

• Placed most of the power in the hands of the states and little in the hands of the central gov’t

  • States are supreme and sovereign unless specific power is delegated to the central gov’t

• Only branch: legislative 

  • Each state has one vote – equal representation

• Only needed central gov’t for international interactions

• Placed several restrictions on government; way more restrictions than powers

• Much of what the government can do had to come from the consent of 9/13 of the states or even unanimously all 13 states

• Very difficult to alter or change

• Essentially more con than pros

The U.S. Constitution

• After several events proving the unqualification of the Articles as a government and the conclusion that the Articles were overall very weak, delegates met in Philadelphia to draft a new form of government 

• Big idea: established a republican government in contrast to the confederacy established under the Articles

• Begins with a Preamble and is followed by 7 Articles concerning different aspects and functions of the new government 

• Invested more power in the central government

• Article 1 – form and powers of Congress

  • Longest article

  • Granted law making powers to Congress

  • Split Congress into a bicameral system – Senate (each state represented equally; two pres per state) and House (reps apportioned based on population)

  • Section 8 – enumerated powers of Congress

  • Necessary and proper clause of Section 8 – very significant establishment of power

• Article 2 – provision for executive branch + president

  • States president is to be elected through electoral college

  • Outlines president’s specific powers (executive powers)

• Article 3 – deals with judicial branch

  • States that judicial power of the nation is vested in mostly in the Supreme Court, but also inferior courts established by Congress (Supreme Courts was the only federal court explicitly established)

  • Grants two kinds of jurisdiction

    • Original jurisdiction in cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers and consuls, and those which a state is one of the parties involved

    • Appellate jurisdiction in all other cases

• Article 4 – relationship between central gov’t and states + relationship between the states themselves

• Article 5 – process for amending the Constitution

  • Two part process 

    • Proposal – either through two thirds of both houses or two-thirds of state legislatures

    • Ratification – three-fourths of states have to agree

• Article 6

  • Supremacy clause 

• Also included checks and balances between the branches

• Anti-federalists didn’t agree to ratification until bill of rights was put into place

Federalist 51 – Madison

• Humans are selfish and sentient, and need a government to maintain them

• How do we create a government that protects liberty but also doesn’t have enough power to obstruct it?

  • Madison’s answer: separation of power + checks and balances

• Each branch needs enough power to be independent of each other, but each branch’s power also needs to be equal

  • But Congress has a disproportionate amount of power all by itself, so now what?

    • Answer: divide it among itself into two parts 

• Power is not only divided amongst the already different parts of the government but also between state and national governments → Federalism

• Government needs to be formed place ambition against ambition (people are not angels, nor are the people running the government, so they must be placed in positions to counter each other and keep balance)

Federalist 70 – Hamilton

• Justifies the need for an executive despite fear of potential tyrannical monarchy

• Argues against the idea of several equal executives with executive power delegated to each one

• Executive needs energy

  • Meaning: a single executive can act quickly and decisively as opposed to the deliberate and slow legislative branch and its several representative  

  • Benefits of an energetic executive: 

    • Unity – multiple executives means less energy of the office and there diminished ability to conduct the duties of the branch

    • Responsibility – if branch’s power is abused, it will be hard to determine amongst multiple executives who is at fault for it/who to hold accountable

  • Essentially: single executive best carries out duties effectively + can be better held accountable if corrupt 

Federalist 78 – Hamilton

• Deals with the judicial branch

• After the disasters of the Articles, nobody disagreed to a federal court system as a whole

  • The real argument was on how this court system would be set up (how judges would be appointed, how long they would serve for, how much power they would have, etc)

• Judges are appointed by the president as according to Article III, and are to hold their offices for life or at least for as long as they serve in good behavior 

  • Antifederalists were wary about judges not being elected by the people, their generally limitless terms 

• Hamilton argued that:

  • These aspects were needed to keep this branch as independent as possible

  • Lifetime appointments meant judges could rule impartially because they don’t to worry about pleasing the people to get re-elected 

  • Lifetime appointments allows effectiveness because federal judges need to know and learn mounts of information, and changing out judges that constantly have to learn such information makes them less effective 

• Essential job of the federal judges: declare all acts that go against the Constitution void (judicial review)

  • Critics argued that judges would then have more power than Congress but Hamilton argues that judicial review serves to keep Congress from abusing its own power and therefore serves as a check on Congress

Letter From Birmingham Jail – Dr. King

• Illustrates how the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment motivated social movements

  • In this context, the Civil Rights Movement 

• One of the biggest leaders of the movement was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., whose way of fighting was through non-violent direct action 

  • Devotees of the movement would have to endure inequality and suffering to further portray themselves as the victims and prove to the nation the injustices of inequality against them

• In 1963, King led a campaign to desegregate a shopping center in downtown Birmingham, Alabama through a series of peaceful actions, which ultimately led to himself and others being arrested

• A group of white clergy published an open letter in the newspapers staying that black people needed to be patient and wait for white people to work through the courts and legislators before black people gained rights

  • King’s letter was a direct response to this

• King essentially argues that in order for negotiation and fixing the issue to occur, the tension and stakes of the issue need to be raised; freedom must be demanded, “waiting” is no longer an option 

  • The letter makes the case for the urgency of (non-violent) action 

• King also expresses disappointed in White moderates who didn’t really take positions and were more devoted to order than justices, as they were just too uncomfortable to do anything about the issues