1-5: Compromises and Federal Powers

Big Ideas: Constitutionalism Competing Policy-Making Interests

Enduring Understandings: The Constitution emerged from the debate about the weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation as a blueprint for limited government. The Constitution created a competitive policy-making process to ensure the people’s will is represented and that freedom is preserved.

Learning Objectives: Explain the ongoing impact of political negotiation and compromise at the Constitutional Convention on the development of the constitutional system. Explain the constitutional principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. Explain the implications of separation of powers and checks and balances for the U.S. political system.

Lessons from the Enlightenment An ideal government separates powers Lawmaking Laws written by legislative branch Laws enforced by executive branch This prevents power from being collected in one area Branches should be independent of each other

Compromise Great Compromise (representation) VA and NJ Plans Connecticut Plan Bicameral legislature House of Representatives—population-based Senate—two members from each state Gives less populous states disproportionate influence 10 largest states—53% of population, 20 senators 10 smallest states—3% of population, 20 senators The Virginia Plan called for a bicameral legislature with representation in both houses based on each state’s population. The New Jersey Plan called for a unicameral legislature equal representation regardless of a state’s population. The divisive issue of representation threatened to dissolve the convention.

Compromise Electoral College Political Equality Indirect method of choosing president Political Equality Universal suffrage? Left it up to states to decide Three-Fifths Compromise Compromise of the Importation of Slaves

Basic Powers Strong(er) government—economic growth Ability to tax Payment of debts Coining money Regulation of trade Post offices

Basic Protections Individual Rights Habeas corpus No bills of attainder No ex post facto Difficult to prove treason Trial by jury No religious qualifications for holding office A writ of habeas corpus is a court order requiring that an individual in custody be brought into court and shown the cause for detention. A bill of attainder (illegal) is a legislative act that inflicts punishment without a court trial. An ex post facto law (illegal) punishes a person for acts that were not illegal when the act was committed. To be found guilty of treason, the suspect must actively take up arms against the government and have the sworn testimony of two witnesses.

Madisonian Model Branches of government should NOT be completely separate Overlapping Powers Consent of others required to take action Sets ambition against ambition

Branches of Government Separating Powers Indispensable defense against tyranny Legislative Branch (Article I) Bicameral Congress Executive Branch (Article II) Independent President Judicial Branch (Article III) Court system with Supreme Court

Checks and Balances Examples Consequences Congress can write a bill, but it can be vetoed by President President appoints judges, but must be approved by the Senate Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution, but an amendment can be proposed by Congress Consequences Multiple access points Slows change Encourages compromise

Limitations on Majorities Excessive Democracy Fear that majorities can abuse their power Proof in Shays’ Rebellion Federalist No. 51: majorities can be controlled through separation of powers and checks and balances No direct democracy Republican government Elected representatives Most of the government kept beyond the power of majority and minority factions Only House of Representatives directly elected

Limitations on Majorities Examples Insulated Senate Not chosen by vote…YET (17th Amendment) Appointed by state legislatures Staggered term of service 1/3 elected every 2 years Independent Judiciary Judges appointed by President Confirmed by Senate Life terms—free from political pressure Independently Elected President National popular vote doesn’t matter Electoral College The framers believed that the Senate would check popular passions expressed in the House of Representatives. George Washington later explained this function to Thomas Jefferson when he asked, “Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?” “To cool it,” Jefferson replied. “Even so,” said Washington, “we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”