US Constitution And American Revolution: Legislative, Executive, And Judicial Branches

Background of the American Revolution

1.Identify and discuss each of the concerns about British rule that led rebellious American colonists to issue the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Examine the document for yourself (listed on pages A1 - A3). Select three complaints against the King that you find the most objectionable and explain why.

2.Consider your own level of interest and involvement in politics (you discussed this in Question #2 in last week’s homework). If you had been around in 1776, would you have been motivated to get involved to support this cause? Or, would you have stayed on the sidelines?

3.How did our first constitution (the Articles of Confederation) respond to the concerns voiced in the Declaration of Independence? You can view a copy on pages A5 – A8. Why did this constitution ultimately prove to be flawed, leading to calls for a new constitutional convention by 1787?

4.What competing views did delegates of the Constitutional Convention have about representation in the national legislature? What about slavery? Discuss each controversy separately and relate how they resolved their differences. Are you impressed with the way they handled each of these issues, or do you find the compromises flawed?

5.Summarize what the U.S. Constitution says about each of the following:

(a) Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches

(b) National Unity 

(c) Amendments and Ratification

(d) Limits on the power of the national government

6.Note each of the three major disagreements the Federalists and Antifederalists had about the new Constitution. What arguments were made by both sides in each aspect? Consider the state of our democracy today. Looking back 230 years later, does it seem like the concerns and fears of the Antifederalists were justified. Or, were they exaggerated?.

7.The Constitution and Your Future:  

“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” The so-called ‘Equal Rights Amendment” mentioned on page 67 (and again on page 176) is an example of a proposed change to the U.S. Constitution that had the support of a majority of Americans, but failed to meet the requirements for ratification specified in Article V. Its defeat is an example of just how difficult it is to change this document. Review the process as explained on pages 64-65, and the 27 amendments that have actually passed since 1791 on page 66. Then, express your own view. Would our system of government be more democratic and fair if the constitution could be revised more easily? Use the example of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to illustrate your argument, one way or the other. Consult equalrightsamendment.org to get some background on the ERA.

1.The first most objectionable complaint against the British King leading to rebellion from American Colonists was the refusal to have them represented in the British government.  Initially, there had been Colonist representatives that mustered the army and collected taxes and also contributed in setting local policies. However, after the British war with the French, Great Britain refused to accept any legislations suggested by leaders in the 13 Colonies in North America. The lack of parliamentary representation in the British government angered Colonists to stage the 1765 to 1783 war for independence.

Secondly, the economic troubles after the French & Indian War where the British increased taxes on the Colonies to fund the expenses of the war did not go down well with a third of the Colonists. The British government increased regulations on trade including the Currency Act and/or the Sugar Act of 1764. The colonies were only allowed to trade with the countries that the British government chose and there was no free trade. Due to the Currency Act which banned the printing of money within the colonies; the later had to rely on the poor British economy to survive. The 1773 Boston Tea Party was the culmination of the Colonists’ expression against the taxation without representation approach.

Further, the criminal justice system within the colonies was quite unfavorable to the Colonists and this was quite objectionable. Despite the international outrage that the Boston Massacre attracted and also the arrest of Colonist free thinkers like Alexander McDougall, the soldiers responsible for these heinous acts were acquitted of the same.  These soldiers among other British loyalists that infringed on the rights of the colonists including unsanctioned police searches in private quarters were not charged for their acts. Instead, the colonial government introduced legislation where accused officers would only be sent for trial in England. This limited number of possible witnesses against them making to a lower number of convictions as compared to atrocities against the colonies. The system was also corrupt in that the judges were appointed and also paid by the British Colonial government. As such, there was no fair trial for Colonists, leading to extensive outcry and a call to struggle for independence.

2.If I had been there in the year 1776, I would have had sufficient motivation to participate in the cause towards independence.  I believe in the words of the declaration that all men have been created equal and have rights that are inalienable including rights to life, happiness and liberty. Looking at the atrocities committed against the colonists like the Boston Massacre, the corruption within the judicial system and the unfavorable trade controls through excessive taxes, I could as well been able to stand against the then colonial government in search for independence.

Issues with British Colonialism

3.The articles of Articles of Confederation responded to the demands and wishes envisaged in the Declaration of Independence in 1776 by establishing the United States of America as a sovereign country that is independent from Great Britain. It provided that the 13 states remain sovereign, control their own economy and free from Great Britain. For self-governance, the Confederation initially introduced a national government which comprised a one-house legislature referred to as Congress with each state having one vote. Its establishment meant that no more taxes could be paid to the British government as each state would have its own money.

 The Articles of Confederation were flawed first because as a constitution, it did not establish a central authority for governing the 13 colonies then forming the USA and further, there was no executive power. The first constitution did not also have the judiciary and thus there were no adequate solutions to disputes within the states. It also did not establish an authority to be in charge of taxation and this meant that there was not collection of money to pay soldiers and cater for the American War. While the Continental government started printing money, it was considered worthless as each state had its own money. This made it difficult for the colonies to trade with other countries as one sovereign entity. All these factors contributed to the call for the 1787 constitutional convention.

4.Competing views on Congress representation during the 1787 Constitutional convention in Philadelphia included one that the delegates had no authority the then federal representational scheme stipulated in the Articles of Confederation. According to this view, the states needed to remain equally represented by delegates that could be appointed by legislatures of the state, within the unicameral Congress. The opposing view as advanced by a section of delegates was that the representation scheme outlined by Articles of Confederation was then flawed. They insisted that it needed a replacement with a more "national" one as the other was unicameral in nature. Their differing views went on for over six weeks without resolution until the Connecticut Compromise. Another issue was on the mode of election where one side supported government appointment of representatives while the other wanted a system that involved the exercise of a people’s democratic right to choose leaders. The “Great Compromise” saw the delegates resolve that the House of Representatives was to be based on the population while each state would have two members in the Senate.

The Articles of Confederation

In regard to slavery, the first competing view was on whether slaves could be included in determining the population of a state and therefore the electoral vote; and also the taxes to pay. While one side suggested that slaves not be included in the population, the Southern states supported but considered a slave a three-fifth of a person. Another issue was whether slave trade could be stopped or not. They agreed on the need to stop salve trade only until 1800, but it was officially halted in 1807. Further, they argued on the issue of convict slaves. They agreed that slaves who escape needed to be chased and returned to their owners.

I am impressed by the way they handled the issues understanding that they had no model government to suit the democratic government they all wished to have as envisaged within the Declaration of independence.  However on the issue of counting a slave as a three-fifth of a person, I see that it was somehow irrational understanding well that they contributed to the economy of the Southern states through provision of labor.

5.a.The legislature according to Article 1 of the Constitution has the responsibility of making laws. It gives the powers to make laws by the Senate and House of Representatives indicating their powers and the limits. In regard to the executive as covered in article 2, the executive holds the responsibility of and/or authority to administrate. It consists of the executive officers headed by the president. Article 3 on the other hand gives the judiciary the powers to interpret law. It includes lower courts headed by the Supreme Court and are all made by the Congress.

National Unity

Article 4 calls upon all states to address the problems within their areas. However, they still should work together in fixing problems that are deemed regional.

Amendments and ratifications

Article 5 indicates that while the constitution can be amended, new amendments can only be added through a two-third vote approval from the Congress and 3/4 of the vote from the states.

Limits of the power of national Government

Under article 6, both constitutional and/or federal laws are above the state laws. Even so, every law must be in line with US Constitution.

6.First, the federalists agitated for central government that was strong enough to rule directly, the citizens of United States but not through state governments. However, the anti-federalists sought for central government with weak powers in that it would only serve the state governments through performance of a limited number of functions which were only appropriate if carried out by a single authority other than the rest of the states. These functions would be national defense and/or diplomacy.  The rest of functions according to the anti-federalists would just be carried out by every state on its own.

Compromises during the Constitutional Convention

Secondly, the two sides argued over the structuring of the judicial system. The Federalists supported the idea of having a strong federal court system but the Anti-federalists wanted the federal courts to be limited in that lawsuits by citizens of a particular state against the state would not be heard by the Supreme court but instead heard by the courts of the specific state in line with its laws. This means that if the antifederalists’ position would be taken then the powers of both the judiciary and the legislature would be destroyed. This power and other powers given to the U.S. courts would result in the destruction of both the judicial function and the legislative function of the state governments.  The federalists were of the need for national government to veto any laws set by state and decisions taken by state courts.

Further, the two sides had a stand-off over taxation. In this case, the federalists wanted the federal government to have power to obtain taxes directly from citizens. This was to enable it to fund defense, effective diplomacy and to pay its local and international debts.   On the other hand, the Anti-federalists were opposed to this idea and wanted the federal government get taxes from each state government. According to the anti-federalists, lack of a check of the federal government’s taxation, would likely become tyrannical on not only the people but also on the states.

Looking at the country’s democracy today, I think that the Antifederalists were not justified in their concerns 230 year ago. It is evident that the federal system does not infringe on the rights of its citizens at all and it vetoes any legislations made by states that are not in line with the constitution, mainly for the betterment of the country’s judicial, executive and legislative system. The country is able to fund the best defense across the world through direct taxes among other sectors under a common currency that is also among the strongest currency worldwide.

7.I do not agree that the system of government would be more democratic and/or fair in case the US constitution is more easily emendable.  Article 5 of the US constitution sets the minimum number of states (38) and of Congress (two thirds) needed to change the constitution. Understanding that democracy is a government for the people, the majority has the right to choose the direction of the country and this includes ratification of particular laws from the federal government. Therefore, making the constitution hard to alter and amend helps the country and states to stabilize in that any little proposed amendments do not easily find themselves in the US constitution without the agreement of the majority.

References

Ginsberg, Lowi, Weir and Tolbert. WE THE PEOPLE. FULL 11TH EDITION. WW Norton, 2016. .