On November 15, 1777, the Second Continental Congress approved the Articles of Confederation—the first Constitution between the original 13 colonies. These were officially titled the, “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union,” and they preserved the independence and sovereignty of the states while creating a weak central government by opting for a “league of friendship” among states. The Articles were finally ratified and came into force on March 1, 1781, but the Continental Congress operated under the Articles from the time of their approval. John Dickinson of Pennsylvania was the chairman of the 13-man committee to write the Articles. However, the experience of both the war and the debt crisis of the 1780s showed many American leaders the weakness of the Articles. Under the Articles, the central government lacked the necessary powers to tax or the power to compel the States to comply with requests for either troops or funding. In late 1786 and early 1787, Shay’s Rebellion appeared to be a tipping point—as state militia had to respond to the eruption of violence over the growing national debt crisis because Congress could not fund a response. This led George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson, James Madison and others to believe a convention needed to be held to consider revisions (and ultimately a new Constitution) to secure a stronger national government.

The Articles of Confederation:

• Created a confederal government that preserved the sovereignty of individual states.

• Included a unicameral legislature with limited powers to prevent tyranny.

• Had several notable weaknesses: no executive, no judiciary to settle interstate disputes, no power to tax citizens, no power to raise an army.

• The first constitution of the United States, adopted in 1777 and ratified in 1781.

• Created a confederation of states with a weak central government.

• Each state had one vote in Congress; major laws required a supermajority, amendments required unanimous consent.

• Congress could not tax, regulate interstate commerce, or enforce its laws directly.

• No executive branch or national judiciary.

• Significant problems: inability to pay debts, regulate trade, or maintain order (e.g., Shays' Rebellion).

Brutus No. 1 is an Anti-Federalist essay that argues against the ratification of the Constitution. It warns that a large republic would be impractical and threaten personal freedoms. Brutus expressed concerns about the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Supremacy Clause, fearing they would grant excessive power to the federal government, ultimately leading to tyranny. He advocated for a confederation of smaller republics to better safeguard individual rights.

Its central point: the Constitution entrusts too much power to its central government:

• The Necessary and Proper (Elastic) Clause may be used abused as a "blank check" to the legislature to do what it deems is "necessary and proper"

• The Supremacy Clause may render state governments obsolete or at minimum ineffective

• A standing army in times of peace is a grave threat to liberty, may be used to enforce laws.

• Once power is ceded, it is difficult to regain it unless by force.

• Anti-Federalist essay arguing against ratification of the Constitution.

• Warns that a large republic would be impractical and lead to a loss of personal liberties.

• Concerns about the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Supremacy Clause granting excessive power to the federal government.

• Advocates for a confederation of small republics to better protect individual freedoms.

After the Annapolis Convention in September 1786—with five states attending—the 12 delegates agreed to another convention to revise the Articles of Confederation. On February 21, 1787, the Confederation Congress called for a convention of state delegates to meet in Philadelphia for the “sole and express purpose of revising the Articles.” The leading delegates had other plans—they wished to “render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union.” The Constitution was drafted in Philadelphia at the Constitutional Convention in secret between May 14, 1787, and September 17, 1787—when the final vote approved the Constitution, with three men (Elbridge Gerry, George Mason, and Edmund Randolph) refusing to sign. (Others like Luther Martin also left the Convention early.) From there, state ratifying conventions considered whether or not to accept the new Constitution, with some quickly voting to ratify and other states—like New York, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts—having significant opposition to the Constitution, principally for lacking a Bill of Rights and for removing too much power from the states to the central government. The Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788, and came into effect with the first meeting of Congress on March 4, 1789.

The Preamble of the U.S. Constitution outlines the purpose and function of the government: 

• • form a more perfect Union

  • establish justice

  • insure domestic tranquility

  • provide for the common defense

  • promote the general welfare

  • secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

The Constitution includes several important democratic ideals and forms a unique system of republican government:

• "We the people" (Popular sovereignty and consent of the government)

• Constitution outlines the structure of government (a republic, federalism)

• Enumerates the powers and function of the three branches of government (separation of power, checks and balances)

• Establishes the relationship between states (extradition clause, privileges and immunities clause, full faith and credit clause

• Sets up an amendment process (Article V) proposed by Congress or convention, ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures or states.

The Bill of Rights:

1. Freedom of RAPPS: Religion (establishment and free exercise clauses), assembly, press, petition for redress, and speech

2. Right to bear arms

3. No quartering of soldiers

4. No unreasonable search and seizures (exclusionary rule)

5. Indictment, double jeopardy, protection against self-incrimination ("right to remain silent"), due process

6. Speedy and public trial by jury of peers, cross examination of adverse witnesses, to call favorable witnesses to testify, right to counsel (lawyer), to be informed of the crime accused

7. Lawsuits and juries

8. No cruel or unusual punishment, no excessive fines and bail

9. Rights listed in the Constitution are not the people's only rights (rights can not be denied on the basis that they aren't listed in the Constitution)

10. Delegated and reserved powers (powers of states, if not listed in the Constitution becomes a right of the states not the federal government)

Other notable amendments:

• 12th Amendment: Process for selecting president and vice-president in the Electoral College

• 13th Amendment: Bans slavery

• 14th Amendment: Due process, equal protection, and citizenship for former slaves

• 15th Amendment: Black male vote

• 16th Amendment: Income tax

• 17th Amendment: Direct election of senators by citizens (popular vote)

• 18th Amendment: Prohibition

• 19th Amendment: Women right to vote

• 21st Amendment: Ends Prohibition

• 22nd Amendment: Limits presidential term to two full terms (2 terms plus <2 years as VP max of 10 years as POTUS)

• 23rd Amendment: District of Columbia (D.C.) votes for president

• 24th Amendment: No poll taxes

• 25th Amendment: Formalizes presidential sucesssion

• 26th Amendment: 18 to vote

• Ratified in 1788, establishing the framework of the federal government.

• Creates a system of checks and balances among three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial.

• Bicameral legislature (Congress) with the House of Representatives and the Senate.

• Defines powers of the federal government and reserves all other powers to the states (Tenth Amendment).

• Includes the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments) to protect individual liberties.

• Subsequent amendments address civil rights, voting rights, and governmental procedures (e.g., 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th Amendments).

In the summer of 1776, amidst the fervor of the American Revolution, a document emerged that would forever change the course of history. This document, known as the Declaration of Independence, was a bold and revolutionary statement of principles that severed the ties between the American colonies and Great Britain, paving the way for the birth of a new nation.

The Declaration of Independence was primarily authored by Thomas Jefferson, a brilliant statesman and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. It was adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, and signed by fifty-six delegates representing the thirteen colonies. This momentous event marked the official beginning of the American Revolution and the birth of the United States of America.

The Declaration of Independence is a powerful and eloquent statement that outlines the grievances of the American colonists against the British Crown. It begins with a preamble that asserts the natural rights of all individuals, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It proclaims that governments are instituted to secure these rights and that when a government fails to do so, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.

The document then proceeds to list a series of grievances against King George III and his government. These grievances include acts of tyranny, such as imposing unfair taxes, depriving the colonists of their rights to trial by jury, and maintaining a standing army in times of peace without the consent of the governed. The Declaration of Independence also condemns the British Crown for inciting Native American tribes to wage war against the American colonists.

However, the Declaration of Independence is not solely a list of complaints. It is a profound assertion of the principles of self-governance and individual liberty. It declares that all men are created equal and are endowed with certain unalienable rights. It emphasizes the importance of consent of the governed and the right of the people to establish a government that serves their interests.

The Declaration of Independence also serves as a rallying cry for the American colonists, inspiring them to fight for their freedom and independence. It declares that the colonies are "free and independent states" and that they have the full power to levy war, conclude peace, and engage in all other acts and things that independent states have the right to do.

The impact of the Declaration of Independence cannot be overstated. It not only severed the political ties between the American colonies and Great Britain but also laid the foundation for the principles upon which the United States was built. Its ideas of individual liberty, self-governance, and the pursuit of happiness continue to resonate today, not only in the United States but also around the world.

In conclusion, the Declaration of Independence is a seminal document that marks the beginning of the American Revolution and the birth of the United States of America. Its eloquent language and powerful principles continue to inspire and guide nations in their quest for freedom and self-determination. The Declaration of Independence stands as a testament to the indomitable spirit and unwavering commitment of the American colonists to secure their rights and establish a government that serves the people.

• Adopted on July 4, 1776, primarily authored by Thomas Jefferson.

• Declares the thirteen colonies' independence from British rule.

• Asserts the principle of natural rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

• Lists grievances against King George III to justify independence.

• Emphasizes the right of the people to alter or abolish a government that becomes destructive of their rights.

In Federalist No. 10, entitled "The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection," James Madison discusses the dangers of factionalism and proposes a republican form of government as a solution. Madison defines a faction as a group of citizens who are united by a common interest, passion, or adverse opinion, and who may act in ways that are detrimental to the rights of others or the interests of the community as a whole.

Madison argues that factions are an inherent part of human nature and cannot be eliminated. He acknowledges that people will always have different opinions and interests, and that attempting to suppress or eradicate factions would be both impractical and contrary to the principles of liberty. Instead, Madison focuses on how to control the negative effects of factions within a democratic society.

Madison asserts that a large republic, with a diverse population and a multiplicity of interests, is the best safeguard against the tyranny of the majority. He argues that in a large republic, it is less likely for a single faction to gain enough power to oppress others. The sheer size and diversity of the country would make it difficult for any one faction to dominate the political landscape.

Furthermore, Madison suggests that a representative form of government, where elected officials make decisions on behalf of the people, is crucial in mitigating the influence of factions. By entrusting the decision-making power to elected representatives, rather than directly to the people, the government can filter and refine the public's will, ensuring that the interests of the minority are protected.

Madison also emphasizes the importance of a system of checks and balances within the government. He argues that by dividing power among different branches and levels of government, each with its own distinct interests, the potential for tyranny is reduced. The separation of powers and the ability of each branch to check the actions of the others prevent any one faction from gaining complete control.

In all, Federalist No. 10 presents a compelling argument for the necessity of a large republic with a representative form of government and a system of checks and balances. Madison's ideas continue to shape the American political system, highlighting the importance of protecting minority rights and preventing the tyranny of the majority.

• Factions are inevitable. The question is not how to prevent them, but how to manage them. 

• A large republic is the best form of government to address the issue of factions.

• The larger the government, the more difficult it would be for one faction to gain power or consolidate its power through corruption.

• With factions having to compete for influence, only the best ideas would rise to the top (pluralism).

• Views of the people will be "refined and enlarged" by their elected representatives, preventing a tyranny of the majority.

In Federalist 51, James Madison explores the importance of checks and balances within the government. He argues that in order to prevent the concentration of power and protect individual liberties, each branch of government must be independent and have the ability to limit the powers of the other branches.

Madison begins by acknowledging that human nature is inherently flawed and prone to abuse of power. He states that if men were angels, no government would be necessary. However, since men are not angels, government is essential to maintain order and protect the rights of the people.

He then delves into the concept of separation of powers, explaining that the government should be divided into three branches: the legislative, executive, and judicial. Each branch should have a distinct and separate role, with the ability to check and balance the powers of the other branches.

Madison argues that the legislative branch, being the most powerful, should be further divided into two separate bodies: the House of Representatives and the Senate. This division ensures that laws are carefully considered and prevents hasty or unjust legislation. By having two separate bodies, each with different methods of representation, the interests of both the people and the states can be protected.

Furthermore, Madison emphasizes the need for an independent judiciary. He believes that the judiciary should have the power to interpret the laws and determine their constitutionality. This ensures that the laws passed by the legislative branch do not infringe upon the rights of the people or exceed the powers granted by the Constitution.

Madison also discusses the importance of checks and balances between the branches. He argues that each branch should have the ability to limit the powers of the other branches. For example, the president can veto legislation passed by Congress, but Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds majority vote. This system of checks and balances prevents any one branch from becoming too powerful and encroaching upon the rights of the people.

Federalist 51 highlights the importance of checks and balances in maintaining a balanced and fair government. By dividing power among the three branches and allowing them to check and balance each other, the government can prevent the abuse of power and protect the rights of the people. Madison's insights continue to shape the foundation of the American government and serve as a reminder of the importance of a system that guards against tyranny.

• Written by James Madison, discusses the structure of the government and the separation of powers.

• Power is divided between three co-equal branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial)

• Argues that the structure of government must create proper checks and balances between each branch.

• Power is shared between the national and state governments (federalism)

• The separation of powers and a series of checks and balances prevent power from becoming too centralized/prevent one person or group from taking over the government.

• "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." The government must be powerful enough to control the people but also to control itself.

In Federalist No. 70,  Alexander Hamilton argued in favor of a single executive created by Article II of the U.S. Constitution rather than a plurality or council used in early democracies. While anti-federalists feared that a single national leader may lead to tyrannical rule (as they had seen in monarchies led by absolute, despotic rulers), Hamilton uses historical examples to justify the importance and necessity for a sole, "energetic" executive.

Key Arguments:

• Having a dual executive or committee will lead to confusion, disagreement, and the inability to act decisively. Debate and disagreement are good for Congress, but poison for the president.

• The president needs to be able to act quickly and decisively in times of crisis.

• Having a single president makes the executive solely accountable for the decisions (no finger-pointing or shifting of the blame).

• "The ingredients which constitute energy in the Executive are, first, unity; secondly, duration; thirdly, an adequate provision for its support; fourthly, competent powers." 

• "Decision, activity, secrecy, and despatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number; and in proportion as the number is increased, these qualities will be diminished. This unity may be destroyed in two ways: either by vesting the power in two or more magistrates of equal dignity and authority; or by vesting it ostensibly in one man, subject, in whole or in part, to the control and co-operation of others, in the capacity of counsellors to him." The more people you have in the executive or influencing the decisions of the executive, the more difficult it would be to effectively perform their duties.

• "Wherever two or more persons are engaged in any common enterprise or pursuit, there is always danger of difference of opinion. If it be a public trust or office, in which they are clothed with equal dignity and authority, there is peculiar danger of personal emulation and even animosity. From either, and especially from all these causes, the most bitter dissensions are apt to spring. Whenever these happen, they lessen the respectability, weaken the authority, and distract the plans and operation of those whom they divide." In any decision, when you involve more than one person, you open up the possibility of disagreement. If the United States were to have two executives, those disagreements could weaken the office and fuel greater division between their supporters.

• "...the plurality of the Executive tends to deprive the people of the two greatest securities they can have for the faithful exercise of any delegated power, first, the restraints of public opinion, which lose their efficacy, as well on account of the division of the censure attendant on bad measures among a number, as on account of the uncertainty on whom it ought to fall; and, secondly, the opportunity of discovering with facility and clearness the misconduct of the persons they trust, in order either to their removal from office or to their actual punishment in cases which admit of it." If there were multiple people in the executive, there would be less clarity on who to hold accountable and for what. With a single executive, there is no one else to shift the blame to or point the finger at.

Federalist No. 70 justified a single executive (president) despite fears of tyrannical rule that colonists had been subject to under absolute monarchs in Europe. In modern times, it has been used to justify the expansion of presidential power especially in times of crisis. 

Titled "The Judiciary Department," author Alexander Hamilton (a federalist) outlined and justified the structure and purpose of a federal court system under the Constitution. Anti-federalists were particularly concerned that judges were unelected—meaning they could be influenced or beholden to those who appointed them— and would be appointed for life. Anti-federalists also worried that these federal judges would rule by their own will rather than the plain text of the Constitution.

Key Arguments:

• Hamilton calls the judiciary the "least dangerous branch" of government because it has no influence over "sword or purse." 

• The judiciary must be independent and free from political interference; judges should rule not by will or favor but by judgment.

• Life terms ensure that justices remain independent and not beholden to those who appointed or confirmed them. Qualified men won't be interested in the job if it is temporary and, because appointees serve for life, the other branches would be discouraged from appointing incompetent or dishonest judges.

• The role of the judiciary is to interpret the Constitution and identify when laws are passed in violation of the Constitution (judicial review).

• "...the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever."

• "that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.” Life terms ensure that the judiciary will remain free from the influences of other branches who appoint or confirm its judges.

• "The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution."

• "No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid."

• "Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former." The judiciary's ability to overrule the laws and acts of other branches does not mean it is superior; it can only do so because it is protecting the rights of the people (which remain superior to all three branches of government).

• "This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community."

• "To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them;" 

Federalist No. 78 supports the independence of the judiciary and life terms for judges, and describes the process of judicial review—that the federal judiciary has the power to determine whether laws are constitutional or not. This power was formalized by the Supreme Court's ruling in Marbury v. Madison (1803).

In April 1963,  civil rights activists from several organizations, including Dr. Martin Luther King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) began a series of nonviolent demonstrations in the racially-segregated city of Birmingham, Alabama. A week after the marches and sit-ins began and as racial tensions increased, a federal circuit judge placed an injunction (temporary, immediate ban) on all "parading, demonstrating, boycotting, trespassing and picketing."

Undeterred, King and other civil rights leaders continued their protests and were arrested two days later for violating the injunction. Eight local white clergymen who were critical of King's methods published an open letter entitled "A Call for Unity." In the letter, the clergymen criticized King's use of "outsiders" and argued that the fight for racial justice was better left in the courts, not through agitation and unrest in the streets.

While imprisoned, King penned a response in the margins of a newspaper using theological, moral, historical, and legal arguments to conclude that his creation of "tension" is both just and necessary. 

Key Arguments:

• Because of interrelatedness as Americans, there are no "outsiders" in the fight for civil rights.

• Nonviolent direct action creates "constructive" tension that would force the negotiation necessary to achieve racial equality.

• It is the duty of the oppressed to demand equality as it is never voluntarily given by their oppressors.

• Believing that time will "inevitably cure all ills" is counterproductive to the civil rights movement because it encourages the belief that racial equality is inevitable and can be accomplished without action.

• African Americans have waited long enough to realize their God-given and constitutional right to equality.

• Americans have a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. Racial segregation is unjust and immoral because it creates a false sense of superiority (for whites) and inferiority (for blacks).

• A law can be just on its face but unjust in how it is applied. Ex: a permit for a parade is just but unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and deny citizens their right to peaceful assembly and protest.

• Criticized the silence and inaction of white moderates and argued their complacency is the "great stumbling block in the stride for freedom."

• Questioned whether organized religion is too "inextricably bound" to the status quote and warned that the church risks becoming an "irrelevant social club with no meaning" for standing in the way of racial justice.

• "I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."

• "Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored."

• "Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue."

• "My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure."

• "We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed."

• "For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

• One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

• "...segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority."

• "I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice..."

• "So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love?"

• "Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro."

While the letter outlines the goals, tactics, and justifications of the American Civil Rights Movement, in the context of this course, it also illustrates the need, influence, and effectiveness of social movements to: 

• Oppose or remedy the unjust laws or actions by a government.

• Use popular support to shape policy-making or create change in the absence thereof.

• Ensure that the natural and constitutional rights of all citizens are protected.