"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Every schoolchild in America has at one time or another been exposed to these famous words from the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The document itself is remarkable. The U.S. Constitution, compared with others in the fifty states and in the world, is relatively short. Because amending it is difficult, it also has relatively few amendments. The Constitution has remained largely intact for more than two hundred years. To a great extent, this is because the principles set forth in the Constitution are sufficiently broad that they can be adapted to meet the needs of a changing society. (Sometimes questions arise over whether and how the Constitution should be adapted.)
How and why the U.S. Constitution was created is a story that has been told and retold. It is worth repeating, because knowing the historical and political context in which this country's governmental machinery was formed is essential to understanding American government and politics today. The Constitution did not result just from creative thinking. Many of its provisions were grounded in the political philosophy of the time. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 brought with them two important sets of influences: their political culture and their political experience.
In the years between the first settlements in the New World and the writing of the Constitution, Americans had developed a political philosophy about how people should be governed and had tried out several forms of government. These experiences gave the founders the tools with which they constructed the Constitution.
THE COLONIAL BACKGROUND
In 1607, a company chartered by the English government sent a group of settlers to establish a trading post, Jamestown, in what is now Virginia. Jamestown was the first permanent English colony in the Americas. The king of England gave the backers of this colony a charter granting them "full power and authority" to make laws "for the good and welfare" of the settlement. The colonists at Jamestown instituted a representative assembly, a legislature composed of individuals who represented the population, thus setting a precedent in government that was to be observed in later colonial adventures.
Separatists, the Mayflower, and the Compact
The first New England colony was established in 1620. A group made up in large part of extreme Separatists, who wished to break with the Church of England, came over on the ship Mayflower to the New World, landing at Plymouth (Massachusetts). Before going on shore, the adult males - women were not considered to have any political status - drew up the Mayflower Compact, which was signed by forty-one of the forty-four men aboard the ship on November 21, 1620. The reason for the compact was obvious. This group was outside the jurisdiction of the Virginia Company of London, which had chartered its settlement.
The Separatist leaders feared that some of the Mayflower passengers might conclude that they were no longer under any obligations of civil obedience. Therefore, some form of public authority was imperative. As William Bradford (one of the Separatist leaders) recalled in his accounts, there were "discontented and mutinous speeches that some of the strangers [non-Separatists] amongst them had let fall from them in the ship; That when they came ashore they would use their owne libertie; for none had power to command them."
The Significance of the Compact. The compact was not a constitution. It was a political statement in which the signers agreed to create and submit to the authority of a government, pending the receipt of a royal charter. The Mayflower Compact's political and historical significance is twofold: it depended on the consent of the affected individuals, and it served as a prototype for similar compacts in American history. By the time of the American Revolution, the compact was well on its way toward achieving mythic status. In 1802, John Quincy Adams, son of the second American president, spoke these words at a founders' day celebration in Plymouth: "This is perhaps the only instance in human history of that positive, original social compact, which speculative philosophers have imagined as the only legitimate source of government."
Pilgrim Beliefs. Although the Plymouth settlers - later called the Pilgrims - committed themselves to self-government, in other ways their political ideas were not those that are prevalent today. The new community was a religious colony. Separation of church and state and most of our modern civil liberties were alien to the settlers' thinking. By the time the U.S. Constitution was written, the nation's leaders had a very different vision of the relationship between religion and government.
More Colonies, More Government
Another outpost in New England was set up by the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1630. Then followed Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and others. By 1732, the last of the thirteen colonies, Georgia, was established. During the colonial period, Americans developed a concept of limited government, which followed from the establishment of the first colonies under Crown charters. Theoretically, London governed the colonies. In practice, owing partly to the colonies' distance from London, the colonists exercised a large measure of self-government.
The colonists were able to make their own laws - for example, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut in 1639. The Massachusetts Body of Liberties in 1641 supported the protection of individual rights. In 1682, the Pennsylvania Frame of Government was passed. Along with the Pennsylvania Charter of Privileges of 1701, it foreshadowed our modern Constitution and Bill of Rights. All of this legislation enabled the colonists to acquire crucial political experience. After independence was declared in 1776, the states quickly set up their own new constitutions.
BRITISH RESTRICTIONS AND COLONIAL REACTIONS
The conflict between Britain and the American colonies, which ultimately led to the Revolutionary War, began in the 1760s when the British government decided to raise revenues by imposing taxes on the American colonies. Policy advisers to Britain's King George III, who ascended the throne in 1760, decided that it was only logical to require the American colonists to help pay the costs of Britain's defending them during the French and Indian War (1756-1763). The colonists, who had grown accustomed to a large degree of self-government and independence from the British Crown, viewed the matter differently.
In 1764, the British Parliament passed the Sugar Act. Many colonists were unwilling to pay the tax imposed by the act. Further regulatory legislation was to come. In 1765, Parliament passed the Stamp Act, providing for internal taxation of legal documents and even newspapers - or, as the colonists' Stamp Act Congress, assembled in 1765, called it, "taxation without representation." The colonists boycotted the purchase of English commodities in return.
The success of the boycott (the Stamp Act was repealed a year later) generated a feeling of unity within the colonies. The British, however, continued to try to raise revenues in the colonies. When Parliament passed duties on glass, lead, paint, and other items in 1767, the colonists again boycotted British goods. The colonists' fury over taxation climaxed in the Boston Tea Party: colonists dressed as Mohawk Indians dumped almost 350 chests of British tea into Boston Harbor as a gesture of tax protest. In retaliation, Parliament passed the Coercive Acts (the "Intolerable Acts") in 1774, which closed Boston Harbor and placed the government of Massachusetts under direct British control. The colonists were outraged - and they responded.
The First Continental Congress
New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island proposed the convening of a colonial gathering, or congress. The Massachusetts House of Representatives requested that all colonies hold conventions to select delegates to be sent to Philadelphia for such a congress.
The First Continental Congress was held at Carpenter's Hall in Philadelphia on September 5, 1774. It was a gathering of delegates from twelve of the thirteen colonies (delegates from Georgia did not attend until 1775). At that meeting, there was little talk of independence. The congress passed a resolution requesting that the colonies send a petition to King George III expressing their grievances. Resolutions were also passed requiring that the colonies raise their own troops and boycott British trade. The British government condemned the congress's actions, treating them as open acts of rebellion.
The Second Continental Congress
By the time the Second Continental Congress met in May 1775 (all of the colonies were represented this time), fighting already had broken out between the British and the colonists. One of the main actions of the Second Continental Congress was to establish an army. It did this by declaring the militia that had gathered around Boston an army and naming George Washington as commander in chief. The participants in that congress still attempted to reach a peaceful settlement with the British Parliament. One declaration of the congress stated explicitly that "we have not raised armies with ambitious designs of separating from Great Britain, and establishing independent states." But by the beginning of 1776, military encounters had become increasingly frequent.
Public debate was acrimonious. Then Thomas Paine's Common Sense appeared in Philadelphia bookstores. The pamphlet was a colonial best seller. (To do relatively as well today, a book would have to sell between 9 million and 11 million copies in its first year of publication.) Many agreed that Paine did make common sense when he argued that
"a government of our own is our natural right: and when a man seriously reflects on the precariousness [instability, unpredictability] of human affairs, he will become convinced, that it is infinitely wiser and safer, to form a constitution of our own in a cool and deliberate manner, while we have it in our power, than to trust such an interesting event to time and chance."
Paine further argued that "nothing can settle our affairs so expeditiously as an open and determined declaration for independence."
Students of Paine's pamphlet point out that his arguments were not new - they were common in tavern debates throughout the land. Rather, it was the near poetry of his words - which were at the same time as plain as the alphabet - that struck his readers.
DECLARING INDEPENDENCE
On April 6, 1776, the Second Continental Congress voted for free trade at all American ports with all countries except Britain. This act could be interpreted as an implicit declaration of independence. The next month, the congress suggested that each of the colonies establish state governments unconnected to Britain. Finally, in July, the colonists declared their independence from Britain.
The Resolution of Independence
On July 2, the Resolution of Independence was adopted by the Second Continental Congress:
RESOLVED, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.
In June 1776, Thomas Jefferson already was writing drafts of the Declaration of Independence. When the Resolution of Independence was adopted on July 2, Jefferson argued that a declaration clearly putting forth the causes that compelled the colonies to separate from Britain was necessary. The Second Congress assigned the task to him.
July 4, 1776 - The Declaration of Independence
Jefferson's version of the declaration was amended to gain unanimous acceptance (for example, his condemnation of the slave trade was eliminated to satisfy Georgia and North Carolina), but the bulk of it was passed intact on July 4, 1776. On July 19, the modified draft became "the unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America." On August 2, it was signed by the members of the Second Continental Congress.
Universal Truths. The Declaration of Independence has become one of the world's most famous and significant documents. The words opening the second paragraph of the Declaration indicate why this is so:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from
the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it,
and to institute new Government.
Natural Rights and Social Contracts. The statement that "all Men are created equal" and have natural rights ("unalienable Rights"), including the rights to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," was revolutionary at that time. Its use by Jefferson reveals the influence of the English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704), whose writings were familiar to educated American colonists, including Jefferson. In his Two Treatises on Government, published in 1690, Locke had argued that all people possess certain natural rights, including the rights to life, liberty, and property. This claim was not inconsistent with English legal traditions.
Locke went on to argue, however, that the primary purpose of government was to protect these rights. Furthermore, government was established by the people through a social contract - an agreement among the people to form a government and abide by its rules. As you read earlier, such contracts, or compacts, were not new to Americans. The Mayflower Compact was the first of several documents that established governments or governing rules based on the consent of the governed.
After setting forth these basic principles of government, the Declaration of Independence goes on to justify the colonists' revolt against Britain. Much fo the remainder of the document is a list of what "He" (King George III) had done to deprive the colonists of their rights.
The Significance of the Declaration. The concepts of equality, natural rights, and government established through a social contract were to have a lasting impact on American life. The Declaration of Independence set forth ideals that have since become a fundamental part of our national identity. The Declaration also became a model for use by other nations around the world.
Certainly, most Americans are familiar with the beginning words of the Declaration. Yet, as Harvard historian David Armitage noted in his study of the Declaration of Independence in the international context, few Americans ponder the obvious question: What did these assertions in the Declaration have to do with independence? Clearly, independence could have been declared without these words. Even as late as 1857, Abraham Lincoln admitted, "The assertion that 'all men are created equal' was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration, not for that, but for future use."
Essentially, the immediate significance of the Declaration of Independence, in 1776, was that it established the legitimacy of the new nation in the eyes of foreign governments, as well as in the eyes of the colonists themselves. What the new nation needed most were supplies for its armies and a commitment of foreign military aid. Unless it appeared to the world as a political entity separate and independent from Britain, no foreign government would enter into an agreement with its leaders. In fact, foreign support was crucial to the success of the revolution.
The Rise of Republicanism
Although the colonists had formally declared independence from Britain, the fight to gain actual independence continued for five more years, until the British general Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown in 1781. In 1783, after Britain formally recognized the independent status of the United States in the Treaty of Paris, Washington disbanded the army. During these years of military struggles, the states faced the additional challenge of creating a system of self-government for an independent United States.
Some colonists had demanded that independence be preceded by the formation of a strong central government. But others, who called themselves Republicans (not to be confused with today's Republican Party), were against a strong central government. They opposed monarchy, executive authority, and almost any form of restraint on the power of local groups.
From 1776 to 1780, all of the states adopted written constitutions. Eleven of the constitutions were completely new. Two of them - those of Connecticut and Rhode Island - were old royal charters with minor modifications. Republican sentiment led to increased power for the legislatures. In Georgia and Pennsylvania, unicameral (one-body) legislatures were unchecked by executive of judicial authority. In almost all states, the legislature was predominant.
TABLE - Milestones in Early U.S. Political History
THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION: OUR FIRST FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The fear of a powerful central government led to the passage of the Articles of Confederation, which created a weak central government. The term confederation is important. It means a voluntary association of independent states, in which the member states agree to only limited restraints on their freedom of action. As a result, confederations seldom have an effective executive authority.
In June 1776, the Second Continental Congress began the process of composing what would become the Articles of Confederation. The final draft of the Articles was completed by November 15, 1777. It was not until March 1, 1781, however, that the last state, Maryland, agreed to ratify the Articles. Well before the final ratification of the Articles, however, many of them were implemented: the Continental Congress and the thirteen states conducted American military, economic, and political affairs according to the standards and the form specified by the Articles.
The Articles Establish a Government
Under the Articles, the thirteen original colonies, now states, established on March 1, 1781, a government of the states - the Congress of the Confederation. The Congress was a unicameral assembly of so-called ambassadors from each state, with each state possessing a single vote. Each year, the Congress would choose one of its members as the president of the Congress (that is, the presiding officer), but the Articles did not provide for a president of the United States.
The Congress was authorized in Article X to appoint an executive committee of the states "to execute in the recess of Congress, such of the powers of Congress as the United States, in Congress assembled, by the consent of nine [of the thirteen] states, shall from time to time think expedient to vest with them." The Congress was also allowed to appoint other committees and civil officers necessary for managing the general affairs of the United States. In addition, the Congress could regulate foreign affairs and establish coinage and weights and measures. But it lacked an independent, direct source of revenue and the necessary executive machinery to enforce its decisions throughout the land. Article II of the Articles of Confederation guaranteed that each state would retain its sovereignty.
LIST --> The Confederal Government Structure under the Articles of Confederation (Hierarchical)
CONGRESS: Congress had one house. Each state had two to seven members, but only one vote. The exercise of most powers required approval of at least nine states. Amendments to the Articles required the consent of all the states.
COMMITTEE OF THE STATES: A committee of representatives from all the states was empowered to act in the name of Congress between sessions.
OFFICERS: Congress appointed officers to do some of the executive work.
THE STATES
Accomplishments Under the Articles
The new government had some accomplishments during its eight years of existence under the Articles of Confederation. Certain states' claims to western lands were settled. Maryland had objected to the claims of the Carolinas, Connecticut, Georgia, Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia. It was only after these states consented to give up their land claims to the United States as a whole that Maryland signed the Articles of Confederation. Another accomplishment under the Articles was the passage of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which established a basic pattern of government for new territories north of the Ohio River. All in all, the Articles represented the first real pooling of resources by the American states.
Weaknesses of the Articles
In spite of these accomplishments, the Articles of Confederation had many defects. Although Congress had the legal right to declare war and to conduct foreign policy, it did not have the right to demand revenues from the states. It could only ask for them. Additionally, the actions of Congress required the consent of nine states. Any amendments to the Articles required the unanimous consent of the Congress and confirmation by every state legislature. Furthermore, the Articles did not create a national system of courts.
Basically, the functioning of the government under the Articles depended on the goodwill of the states. Article III simply established a "league of friendship" among the states - no national government was intended.
Probably the most fundamental weakness of the Articles, and the most basic cause of their eventual replacement by the Constitution, was the lack of power to raise funds for the militia. The Articles contained no language giving Congress coercive power to raise revenue (by levying taxes) to provide adequate support for the military forces controlled by Congress. Due to a lack of resources, the Continental Congress was forced to disband the army after the Revolutionary War, even in the face of serious Spanish and British military threats.
LIST --> Powers of the Congress of the Confederation
CONGRESS HAD POWER TO
-Declare war and make peace
-Enter into treaties and allegiances
-Establish and control armed forces
-Requisition men and revenues from states
-Regulate coinage
-Borrow funds and issue bills of credit
-Fix uniform standards of weight and measurement
-Create admiralty courts
-Create a postal system
-Regulate Indian affairs
-Guarantee citizens of each state the rights and privileges of citizens in the several states when in another states
-Adjudicate disputes between states on state petition
CONGRESS LACKED POWER TO
-Provide for effective treaty-making power and control foreign relations - it could not compel states to respect treaties
-Compel states to meet military quotas - it could not draft soldiers
-Regulate interstate and foreign commerce - it left each state free to tax imports from other states
-Collect taxes directly from the people - it had to rely on states to collect and forward taxes
-Compel states to pay their share of government costs
-Provide and maintain a sound monetary system or issue paper money - this was left up to the states, and the paper currencies in circulation differed tremendously in value
Shays' Rebellion and the Need to Revise the Articles
Because of the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, the central government could do little to maintain peace and order in the new nation. The states bickered among themselves and increasingly taxed each other's goods. By 1784, the country faced a serious economic depression. Banks were calling in old loans and refusing to make new ones. People who could not pay their debts were often thrown into prison.
In August 1786, mobs of musket-bearing farmers led by former revolutionary captain Daniel Shays seized county courthouses and disrupted the trials of debtors in Springfield, Massachusetts. Shays and his men then launched an attack on the federal arsenal at Springfield, but they were repulsed. Shays' Rebellion demonstrated that the central government could not protect the citizenry from armed rebellion or provide adequately for the public welfare. The rebellion spurred the nation's political leaders into action.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
The Virginia legislature called for a meeting of all the states to be held at Annapolis, Maryland, on September 11, 1786 - ostensibly to discuss commercial problems only. It was evident to those in attendance (including Alexander Hamilton and James Madison) that the national government had serious weaknesses that had to be addressed if it was to survive. Among the important problems to be solved were the relationship between the states, and the central government, the powers of the national legislature, the need for executive leadership, and the establishment of policies for economic stability.
The result of this meeting was a petition to the Continental Congress for a general convention to meet in Philadelphia in May 1787 "to consider the exigencies of the union." Congress approved the convention in February 1787. When those who favored a weak central government realized that the Philadelphia meeting would in fact take place, they endorsed the convention. They made sure, however, that the convention would be summoned "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation." Those in favor of a stronger national government had different ideas.
The designated date for the opening of the convention at Philadelphia, now known as the Constitutional Convention, was May 14, 1787. Few of the delegates had actually arrived in Philadelphia by that time, so the Convention was delayed. It was formally opened in the East Room of the Pennsylvania State House on May 25. Fifty-five of the seventy-four delegates chosen for the convention actually attended. (Of those fifty-five, only about forty played active roles at the convention.) Rhode Island was the only state that refused to send delegates.
Who Were the Delegates?
Who were the fifty-five delegates to the Constitutional Convention? They certainly did not represent a cross section of American society in the 1700s. Indeed, most were members of the upper class. Consider the following facts:
1. Thirty-three were members of the legal profession
2. Three were physicians
3. Almost 50 percent were college graduates
4. Seven were former chief executives of their respective states
5. Six were owners of large plantations
6. Eight were important businesspersons
They were also relatively young by today's standards: James Madison was thirty-six, Alexander Hamilton was only thirty-two, and Jonathan Dayton of New Jersey was twenty-six. The venerable Benjamin Franklin, however, was eighty-one and had to be carried in on a portable chair borne by four prisoners from a local jail. Not counting Franklin, the average age was just over forty-two.
The Working Environment
The conditions under which the delegates worked for 115 days were far from ideal and were made even worse by the necessity of maintaining total secrecy. The framers of the Constitution believed that if public debate took place on particular positions, delegates would have a more difficult time compromising or backing down to reach agreement. Consequently, the windows were usually shut in the East Room of the State House. Summer quickly arrived, and the air became humid and hot by noon of each day. The delegates did, however, have a nearby tavern and inn to which they retired each evening - the Indian Queen. It became the informal headquarters of the delegates.
Factions Among the Delegates
We know much about the proceedings at the convention because James Madison kept a daily, detailed personal journal. A majority of the delegates were strong nationalists - they wanted a central government with real power, unlike the central government under the Articles of Confederation. George Washington and Benjamin Franklin were among those who sought a stronger government.
Among the nationalists, some - including Alexander Hamilton - went so far as to support monarchy. Another important group of nationalists were of a more republican stripe. Led by James Madison of Virginia and James Wilson of Pennsylvania, these republican nationalists wanted a central government founded on popular support.
Many of the other delegates from Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire, and New Jersey were concerned about only one thing - claims to western lands. As long as those lands became the common property of all of the states, these delegates were willing to support a central government.
Finally, there was a group of delegates who were totally against a national authority. Two of the three delegates from New York quit the convention when they saw the nationalist direction of its proceedings.
Politicking and Compromises
The debates at the convention started on the first day. James Madison had spent months reviewing European political theory. When his Virginia delegation arrived ahead of most of the others, it got to work immediately. By the time George Washington opened the convention, Governor Edmund Randolph of Virginia was prepared to present fifteen resolutions proposing fundamental changes to the nation's government. In retrospect, this was a masterful stroke on the part of the Virginia delegation. It set the agenda for the remainder of the convention - even though, in principle, the delegates had been sent to Philadelphia for the sole purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation.
The Virginia Plan. Randolph's fifteen resolutions proposed an entirely new national government under a constitution. Basically, it called for the following:
1. A bicameral (two-chamber) legislature, with the lower chamber chosen by the people and the smaller upper chamber chosen by the lower chamber from nominees selected by state legislatures. The number of representatives would be proportional to a state's population, thus favoring the large states. The legislature could void any state laws.
2. The creation of an unspecified national executive, elected by the legislature.
3. The creation of a national judiciary, appointed by the legislature.
It did not take long for the smaller states to realize they would fare poorly under the Virginia Plan, which would enable Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia to form a majority in the national legislature. The debate on the plan dragged on for a number of weeks. It was time for the small states to come up with their own plan.
The New Jersey Plan. On June 15, William Paterson of New Jersey offered an alternative plan. After all, argued Paterson, under the Articles of Confederation all states had equality. Therefore, the convention had no power to change this arrangement. He proposed the following:
1. The fundamental principle of the Articles of Confederation - one state, one vote - would be retained.
2. Congress would be able to regulate trade and impose taxes.
3. All acts of Congress would be the supreme law of the land.
4. Several people would be elected by Congress to form an executive office.
5. The executive office would appoint a Supreme Court.
Basically, the New Jersey Plan was simply an amendment of the Articles of Confederation. It's only notable feature was its reference to the supremacy doctrine, which was later included in the Constitution.
The "Great Compromise." The delegates were at an impasse. Most wanted a strong national government and were unwilling even to consider the New Jersey Plan. But when the Virginia Plan was brought up again, the small states threatened to leave. It was not until July 16 that a compromise was achieved. Roger Sherman of Connecticut proposed the following:
1. A bicameral legislature in which the lower chamber, the House of Representatives, would be apportioned according to the number of free inhabitants in each state, plus three-fifths of the slaves.
2. An upper chamber, the Senate, which would have two members from each state elected by the state legislatures.
This plan, known as the Great Compromise (it is also called the Connecticut Compromise because of the role of the Connecticut delegates In the proposal), broke the deadlock. It did exact a political price, however, because it permitted each state to have equal representation in the Senate. Having two senators represent each state diluted the voting power of citizens living in more heavily populated states and gave the smaller states disproportionate political power. But the Connecticut Compromise resolved the controversy between small and large states. In addition, the Senate would act as a check on the House, which many feared would be dominated by the masses and excessively responsive to them.
The Three-Fifths Compromise. The Great Compromise also settled another major issue - how to deal with slaves in the representational scheme. Slavery was still legal in several northern states, but it was concentrated in the South. Many delegates were opposed to slavery and wanted it banned entirely in the United States. Charles Pinckney of South Carolina led strong southern opposition to a ban on slavery. Furthermore, the South wanted slaves to be counted along with free persons in determining representation in Congress. Delegates from the northern states objected. Sherman's three-fifths proposal was a compromise between northerners who did not want the slaves counted at all and southerners who wanted them counted in the same way as free whites. Actually, Sherman's Connecticut Plan spoke of three-fifths of "all other persons" (and that is the language of the Constitution itself). It is not hard to figure out, though, who those other persons were.
The three-fifths rule meant that the House of Representatives and the electoral college would be apportioned in part on the basis of property - specifically, property in slaves. Modern commentators have referred to the three-fifths rule as valuing African Americans only three-fifths as much as whites. Actually, the additional southern representatives elected because of the three-fifths rule did not represent the slaves at all. Rather, these extra representatives were a gift to the slave owners - the additional representatives enhanced the power of the South in Congress.
The Slave Trade and the Future of Slavery. The three-fifths compromise did not completely settle the slavery issue. There was also the question of the slave trade. Eventually, the delegates agreed that Congress could not ban the importation of slaves until after 1808.
The compromise meant that the matter of slavery itself was never addressed directly. The South won twenty years of unrestricted slave trade and a requirement that escaped slaves in free states be returned to their owners in slave states.
Clearly, many delegates, including slave owners such as George Washington and James Madison, had serious objections to slavery. Why, then, did they allow slavery to continue? Historians have long maintained that the framers had no choice - that without a slavery compromise, the delegates from the South would have abandoned the convention. Indeed, this was the fear of a number of antislavery delegates to the convention. Madison, for example, said, "Great as the evil is, a dismemberment of the Union would be even worse." Other scholars, however, contend that not only would it have been possible for the founders to ban slavery, but by doing so they would have achieved greater unity for the new nation.
A number of historians have made an additional point. Many American leaders believed that slavery would die out naturally. These leaders assumed that in the long run, slave labor could not compete with the labor of free citizens. This assumption turned out to be incorrect.
Other Issues. The South also worried that the northern majority in Congress would pass legislation unfavorable to its economic interests. Because the South depended on agricultural exports, it feared the imposition of export taxes. In return for acceding to the northern demand that Congress be able to regulate commerce among the states and with other nations, the South obtained a promise that export taxes would not be imposed. As a result, the United States is among the few countries that do not tax their exports.
There were other disagreements. The delegates could not decide whether to establish only a Supreme Court or to create lower courts as well. They deferred the issue by mandating a Supreme Court and allowing Congress to establish lower courts. They also disagreed over whether the president or the Senate would choose the Supreme Court justices. A compromise was reached with the agreement that the president would nominate the justices and the Senate would confirm the nominations.
These compromises, as well as others, resulted from the recognition that if one group of states refused to ratify the Constitution, it was doomed.
Working Toward Final Agreement
The Connecticut Compromise was reached by mid-July. The makeup of the executive branch and the judiciary, however, was left unsettled. The remaining work of the convention was turned over to a five-man Committee of Detail, which presented a rough draft of the Constitution on August 6. It made the executive and judicial branches subordinate to the legislative branch.
The Madisonian Model - Separation of Powers. The major issue of separation of powers had not yet been resolved. The delegates were concerned with structuring the government to prevent the imposition of tyranny, either by the majority or by a minority. It was Madison who proposed a governmental scheme - sometimes called the Madisonian model - to achieve this: the executive, legislative, and judicial powers of government were to be separated so that no one branch had enough power to dominate the others. The separation of powers was by function, as well as by personnel, with Congress passing laws, the president enforcing and administering laws, and the courts interpreting laws in individual circumstances.
Each of the three branches of government would be independent of the others, but they would have to cooperate to govern. According to Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 51, "the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others."
The Madisonian Model - Checks and Balances. The "constitutional means" Madison referred to is a system of checks and balances through which each branch of the government can check the actions of the others. For example, Congress can enact laws, but the president has veto power over congressional acts. The Supreme Court has the power to declare acts of Congress and of the executive branch unconstitutional, but the president appoints the justices of the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. (The Supreme Court's power to declare acts unconstitutional was not mentioned in the Constitution, although arguably the framers assumed that the Court would have this power.).
Madison's ideas of separation of powers and checks and balances were not new. Indeed, the influential French political thinker Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755) had explored these concepts in his book The Spirit of the Laws, published in 1748. Montesquieu not only discussed the "three sorts of powers" (executive, legislative, and judicial) that were necessarily exercised by any government but also gave examples of how, in some nations, certain checks on these powers had arisen and had been effective in preventing tyranny.
LIST --> Checks and Balances
JUDICIARY checks PRESIDENCY - The Supreme Court can declare presidential actions unconstitutional
JUDICIARY checks CONGRESS - The Supreme Court can declare congressional laws unconstitutional
CONGRESS checks PRESIDENCY - Congress makes legislation and can override a presidential veto of legislation; Congress can impeach and remove a president; the Senate must confirm presidential appointments and consent to the president's treaties based on a two-thirds concurrence; Congress has the power of the purse and provides funds for the president's programs.
CONGRESS checks JUDICIARY - Congress can rewrite legislation to circumvent the Court's decisions; the Senate confirms federal judges; Congress determines the number of judges.
PRESIDENCY checks CONGRESS - The president proposes laws and can veto congressional legislation; the president makes treaties and executive agreements and issues executive orders; the president can refuse, and has refused, to enforce congressional legislation; the president can call special sessions of Congress.
PRESIDENCY checks JUDICIAR - The president nominates federal judges; the president can refuse to enforce the Court's decisions; the president grants pardons.
The Development of the Madisonian Model. In the years since the Constitution was ratified, the checks and balances built into it have evolved into a sometimes complex give-and-take among the branches of government. Generally, for nearly every check that one branch has over another, the branch that has been checked has found a way of getting around it. For example, suppose that the president checks Congress by vetoing a bill. Congress can override the presidential veto by a two-thirds vote. Additionally, Congress holds the "power of the purse." If it disagrees with a program endorsed by the executive branch, it can simply refuse to appropriate the funds necessary to operate that program. Similarly, the president can impose a countercheck on Congress if the Senate refuses to confirm a presidential appointment, such as a judicial appointment. The president can simply wait until Congress is in recess and then make what is called a "recess appointment," which does not require the Senate's approval.
The Executive. Some delegates favored a plural executive made up of representatives from various regions. This idea was abandoned in favor of a single chief executive. Some argued that Congress should choose the executive. To make the presidency completely independent of the proposed Congress, however, an electoral college was adopted. To be sure, the electoral college created a cumbersome presidential election process. The process even made it possible for a candidate who comes in second in the popular vote to become president by being the top vote getter in the electoral college. The electoral college insulated the president, however, from direct popular control.
The Final Document
On September 17, 1787, the Constitution was approved by thirty-nine delegates. Of the fifty-five who had attended originally, only forty-two remained. Three delegates refused to sign the Constitution. Others disapproved of at least parts of it but signed anyway to begin the ratification debate.
The Constitution that was to be ratified established the following fundamental principles:
1. Popular sovereignty, or control by the people.
2. A republican government in which the people choose representatives to make decisions for them.
3. Limited government with written laws, in contrast to the powerful British government against which the colonists had rebelled.
4. Separation of powers, with checks and balances among branches to prevent any one branch from gaining too much power.
5. A federal system that allows for states' rights, because the states feared too much centralized control.
A Federal System. In the federal system established by the founders, sovereign powers - ruling powers - were divided between the states and the national government. The Constitution expressly granted certain powers to the national government. For example, the national government was given the power to regulate commerce among the states. The Constitution also declared that the president is the nation's chief executive and the commander in chief of the armed forces. Additionally, the Constitution made it clear that laws made by the national government take priority over conflicting state laws. At the same time, the Constitution provided for extensive states' rights, including the right to control commerce within state borders and to exercise those governing powers that were not delegated to the national government.
A Novel Form of Government. The federal system created by the founders was a novel form of government at that time - no other country in the world had such a system. It was invented by the founders as a compromise solution to the controversy over whether the states or the central government should have ultimate sovereignty. The debate over where the line should be drawn between states' rights and the powers of the national government has characterized American politics ever since. The founders did into go into detail about where this line should be drawn, thus leaving it up to elected officials and judges to divine the founders' intentions.
THE DIFFICULT ROAD TO RATIFICATION
The founders knew that ratification of the Constitution was far from certain. Indeed, because it was almost guaranteed that many state legislatures would not ratify it, the delegates agreed that each state should hold a special convention. Elected delegates to these conventions would discuss and vote on the Constitution. Further departing from the Articles of Confederation, the delegates agreed that as soon as nine states (rather than all thirteen) approved the Constitution, it would take effect, and Congress could begin to organize the new government.
The Federalists Push for Ratification
The two opposing forces in the battle over ratification were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists - those in favor of a strong central government and the new Constitution - had an advantage over their opponents, called the Anti-Federalists, who wanted to prevent the Constitution as drafted from being ratified. In the first place, the Federalists had assumed a positive name, leaving their opposition the negative label of Anti-Federalist. More important, the Federalists had attended the Constitutional Convention and knew of all the deliberations that had taken place. Their opponents had no such knowledge, because those deliberations had not been open to the public. Thus, the Anti-Federalists were at a disadvantage in terms of information about the document. The Federalists also had time, power, and wealth on their side. Communications were slow. Those who had access to the best communications were Federalists - mostly wealthy bankers, lawyers, plantation owners, and merchants living in urban areas, where communications were better. The Federalist campaign was organized relatively quickly and effectively to elect Federalists as delegates to the state ratifying conventions.
The Anti-Federalists, however, had at least one strong point in their favor: they stood for the status quo. In general, the greater burden is always placed on those advocating change.
The Federalist Papers. In New York, opponents of the Constitution were quick to attack it. Alexander Hamilton answered their attacks in newspaper columns over the signature "Caesar." When the Caesar letters had little effect, Hamilton switched to the pseudonym Publius and secured two collaborators - John Jay and James Madison. In a very short time, those three political figures wrote a series of eighty-five essays in defense of the Constitution and of a republican form of government.
These widely read essays, called the Federalist Papers, appeared in New York newspapers from October 1787 to August 1788 and were reprinted in the newspapers of other states. Although we do not know for certain who wrote every one, it is apparent that Hamilton was responsible for about two-thirds of the essays. These included the most important ones interpreting the Constitution, explaining the various powers of the three branches, and presenting a theory of judicial review. Madison's Federalist Paper No. 10, however, is considered a classic in political theory. It deals with the nature of groups - or factions, as he called them. In spite of the rapidity with which the Federalist Papers were written, they are considered by many to be perhaps the best example of political theorizing ever produced in the United States.
The Anti-Federalist Response. The Anti-Federalists used such pseudonyms as Montezuma and Philadelphiensis in their replies. Many of their attacks on the Constitution were also brilliant. The Anti-Federalists claimed that the Constitution was written by aristocrats and would lead to aristocratic tyranny. More important, the Anti-Federalists believed that the Constitution would create an overbearing and overburdening central government hostile to personal liberty. (The Constitution said nothing about freedom of the press, freedom of religion, or any other individual liberty.) They wanted to include a list of guaranteed liberties, or a bill of rights. Finally, the Anti-Federalists decried the weakened power of the states.
The Anti-Federalists cannot be dismissed as unpatriotic extremists. They included such patriots as Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams. They were arguing what had been the most prevalent view in that era. This view derived from the French political philosopher Montesquieu, who, as mentioned earlier, was an influential political theorist. Montesquieu believed that a republic was possible only in a relatively small society governed by direct democracy or by a large legislature with small districts. The Madisonian view of favoring a large republic, particularly as expressed in Federalist Papers No. 10 and No. 51, was actually an exceptional view in those years. Indeed, some researchers believe it was mainly the bitter experiences with the Articles of Confederation, rather than Madison's arguments, that persuaded the state conventions to ratify the Constitution.
The March to the Finish
The struggle for ratification continued. Strong majorities were procured in Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. After a bitter struggle in Massachusetts, that state ratified the Constitution by a narrow margin on February 6, 1788. By the spring, Maryland and South Carolina had ratified by sizable majorities. Then on June 21 of that year, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the Constitution. Although the Constitution was formally in effect, this meant little without Virginia and New York. Virginia ratified it a few days later, but New York did not join in for another month.
CHART --> Ratification of the Constitution
Did the Majority of Americans Support the Constitution?
In 1913, historian Charles Beard published An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. This book launched a debate that has continued ever since - the debate over whether the Constitution was supported by a majority of Americans.
Beard's Thesis. Beard argued that the Constitution had been produced primarily by wealthy property owners who desired a stronger government able to protect their property rights. Beard also claimed that the Constitution had been imposed by undemocratic methods. He pointed out that there was never any popular vote on whether to hold a constitutional convention in the first place. Furthermore, even if such a vote had been taken, state laws generally restricted voting rights to property-owning white males.
State Ratifying Conventions. The delegates to the various state ratifying conventions had been selected by only 150,000 of the nation's approximately 4 million total inhabitants. That does not seem very democratic - at least not by today's standards. Some historians have suggested that if a Gallup poll could have been taken at the time, the Anti-Federalists would probably have outnumbered the Federalists. Much has also been made of the various machinations used by the Federalists to ensure the Constitution's ratification, including the purchase of at least one printing press to prevent the publication of Anti-Federalist sentiments.
Support Was Probably Widespread. Many small farmers feared that the Constitution would result in oppressive domination by a wealthy elite. Still, the perception that a strong central government was necessary to keep order and protect the public welfare appears to have been widespread among all classes, rich and poor alike. No doubt an effective national government would benefit the wealthy, as Beard argued. Yet it could help workers and small farmers as well. After all, the economic and political crisis that the nation faced in the 1780s fell even harder on the poor than on the rich.
Further, although the need for strong government was a major argument in favor of adopting the Constitution, even the Federalists sought to craft a limited government. Compared with constitutions adopted by other nations in later years, the U.S. Constitution, through its checks and balances, favors limited government over "energetic" government to a marked degree.
THE BILL OF RIGHTS
The U.S. Constitution would not have been ratified in several important states if the Federalists had not assured the states that amendments to the Constitution would be passed to protect individual liberties against incursions by the national government. Many of the recommendations of the state ratifying conventions included specific rights that were considered later by James Madison as he labored to draft what became the Bill of Rights.
A "Bill of Limits"
Although called the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution essentially were a "bill of limits," because the amendments limited the powers of the national government over the rights and liberties of individuals.
Ironically, a year earlier Madison had told Jefferson, "I have never thought the omission [of the Bill of Rights] a material defect" of the Constitution. Jefferson's enthusiasm for a bill of rights apparently influenced Madison, however.
Was a Bill of Rights Necessary? Many framers thought that it was dangerous to enumerate specific civil liberties in a bill of rights. Future governments might assume that rights that were not listed did not exist. (This concern was addressed in the Bill of Rights itself by the Ninth Amendment.)
Also, the Constitution already listed certain rights. The original document prohibits bills of attainder - laws that impose punishment on named individuals without trial. The original Constitution also bars ex post facto laws, which make an act illegal after it has already happened. A trial by jury is required in federal criminal cases. Finally, individuals may not be jailed without due process of law. A judge can demand to know why a particular person is in custody (the demand is called a writ of habeas corpus). If no proper explanation is given, the judge can order the individual's release.
Madison Drafts the Bill. Madison had to cull through more than two hundred state recommendations. It was no small task, and in retrospect he chose remarkably well. One of the rights appropriate for constitutional protection that he left out was equal protection under the laws - but that was not commonly regarded as a basic right at that time. Not until 1868 was the Constitution amended to guarantee that no state shall deny equal protection to any person.
The final number of amendments that Madison and a specifically appointed committee came up with was seventeen. Congress tightened the language somewhat and eliminated five of the amendments. Of the remaining twelve, two - dealing with the apportionment of representatives and the compensation of members of Congress - were not ratified immediately by the states. Eventually, Supreme Court decisions led to the reform of the apportionment process. The amendment on the compensation of members of Congress was ratified 203 years later - in 1992.
Adoption of the Bill of Rights
On December 15, 1791, the national Bill of Rights was adopted when Virginia agreed to ratify the ten amendments. On ratification, the Bill of Rights became part of the U.S. Constitution. The basic structure of American government had already been established. Now the fundamental rights and liberties of individuals were protected, at least in theory, at the national level. The proposed amendment that Madison characterized as "the most valuable amendment in the whole lot" - which would have prohibited the states from infringing on the freedoms of conscience, press, and jury trial - had been eliminated by the Senate. Thus, the Bill of Rights as adopted did not limit state power, and individual citizens had to rely on the guarantees contained in a particular state constitution or state bill of rights. The country had to wait until the violence of the Civil War before significant limitations on state power in the form of the Fourteenth Amendment became part of the national Constitution.
ALTERING THE CONSTITUTION: THE FORMAL AMENDMENT PROCESS
As amended, the U.S. Constitution consists of about 7,000 words. It is shorter than any state constitution except that of Vermont, which has 6,880 words. The federal Constitution is short because the founders intended it to be only a framework for the new government, to be interpreted by succeeding generations. One of the reasons it has remained short is that the formal amending procedure does not allow for changes to be made easily. Article V of the Constitution outlines the ways in which amendments may be proposed and ratified.
Two formal methods of proposing an amendment to the Constitution are available: (1) a two-thirds vote in each chamber of Congress or (2) a national convention that is called by Congress at the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures. This second method has never been used.
Ratification can occur by one of two methods: (1) by a positive vote in three-fourths of the legislatures of the various states or (2) by special conventions called in the states and a positive vote in three-fourths of them. The second method has been used only once, to repeal Prohibition (the ban on the production and sale of alcoholic beverages). That situation was exceptional - it involved an amendment (the Twenty-first) to repeal another amendment (the Eighteenth, which had created Prohibition). State conventions were necessary for repeal. (Note that Congress determines the method of ratification to be used by all states for each proposed constitutional amendment.)
Many Amendments Proposed, Few Accepted
Congress has considered more than eleven thousand amendments to the Constitution. Only thirty-three amendments have been submitted to the states after having been approved by the required two-thirds vote in each chamber of Congress, and only twenty-seven have been ratified. Because of competing social and economic interests, the requirement that two-thirds of both the House and the Senate approve the amendments is hard to achieve.
After an amendment has been approved by Congress, the process becomes even more arduous. Three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve the amendment. Only those amendments that have wide popular support across parties and in all regions of the country are likely to be approved.
Why was the amendment process made so difficult? The framers feared that a simple amendment process could lead to a tyranny of the majority, which could pass amendments to oppress disfavored individuals and groups. The cumbersome amendment process does not seem to stem the number of amendments that are proposed in Congress, however, particularly in recent years. Proposing an amendment that will never pass is an effective way for a legislator to engage in grandstanding.
Limits on Ratification
A reading of Article V of the U.S. Constitution reveals that the framers of the Constitution specified no time limit on the ratification process. The Supreme Court has held that Congress can specify a time for ratification as long as it is "reasonable." Since 1919, most proposed amendments have included a requirement that ratification be obtained within seven years. This was the case with the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, which sought to guarantee equal rights for women. When three-fourths of the states had not ratified it in the allotted seven years, however, Congress extended the limit by an additional three years and three months. That extension expired on June 30, 1982, and the amendment still had not been ratified. Another proposed amendment, which would have guaranteed congressional representation for the District of Columbia, fell far short of the thirty-eight state ratifications needed before its August 22, 1985, deadline.
On May 7, 1992, Michigan became the thirty-eighth state to ratify the Twenty-seventh Amendment (on congressional compensation) - one of two "lost" amendments of the twelve that originally were sent to the states in 1789. Because most of the amendments proposed in recent years have been given a time limit of only seven years by Congress, it was questionable for a time whether the amendment would take effect even if the necessary number of states ratified it. Is 203 years too long a lapse of time between the proposal and the final ratification of an amendment? It apparently was not, because the amendment was certified as legitimate by the National Archives on May 18, 1992.
The National Convention Provision
The Constitution provides that a national convention requested by the legislatures of two-thirds of the states can propose a constitutional amendment. Congress has received approximately 400 convention applications since the Constitution was ratified - every state has applied at least once. Fewer than 20 applications were submitted during the Constitution's first hundred years, but more than 150 have been filed in the past two decades. No national convention has been held since 1787, and many national political and judicial leaders are uneasy about the prospect of convening a body that conceivably could do what the Constitutional Convention did - create a new form of government.
The state legislative bodies that originate national convention applications, however, do not appear to be uncomfortable with such a constitutional modification process at the state level - more than 230 state constitutional conventions have been held.
INFORMAL METHODS OF CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE
Formal amendments are one way of changing our Constitution, and, as is obvious from their small number, they have been resorted to infrequently. If we discount the first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights), which were adopted soon after the ratification of the Constitution, there have been only seventeen formal alterations of the Constitution in the more than two hundred years of its existence.
But looking at the sparse number of formal constitutional amendments gives us an incomplete view of constitutional change. The brevity and ambiguity of the original document have permitted great alterations in the Constitution by way of varying interpretations over time. As the United States grew, both in population and in territory, new social and political realities emerged. Congress, presidents, and the courts found it necessary to interpret the Constitution's provisions in light of these new realities. The Constitution has proved to be a remarkably flexible document, adapting itself time and again to new events and concerns.
Congressional Legislation
The Constitution gives Congress broad powers to carry out its duties as the nation's legislative body. For example, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce. Although there is no clear definition of foreign commerce or interstate commerce in the Constitution, Congress has cited the commerce clause as the basis for passing thousands of laws.
Similarly, Article III, Section 1, states that the national judiciary shall consist of one supreme court and "such inferior courts, as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Through a series of acts, Congress has used this broad provision to establish the federal court system of today.
In addition, Congress has frequently delegated to federal agencies the legislative power to write regulations. These regulations become law unless challenged in the court system. Nowhere does the Constitution outline this delegation of legislative authority.
Presidential Actions
Even though the Constitution does not expressly authorize the president to propose bills or even budgets to Congress, presidents since the time of Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) have proposed hundreds of bills to Congress each year that are introduced by the president's supporters in Congress. Presidents have also relied on their Article II authority as commander in chief of the nation's armed forces to send American troops abroad into combat, although the Constitution provides that Congress has the power to declare war.
Presidents have also conducted foreign affairs by the use of executive agreements, which are legally binding understandings reached between the president and a foreign head of state. The Constitution does not mention such agreements.
Judicial Review
Another way that the Constitution adapts to new developments is through judicial review. Judicial review refers to the power of U.S. courts to examine the constitutionality of actions undertaken by the legislative and executive branches of government. A state court, for example, may rule that a statute enacted by the state legislature violates the state constitution. Federal courts (and ultimately, the United States Supreme Court) may rule unconstitutional not only acts of Congress and decisions of the national executive branch, but also state statutes, state executive actions, and even provisions of state constitutions.
Not a Novel Concept. The Constitution does not specifically mention the power of judicial review. Those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention, however, probably expected that the courts would have some authority to review the legality of the acts by the executive and legislative branches, because, under the common law tradition inherited from England, courts exercised this authority. Indeed, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper No. 78, explicitly outlined the concept of judicial review. In 1803, the Supreme Court claimed this power for itself in Marbury v. Madison, in which that Court ruled that a particular provision of an act of Congress was unconstitutional.
Allows Court to Adapt the Constitution. Through the process of judicial review, the Supreme Court adapts the Constitution to modern situations. Electronic technology, for example, did not exist when the Constitution was ratified. Nonetheless, the Court has used the Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures to place limits on the use of wiretapping and other electronic eavesdropping methods. In 2012, the Court issued one of the most important rulings in many years - on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.
Additionally, the Court has changed its interpretation of the Constitution in accordance with changing values. It ruled in 1896 that "separate-but-equal" public facilities for African Americans were constitutional. By 1954, however, the times had changed, and the Court reversed that decision. Woodrow Wilson summarized the Court's work when he described it as "a constitutional convention in continuous session." Basically, the law is what the Supreme Court says it is at any point in time.
Interpretation, Custom, and Usage
The Constitution has also been changed through interpretation by both Congress and the president. Originally, the president had a staff consisting of personal secretaries and a few others. Four small departments reported to President Washington. Today, because Congress delegates specific tasks to the president and to the executive branch, this branch of government has grown to include hundreds of departments, agencies, and organizations that employ about 2.7 million civilians.
One of the ways in which presidents have expanded their powers is through executive orders. Executive orders have the force of legislation and allow presidents to significantly affect the political landscape. Consider, for example, that affirmative actions programs have their origin in executive orders.
Changes in ways of doing political business have also led to the reinterpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution does not mention political parties, yet these informal, "extraconstitutional" organizations make the nominations for offices, run the campaigns, organize the members of Congress, and in fact change the election system from time to time. In many ways, the Constitution has been adapted from a document serving the needs of a small, rural republic to one that provides a framework of government for an industrial giant with vast geographic, natural, and human resources.
DID YOU KNOW?
-The first English claim to territory in North America was made by John Cabot, on behalf of King Henry VII, on June 24, 1497.
-The celebration of King George III's birthday on June 4 gave rise to the custom of summer fireworks, and after 1776, the celebration was rebranded and moved to the 4th of July.
-The Articles of Confederation specified that Canada could be admitted to the Confederation if it ever wished to join.
-James Madison was the only delegate to attend every meeting of the Constitutional Convention.
-The word democracy does not appear once in the U.S. Constitution.
-During the four centuries of slave trading, an estimated 10 million to 11 million Africans were transported to North and South America - and only 6 percent of those slaves were imported into the United States.
-Alexander Hamilton wanted the American president to hold office for life and to have absolute veto power over the legislature.
-The U.S. Constitution, at 4,400 words without its amendments, is the shortest written constitution of any major nation.
-Sixty-four percent of Americans believe that the Constitution declared English to be the national language of the United States.
-The Constitution explicitly says that no amendment can alter the equal representation of the states in the Senate. This is the only such "entrenched" provision in the document.
-The states have still not ratified an amendment (introduced by Congress in 1810) barring U.S. citizens from accepting titles of nobility from foreign governments.