Political Understanding - 1st Week

Democracy

Democracy is defined as a government which derives its powers from the consent of the people, given in regular, free, and fair elections under conditions of freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of speech.

Democracy is the power of the people to mold their system of government according to the foundational rights of our Constitution.

Democracy reflects the interaction of various values, including popular consent, respect for the individual, equality of opportunity, and personal liberty.

Democracy, in the United States, is a two hundred thirty year experiment of a free people to produce a system of their own governing. Its a tremendous story of sacrifice, higher intelligence, great excitement and perilous struggles.

Direct democracy is government in which citizens come together to discuss and pass laws and select rulers.

The rights that our forefathers forethought to secure for their children, such as being free to assemble together, and to speak freely, helps us to continually alter our system of government by selecting those among us, willing to represent the voice of the people.

Representative democracy is government, which derives its powers indirectly from the people, who elect those who will govern.

The Constitution, in all its perceived flaws, in all its apparent imperfections, is a work of genius. How well the framers understood their people.

Define Constitutionalism.

Constitutionalism is defined as a system of government in which the highest law of the land (a constitution) reflects checks and balances, federalism, separation
of powers, due process, and protection of individual rights (as through the Bill of
Rights).

The United States produced a document that reflected the highest law of the land created by a system that attempts to find the formula to peaceful coexistence.

I believe, a vision like this is very powerful. To be able to imagine a world of mutual respect among nations and peoples as defined and guided by a Constitution. Would this world be without wars? I wonder. Disagreements are inevitable. Our forefathers knew this all to well.

Define other key terms related to constitutional democracy.

Constitutional democracy limits the power of those who occupy ruling
positions by creating checks and balances to their power.

We are an aggressive people - as a human race. There is evidence of this, clearly documented, since the beginning of time, with every battle line drawn.

Give a brief account of the historical background of the U.S. Constitution.

The colonists in America were struggling to find a balance of unity and diversity, stability and dissent, order and liberty.

I take a moment to look back, over the course of our two hundred year history. I see the men of the Boston Tea Party, through a grand exaggeration of self-expression, propelling crates of Tea into the depths of the sea. At the same time, I am listening to the eloquent words of Patrick Henry as he ignites the fire in the hearts of men with "Give me Liberty or Give me Death".

Then I read our Declaration of Independence. "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,..."

And as we set our course, we sailed on to see the independence of a people secured with "bombs bursting in air". And we gave proof of our resolve through every night that our forefathers debated over the wise assembly of thoughts that would attempt to form, "a more perfect union".

This resolve, as a corporate body of free people, would be tested in every stage of our democratic growth thereafter. The Bill of Rights, The Civil War, Industrialization, The Great Depression, Two World Wars, The Declaration of Human Rights, The Civil Rights Movement, the Supertechnological Age which is leading up to Globalization, A New World Government that will encompass all people and all nations.

Globalization could be the key to world peace if we are able to incorporate a similar system of checks and balances, separation of powers, and protection of individual rights. Does this system currently exist with the United Nations? I don't believe it does. I look back on our own history and I see the United Nations to be more like a confederation, a weak assembly of nations with carefully limited powers and no real authority.

Before I move forward, I will go back to December 10, 1948 when the general assembly of the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Preamble of this document begins... "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,"

The United States has been a member of the United Nations since Oct 24, 1945. Iraq has been a member since Dec 21, 1945. What are we missing? After you read the Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations and its members, ask yourself how the battle is raging on? Can we learn from our history and avoid war? Is the United States's declaration of the war on terror in conflict with the Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations? Have we overstepped our bounds? Or is war, a temporary system of universal checks and balances until a more permanent system of law can be adopted?

Gradually, however, liberties spread in the new land. The trial of Peter Zenger, a New York publisher jailed for seditious speech, resulted in a "not guilty" verdict, helping establish freedom of the press (1734). By the 1770s American determination to fight the British and expand their rights and liberties had risen to fever pitch.

The Declaration of Independence in 1776 proclaimed that "all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among them are 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'" The ensuing government, under the Articles of Confederation, was a weak one, incapable of enforcing taxation; it was not even ratified by all the states until 1781, six years after the start of fighting in the Revolutionary War. By the war's end in 1783, many Americans had become convinced that a more effective form of government was necessary to the survival of the new republic.

Explain who the Federalists were and what central beliefs they held.

In the debate over ratification, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and other Federalists argued that the strong national government they proposed contained checks and balances to prevent political domination by any one faction.

The Federalist leaders were the elite, the rich and the better educated in some cases. In other states, the federalists were from the same general social and economic class as the Anti-federalists.

The Federalists of the United States believed in a strong national government and later supported the Bill of Rights. "Federalism", as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, "is the distribution of power in an organization (as a government) between a central authority and the constituent units". Could such a system be applied on a global scale?

I imagine that smaller countries, such as Cuba and many other latin american countries, would think similarly to the Anti-federalists and would fear the international domination of countries that were more powerful economically and politically.

The Declaration of Human Rights is a good start to this discussion, but history indicates that we need a global constitution with a global bill of rights.

The greatest leaders in the world agree that for the world to survive, we must establish a world government based on the rule of law. Winston Churchill once said, "Unless we establish some form of world government, it will not be possible for us to avert a World War III in the future." I believe that tt would be very difficult to find a person that could speak with more authority on this subject than Winston Churchill.

Articulate the basic positions of the Anti-Federalists.

The Anti-Federalists, often reflecting the views of rural areas, argued that the constitution contained the seeds of national domination of the states and, because of its lack of a bill of rights, domination of individual citizens.

Identify the authors of and explain the significance of The Federalist

John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison coordinated their efforts and wrote a series of 85 letters under the name "Publius." These letters both explained the new Constitution and answered the charges of the Anti-Federalists. The letters were collected into a volume called "The Federalist," or "The Federalist Papers." The Federalists supported the Bill of Rights and carried the Constitution to ratification against the less-prepared Anti-Federalists who feared a strong central government would trample liberties

In this Supertechnological Age, we, as citizens of the world, have the ability to become like John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison of the New World Federalist movement. How would the "Publius" papers be written today with two hundred years of history behind us?

Where would the center of this world government be? That would interest me. Could there be multiple centers, perhaps along an axis? How would we prevent the tyranny of nations? Are there systems in place that would prevent special interest groups, such as corporations, from capturing the international government and trampling the rights of the world citizens?


Outline the ratification process, explaining why some states were late to vote in support of the new Constitution.

Proposal means to suggest a change to the Constitution. There are two ways to propose an amendment. The first way is for two-thirds of both houses of Congress to recommend the change. All of the amendments to the Constitution were proposed using this procedure. The second method is if two-thirds of the states request a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.

Ratification is the process of approving the proposed changes. The Constitution also has two methods of approving the proposed amendments. The first method is for three-fourths of the state legislatures to approve the change. The second method is for three-fourths of state conventions to approve the change. The second method was used only once in our history--to ratify the 21st Amendment. Repeal of the 18th Amendment.

1786/09/11 - Annapolis Convention convenes
1786/09/14 - Annapolis Convention adjourns, calling for a convention
to take place the following May 2nd
1787/02/21 - Congress approves a convention to amend the Articles
1787/05/03 - James Madison arrives early for Convention
1787/05/13 - George Washington arrives for Convention
1787/05/14 - Convention scheduled to open - postponed

1787/05/25 - Constitutional Convention opens
1787/05/29 - Edmund Randolph presents the Virginia Plan
1787/05/29 - Charles Pinckney presents his plan
1787/05/31 - Representation debated
1787/06/01 - Executive power debated
1787/06/02 - Debate on executive salaries
1787/06/04 - Unitary v. Committee Executive debated
1787/06/06 - Method for selection of representatives debated
1787/06/07 - Method for selection of senators debated
1787/06/11 - Roger Sherman proposes the Great Compromise
1787/06/15 - William Paterson proposes the New Jersey Plan
1787/06/18 - Alexander Hamilton proposes the British Plan
1787/06/21 - Federalism debated
1787/06/26 - Senatorial terms debated
1787/06/28 - Debate on state suffrage in the Senate starts
1787/07/17 - Debate on term of executive
1787/07/21 - Debate on appointment of judges
1787/07/23 - Method of ratification discussed
1787/07/23 - Committee of Detail established
1787/07/26 - Committee of Detail begins to meet
1787/08/06 - Committee of Detail submits rough draft of Constitution
1787/08/07 - Suffrage qualifications discussed
1787/08/09 - Citizenship for immigrants debated
1787/08/15 - Executive Veto Power debated
1787/08/21 - Slavery in the Constitution debated
1787/08/31 - Issues referred to Committee of Eleven
1787/09/04 - Committee of Eleven begins to submit changes
1787/09/04 - Powers of the President debated
1787/09/07 - Committee of Eleven submits final changes
1787/09/10 - Amendment procedure debated
1787/09/08 - Committee of Style established
1787/09/12 - Committee of Style submits draft
1787/09/12 - Inclusion of a Bill of Rights debated
1787/09/15 - Final draft ordered engrossed (written)
1787/09/17 - Final draft of the Constitution signed

1787/09/19 - Constitution is published in the Pennsylvania Packet
1787/09/28 - Congress approves the Constitution and sends it to the states
1787/10/05 - First Centinel Anti-Federalist letter published
1787/10/27 - First Federalist Paper is published
1787/12/07 - Delaware ratifies
1787/12/12 - Pennsylvania ratifies
1787/12/18 - New Jersey ratifies
1788/01/09 - Connecticut ratifies
1788/02/02 - Georgia ratifies
1788/02/06 - Massachusetts ratifies
1788/03/24 - Rhode Island referendum rejects Constitution
1788/04/28 - Maryland ratifies
1788/05/23 - South Carolina ratifies
1788/05/28 - The Federalist published (Federalist Papers 1-85)
1788/06/21 - New Hampshire ratifies
1788/06/21 - Constitution Ratified
1788/06/25 - Virginia ratifies
1788/07/02 - Congress is informed the Constitution has been ratified
1788/07/26 - New York ratifies
1788/09/13 - Congress votes to begin a new government on the following March 4
1789/03/04 - The Constitution goes into effect
1789/11/21 - North Carolina ratifies
1790/05/29 - Rhode Island ratifies

After the Constitutional Convention, the fight for the Constitution had just begun. According to Article 7, conventions in nine states had to ratify the Constitution before it would become effective. Some states were highly in favor of the new Constitution, and within three months, three states, Delaware (with a vote of 30-0), Pennsylvania (46-23), and New Jersey (38-0), had ratified it. Georgia (26-0) and Connecticut (128-40) quickly followed in January, 1788 (for the exact dates of ratification, see The Timeline).

More than half-way there in four months, one might think that the battle was nearly won. But the problem was not with the states that ratified quickly, but with the key states in which ratification was not as certain. Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia were key states, both in terms of population and stature. Debates in Massachusetts were very heated, with impassioned speeches from those on both sides of the issue. Massachusetts was finally won, 187-168, but only after assurances to opponents that the Constitution could have a bill of rights added to it.
After Massachusetts, the remaining states required for ratification did so within a few months, with Maryland (63-11) and South Carolina (149-73) falling in line, and New Hampshire (57-47) casting the deciding vote to reach the required nine states. New York and Virginia still remained, however, and many doubted that the new Constitution could survive without these states.

Explain the American system of checks and balances, differentiating it from the principle of separation of powers.

The framers of the Constitution feared the possible tyranny of the majority and so created a system of checks and balances to protect constitutional democracy from the whims of transient majorities.


Checks and balances include the separation of powers, judicial review, and a bicameral legislature.


Separation of powers. The "separation of powers" principle provided by the Constitution allocated constitutional authority to the three branches of government — the legislative, the executive, and the judicial.

The mere separation of powers, however, was believed to be insufficient to guarantee against the abuse of federal power. What was needed were additional checks and balances.

Three key points about checks and balances are:
–
The constitutional system still allows a strong national government while protecting the rights of the individual.
–
The constitutional system is not static but has evolved through the process of constitutional amendment. There have been 27 amendments, with the 27th as recent as 1992 (it states any congressional pay raise cannot take effect until after the next session of Congress is elected).
–
Also, the constitutional system adapts through changing judicial interpretation, and changing practices of Congress and the presidency.

Explain the nature and significance of Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Judicial review is the power of a court to refuse to enforce a law which judges believe to be in violation of provisions of the Constitution. This principle was
established by the classic court case, Marbury v. Madison (1803). In this case, President John Adams had appointed many Federalists to judgeships in the
last hours of his "lame duck" administration, including William Marbury as Justice of the Peace for the District of Columbia.

The incoming President Thomas Jefferson's Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver the appointment seal to Marbury. Chief Justice John Marshall, a Federalist, heard Marbury's appeal asking that the court issue a writ of mandamus forcing Madison to deliver the appointment papers.

To grant Marbury's request would run the risk of confrontation between the branches as Jefferson would likely refuse to honor the writ, and, indeed, Republicans in
Congress might even have sought Marshall's impeachment.

Instead, Marshall ruled that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act, under which Marbury was appointed, was unconstitutional since Article III of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction only in cases when an ambassador, foreign minister, or a state is a party. Therefore, Marshall concluded, the Judiciary Act was void and the Supreme Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear Marbury's request for a writ of mandamus. Jefferson fumed but there was little he could do to upset the historic precedent of judicial review established by Marshall in this case.

Explain the key similarities and differences of the American and British democratic systems.

Other democratic systems differ, such as the British parliamentary system, which lacks judicial review and is marked by concentrated responsibility (in Britain, parliament elects the prime minister, whereas in the U.S., the people elect Congress and the president independently; also, political parties are less
disciplined in support of party policies in the U.S.).

Illustrate the meanings of the terms congressional elaboration, presidential practices, and custom and usage, in relation to the evolution of the Constitution as an instrument of government.

American constitutional democracy is constantly changing. It changes through five basic principles.

Judicial review, Examples:
1. Supreme Court decision that a President could be sued in a civil matter as established by the preceding over the President Clinton scandal of making false statements to a grand jury.
2. Chief Justice John Marshall striking down state trade barriers promoted the growth of our unified economy.

Custom and usage, such as through the rise of political parties, which are not mentioned in the Constitution.

Congressional elaboration, as through establishment of practices related to the impeachment of presidents and high officials, exercised 17 times for various officials. Examples: Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon

Presidential practices, such as the assertion of executive privilege to withhold information, and impoundment of appropriated funds.

Example of executive priviledge to withhold information:
September 11th, 2001: President Bush declares a National Emergency, which gives the president special powers, including withholding from congress and/or the public any information deemed potentially sensitive regarding national security.

November 2001: Bush signs Exec. Order 13233 restricting public access to the papers of the former Presidents, just as Reagan papers were to be released.

November 2001: Several civil liberties and historical groups, including Reporters Committee, file suit against White House to gain access to 68,000 Reagan Administration documents

December 2001: Bush signs Administrative Order impowering Secretary Of Health and Human Services to classify information as “secret”. Dept. formerly had no classified documents.

December 2001: Bush asserts executive privilege to withhold from Congress documents relating to work of the Campaign Finance Task Force.

December 2001: President signs Intelligence Authorization Act, citing that “the president has a constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, or deliberative processes of the executive or the performance of the executive’s constitutional duties, as well as the CIA director’s responsibility to protect intelligence sources and methods and other …sensitive matters.”

Example of the impoundment of appropriate funds.

The history of accepting or resolving impoundments broke down during the Nixon administration for several reasons. First, President Nixon impounded much greater sums than had previous presidents, proposing to hold back between 17 and 20 percent of controllable expenditures between 1969 and 1972. Second, Nixon used impoundments to try to fight policy initiatives that he disagreed with, attempting to terminate entire programs by impounding their appropriations. Third, Nixon claimed that as president, he had the constitutional right to impound funds appropriated by Congress, thus threatening Congress's greatest political strength: its power over the purse. Nixon claimed, "The Constitutional right of the President of the United States to impound funds, and that is not to spend money, when the spending of money would mean either increasing prices or increasing taxes for all the people—that right is absolutely clear."

In the face of Nixon's claim to impoundment authority and his refusal to release appropriated funds, Congress in 1974 passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, which reformed the congressional budget process and established rules and procedures for presidential impoundment. In general, the provisions of the act were designed to curtail the power of the president in the budget process, which had been steadily growing throughout the twentieth century.

The Impoundment Control Act divides impoundments into two categories: deferrals and rescissions. In a deferral, the president asks Congress to delay the release of appropriated funds; in a rescission, the president asks Congress to cancel the appropriation of funds altogether. Congress and the president must follow specific rules and procedures for each type of impoundment.

Constitutional amendments, such as the 26th Amendment, which gave 18-year-olds the right to vote in 1971.

Explain the four ways in which the Constitution can be amended.

Process of amendment

Main article: Article Five of the United States Constitution

Article Five describes the process necessary to amend the Constitution. It establishes two methods of proposing amendments: by Congress or by a national convention requested by the states. Under the first method, Congress can propose an amendment by a two-thirds vote (of a quorum, not necessarily of the entire body) of the Senate and of the House of Representatives. Under the second method, two-thirds of the state legislatures may convene and "apply" to Congress to hold a national convention, whereupon Congress must call such a convention for the purpose of considering amendments. As of mid-2006, only the first method (proposal by Congress) has been used.

Once proposed—whether submitted by a national convention or by Congress—amendments must then be ratified by three-fourths of the states to take effect. Article Five gives Congress the option of requiring ratification by state legislatures or by special conventions assembled in the states. The convention method of ratification has been used only once (to approve the 21st Amendment). Article Five currently places only one limitation on the amending power—that no amendment can deprive a state of its equal representation in the Senate without that state's consent

Define Federalism

Federalism is the constitutional division of powers between the national government and the sub-national governments (such as the states in the USA)

Overall, Federalism is a system of government that checks tyranny, allows unity without uniformity, encourages experimentation and keeps government closer to the people.

Discuss alternatives to federalism, such as unitary systems and confederations

Confederations is a weak collaboration of foreign nations or states that create a cental government but carefully limit its power and do not give it direct authority over individuals.

Explain dual, cooperative, marble cake, competitive and new federalism

Dual federalism is the distribution of powers and responsibilities to both the central government and the states, giving each dominance over their own separate spheres.

Cooperative federalism stresses the intergovernmental collaboration of the national government and the states – cross cutting policy areas.

Marble Cake federalism is a complex pattern of relationship between the national government and the states involved in many policy areas.

New Federalism is a return of power to the states through such mechanisms as revenue sharing and block grants.

Permissive federalism suggests that the share of power enjoyed by the states comes at the permission of the federal government.

Competitive federalism is the competition of the national government and the states for the support of the citizens in many different policy areas.

Describe which powers the constitution confers to the federal government and which it reserves to the states.

The federal government has express and implied powers such as the power to create banks and control the common currency

The necessary and proper clause gives Congress the power to create laws and the national supremacy article makes the Constitution and federal law supreme over the laws of the states.

The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, which includes the power to impose taxes.

The Constitution gives the federal government the power over national defense, issuing currency and postal mail.

State “police powers” encompassed policing, education, welfare, and economic regulation. However, in the twentieth century, the federal government entered into every arena thought to be reserved to the states by the tenth amendment.

Give a brief historical account of the rise of federal powers and the movement in the last few decades to devolve power back to the states.

Budget considerations create pressures to devolve further functions back the states.

Identify and explain the role of the Supreme Court with regard to cases affecting Federalism, including the decision in McCullock v. Maryland (1819)

McCullock v. Maryland defined the division of powers between the states and national governments. In this case, Maryland had imposed a tax on a local branch of the bank of the United States, a semipublic agency of Congress.

The federal government argued that it had a right to establish this bank under the implied powers of the Constitution, whereas Maryland contended that these implied powers had to be limited to those absolutely essential to express powers like regulating currency.

Chief John Marshall ruled that the “power to tax was the power to destroy” and that state taxation of the federal government was therefore an unconstitutional violation of the national supremacy clause.

This “states-rights” versus “national supremacy” argument would continue until the civil war.

Describe how the system of federal grants extends federalism

Federal grants serves to supply states and local governments with revenue, establish minimum national standards, and equalize resources by need and geography.

Grants are a way of attacking national problems while minimizing the growth of the federal bureaucracy.

Revenue sharing (1972- 1980’s) transferred federal funds to the states and local municipalities with minimal conditions. It was discontinued in 1986 due to a soaring deficit in Reagan’s second term and Congresses dissatisfaction with the process which left Congress out of the loop.

Categorical-formula grants automatically appropriate funds, such as highway construction funds, to the states based on a negotiated formula, often involving state matching funds.

Categorical funds are similar but imply a greater degree of federal supervision. These include programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, which Congress authorizes but for which no set sum is determined in advance. If additional funds are needed before the start of the new fiscal year, these funds are usually provided.

Block grants. In welfare, child care, education, social services and health care, large grants exist which are distributed to the states with few strings. Congress appropriates a set sum and when these funds are exhausted, no further funds are available.

Project grants. National Science Foundation and similar project grants distribute a set sum appropriated by Congress based on project applications from qualified states, local governments, organizations and individuals.