# data[].attributes.body
I choose this website because it shows the expansion of power in the government...late

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since our founding in 1973, The Heritage Foundation has been working to advance the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

# data[].attributes.body
I choose this website because it sow the development of the two party sytem...late

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Development of the Two-party System - AP U.S. History Topic Outlines - Study Notes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
100% Free AP Test Prep website that offers study material to high school students seeking to prepare for AP exams. Enterprising students use this website to learn AP class material, study for class quizzes and tests, and to brush up on course material before the big exam day.

# data[].attributes.body
I choose this website because it shows how the constitution protected the limited government ...late

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There is much to commend Professor Garry's essay. He is eminently correct in saying that the Constitution contemplated a limited government. Whether it adhered to a "limited government model " is a different issue.

What is more than curious, however, is Professor Garry's statement that the "the overall scheme of the original Constitution" is primarily concerned with structure and process and not "values." In other words, the Constitution merely provides a process for making decisions and is wholly indifferent to the results. The Constitution is thus process without purpose.

This view that the Constitution is unconcerned with "values"-or ends or purposes-is utterly alien to the framers' understanding. Madison famously wrote in The Federalist that "Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit."[1] The end of government is justice, the quintessential political "value." Justice was understood by the framers to mean the protection of rights and liberties under the rule of law. And the first object of the rule of law was simply the equal protection of equal rights. In The Federalist, Madison also wrote that the purpose of the Constitution was grounded in "the transcendent law of nature and nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed."[2] Everyone, of course, recognizes this statement as a paraphrase of the Declaration of Independence. Madison clearly says here and other places in The Federalist [3] that the principles of the Declaration supply the ends or purposes of the Constitution and that institutions-structures-are subordinate to the ends. There can be little doubt that this was the understanding of the Founding generation.

Professor Garry, however, disagrees with Madison on this point. A concern for "individual freedom and natural rights . . . had inspired the Declaration of Independences," Garry claims, but "to the framers, natural or individual rights were vague and highly abstract." In addition, "the framing generation did not know how to go about the goal of using specific constitutional provisions to protect natural rights or specific understandings of individual autonomy." During the founding era, apparently, ideas about natural rights were so "ambiguous and imprecise" that no broad consensus existed about their meaning or content. Thus we cannot take our bearings from such vague and inchoate expressions as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

All of Garry's evidence about the Founders' inability to understand individual freedom and natural rights is derived from secondary sources-not one contemporary source is mentioned. Jefferson, however, noted that when he wrote the Declaration he only sought to give expression to the "American mind" and that he believed that "all its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day."[4] Where twenty-first century scholars say that the Founders were confused about first principles, the Founders themselves believed there was a strong consensus among the American people as to what constituted natural rights.

The idea that the Founders did not understand that the natural right to life was an irrefragable conclusion from the "self-evident truth" that all men are created equal is rather incredible. The way of the world for more than a thousand years was divine right rule; the Founders posed the natural equality of all human beings as evidence that there are no inequalities-however measured-sufficient to make any human being by nature the ruler of another. No human being occupies the position with respect to any other human being that every human occupies with respect to any dog. Every human is by nature the ruler of every dog, but the same inequalities do not exist within the human species-this is a "self-evident truth" and it establishes the right to life as a principle of human nature, or as a principle of natural right.

Even more incredible is the claim that the framers were confused about the meaning of the natural right to liberty, even though they clearly said what they meant and meant what they said: the natural right to liberty means that no one can be ruled without his consent or be ruled for any purpose except for his benefit. Thus the natural right to liberty means, in the language of the Declaration that the "just powers" of government must be derived from "the consent of the governed." How ambiguous is that?

And the "pursuit of happiness?" Clearly for the Founders it meant the right to acquire and possess property understood in its most extensive sense-including free communication of ideas, free exercise of religion, and the right to the possession of the products of one's own labor.[5] These ideas are spelled out in numerous tracts and treatises of the founding era, including public documents, sermons, political broadsides, correspondence and, as Jefferson notes, "the elementary books of public right."[6]

The notion that the framers were confused about natural rights is simply a product of modernity's claim that reason cannot establish "value" claims or arbitrate "value" disputes. But this was no part of the universe inhabited by the American Founders. They knew-and conclusively demonstrated from the first principles of human nature-that natural rights were, to use Madison's phrase, part of "the fabric of human nature." Surely they did not believe that liberty was a mere "value judgment" or that it was impossible to prove that freedom was preferable to tyranny. A Progressive historian, writing near the beginning of the twentieth century, wrote that "to ask whether the natural rights philosophy of the Declaration of Independence is true or false is essentially a meaningless question."[7] It is meaningless because that philosophy was only an expression of the "value judgments" of the founders-the dominant thought of their day. But if it is meaningless to ask whether it is true that free government is preferable to tyranny, then it is equally meaningless to ask whether freedom is preferable to slavery. If all values are relative, and reason cannot decide between competing values, then the universe of politics is reduced to a simple contest in which justice becomes merely "the interest of the stronger."

The protection of natural rights was understood by the Founders as the necessary means to the preservation of the "safety and happiness of the people." The Founders were arguing about regime questions-what is the best regime to secure rights and liberties-not about procedural questions. It is utterly absurd to say that the sole purpose of government is to limit itself. The reductio ad absurdum of understanding the Constitution as merely a procedural document might be Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' view that the world of politics is simply one of "fighting faiths"-or as we might say today "competing value systems."

The views of the American Founders were merely one of several "fighting faiths" competing for dominance in the marketplace of ideas. "The best test of truth," Justice Holmes asserts, "is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market."[8] Thus, Justice Holmes concludes "if, in the long run, the beliefs expressed in proletarian dictatorship are destined to be accepted by the dominant forces of the community, the only meaning of free speech is that they should be given their chance and have their way."[9] Holmes views the Constitution as merely a procedural document without any purpose. Here he would allow the means that the framers designed to secure free government (free elections and freedom of speech) to destroy the ends.

The framers repeatedly stated that the purpose of the Constitution was to secure the "safety and happiness of the people." Surely, nothing in the Constitution can be allowed to annihilate the purposes for which it was formed, no matter how democratic the means. The "dictatorship of the proletariat," even if approved by a majority, would destroy the rights and liberties essential to the "safety and happiness" of the people.

Abraham Lincoln famously argued against Stephen Douglas' popular sovereignty plan which would have allowed majorities in the territories to approve slavery if they found it in their interest. Lincoln rightly noted that even a majority in a democracy does not have the right to do what is intrinsically wrong by nature, i.e., whatever violates the principles of natural right adumbrated in the Declaration of Independence. Madison also noted that the "majority may do anything that could be rightfully done by unanimous concurrence of the members; the reserved rights of individuals (of conscience for example) in becoming parties to the original compact being beyond the legitimate reach of sovereignty, wherever bested or however viewed."[10]

Madison frequently remarked that "just and free government is derived from compact." Madison continues that "The purpose of compact is to form one political society, in order that the rights the safety and the interest of each may be under the safeguard of the whole." This compact "must result from the free consent of every individual."[11] Madison notes that a second contract is executed between the people and government, specifying the terms and conditions upon which they consent to be governed and the duties and obligation which they owe in return. It is vital to note that the Preamble to the Constitution states that "We the People . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution." The people created the Constitution, the Constitution did not create the people.

When, then, did Americans become a "people?" Article VII specifies that the Constitution was "Done in Convention . . . in the Year of . . . the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth." Thus the "independence of the United States" is fixed on the date of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration, of course, refers to Americans as "one people" and as "the good People," and it denominates "the people" as the ultimate authority for independence. Thus, the people who established and ordained the Constitution were the same people who dissolved "all Allegiance to the British Crown." The Declaration specifies that the only legitimate basis for government is "the consent of the governed"-the doctrine of social compact is thus intrinsic to the principles of the Declaration.

The rights to be protected by civil society are not created by government-they exist by nature and are prior to government-although governments are necessary to secure them. Thus, political society exists to secure the equal protection of the equal rights of all who consent to be governed. But it is important to emphasize that each person who consents to become a member of civil society enjoys the equal protection of his own rights, while at the same time incurring the obligation to protect the rights of his fellow citizens. Here there are reciprocal rights and obligations-not "autonomous rights."

For the first time in the history of the world, a system of government based on the sovereignty of the people was established. In the American constitutional system the people, not the government was sovereign. In establishing the government, the people delegated specified portions of its sovereignty to government to be exercised for its benefit. What was not delegated remained within the sovereign prerogative of the people. One sovereign prerogative of the people that can never be delegated-and is specifically denominated a duty in the Declaration -is the right "to alter or abolish" government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established. The right to revolution is the ultimate expression of the sovereignty of the people and, in a very real sense, it is the right that guarantees every other right.

It should be obvious that with a government of delegated powers, a bill of rights is superfluous. Why prohibit the government from doing what it has no delegated power to do? In a monarchy-or any other system where government, not the people, is sovereign-bills of rights redound to the liberty of the people because in these systems the people's liberties exist only to the extent that exceptions can be made to the power of the sovereign. But as Hamilton wrote in The Federalist, "the Constitution is itself in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS."[12] What Hamilton meant, of course, is that the government under the Constitution can only exercise delegated powers and it has no delegated power (or even the reasonable inference from a delegated power) to interfered with rights and liberties. Why prohibit the government from interfering with freedom of the press, Hamilton queried, when there is no delegated power to do so

Madison agreed with Hamilton in opposing the addition of a bill of rights saying that rights are best protected "by the manner which the federal powers are delegated."[13] In other words, rights and liberties are best protected by confining government strictly to the exercise of its delegated powers. Under these circumstances rights do not have to be defined; the government has to justify the exercise of its power in terms of a delegated power or a fair inference from a delegated power. This would be a great advantage for the protection of rights and liberties.

Madison and the leading federalists did not think that a bill of rights was merely superfluous; they believed a bill of rights was dangerous to limited government. Although Madison became the chief architect of the Bill of Rights, he never changed his mind that in principle the addition of a bill of rights was unsound.[14] The push for a bill of rights was taken up by the anti-federalists who, of course, lost in the ratification elections. They used this popular issue in an attempt to call for a second constitutional convention in which they hoped to weaken the national elements of the new Constitution, particularly the commerce clause, the necessary and proper clause, the taxing powers and especially the supremacy clause. They were only tangentially interested in adding a bill of rights; their primary purpose was to use the bill of rights as an excuse for calling a convention in which they would try to weaken what they regarded as the centralizing tendencies of the Constitution.

The anti-federalists never seemed to have understood the revolutionary basis for the new government. They seemed to still regard governments as sovereign and to believe that the liberty of the people existed only within the interstices of the exceptions to government power. In short, they were still fighting against monarchical government, not fully accepting the fact that republican government posed entirely different regime questions.

Madison took up the project of pushing a bill of rights through the first Congress as a way of diffusing the anti-federalist movement for a new convention which he feared would seriously damage the Constitution by turning it back in the direction of the failed Articles of Confederation. Madison says that in proposing a bill of rights he hoped to reconcile the anti-federalists to the Constitution, but his real purpose was to prevent the anti-federalists from damaging the important national features of the Constitution.

What was dangerous about the bill of rights? If you include a specific exception to a governmental power, e.g.. that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . .," then you imply that if it were not for the prohibition Congress could make such a law. But in fact, a quick glace at the Constitution reveals no such delegated power and without a delegated power to establish a religion, Congress may not do so. But if we specifically say Congress may not do so, then we imply that Congress would have had the power "but for" the prohibition. Every prohibition thus implies a grant of power.

Here the idea of limited government is destroyed because we have now transformed government into one that can do everything except what the Constitution says it specifically may not do. Madison thought he could obviate this danger by the Tenth Amendment, which says, in effect, that an exception to government power may not be taken as an implied grant of power-powers not granted are reserved to the states or the people. But it appears from modern jurisprudence, some of which is chronicled by Professor Garry, that Madison's prophylactic failed in this regard.

A second danger comes from the fact that in writing a bill of rights, no list of rights can be complete. Future events will always reveal new exigencies that will require the assertion of new limitations on government through the assertion of rights reserved by the people. The right to privacy is only one example. A long-standing principle of constitutional construction, however, holds that every list must be interpreted as exclusive-that the inclusion of one thing excludes the other. This rule of construction-which is essential to a written constitution-means that the list of rights in the Bill of Rights will be presumed to be exhaustive or complete, not merely suggestive. Madison thought it was thus dangerous to reduce rights to a list.

He believed, however, that he could cure this defect by the Ninth Amendment. The list of rights contained in the Bill of Rights cannot be used to disparage other rights retained by the people. In other words, the Ninth Amendment is in some sense a counterpart to the Tenth: all rights not listed in the Bill of Rights are reserved by the people. It is essential to remind ourselves of the fact that under the original Constitution it would never have been necessary for the people to engage in the dangerous practice of specifying or defining its rights; rather the responsibility would have been on government always to justify its exercise of power.[15]

One of the problems with Professor Garry's approach is the implausible efforts he has to make to stretch the evidence to fit his "limited government model." Garry makes an heroic but unsuccessful attempt to deny that the rights protected in the Bill of Rights are individual rights.[16] Thus in terms of his "limited government model" the specific provisions of the Bill of Rights should be interpreted as limitations on government, not as protections for individual rights. But all the evidence is to the contrary. Garry is forced by his model to undermine the importance of the Declaration in the Founding and its relation to the Constitution because the natural rights described therein are obviously individual rights derived from the "self-evident truth" that "all men are created equal."

It is true that the provisions of the Bill of Rights are designed to restrain the federal government's exercise of power, but they do so by restricting the government's power to invade the rights of individuals. We have James Madison's own testimony that the provisions of the Bill of Rights "relate [first] . . . to private rights."[17] In his famous June 8, 1789 speech before the House of Representatives in which he introduced his proposals for the Bill of Rights, Madison noted that the judicial tribunals will be "the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulation for in the constitution by the declaration of rights." Here, Madison was merely echoing the argument of The Federalist No. 78 where Hamilton had argued that "the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments . . . [the] independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals . . ."[18] This does not mean that because individual rights were the focus of the Bill of Rights that the judiciary, as Garry asserts, would necessarily assume "unbounded power. . . to define and enforce individual rights." Indeed, in a system of government animated by separation of powers, no branch would have "unbounded power."

Professor Garry is eminently correct in opposing the notion of autonomy rights; but that notion was not a product of the founding; it was the invention of Progressivism, a movement that sought to supplant the founding. Natural rights have nothing to do with "autonomy rights." The founders did not view rights as idiosyncratic "value judgments," but as the rational pursuit of happiness within the context of ordered liberty or the rule of law. George Washington signaled the nation's understanding when, in his first inaugural (written by Madison),[19] he said that "there is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness." Thus, Washington-and undoubtedly the founding generation-understood the "pursuit of happiness" as the pursuit of virtue! It is only when rights are understood apart from nature or natural right that they can be conceived in terms of autonomy.

A proper understanding of the founding is the best antidote to the rampant notion of autonomy rights which I concur is undermining the moral, political and constitutional basis of civil society today. This has been, as Professor Garry rightly notes, the work of the Supreme Court beginning with the New Deal era and continuing through the activist years of the Warren Court and beyond. But understanding the founding in terms of a "model" that was not intrinsic to the framers' understanding, it seems to me, only distorts our understanding. We should stick with the framers and understand how they grounded the American regime in the principles of natural right.

[1] The Federalist, No. 51, Clinton Rossiter, ed., (New York: Mentor, 1961), 324.

[2] The Federalist, No. 43, 279.

[3] See e.g., The Federalist, No. 40, 252; No. 78, 469. In No. 39, Madison wrote that the people should reject the proposed constitution if they did not find it to be "strictly republican," because "it is evident," he continued, "that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government." What is important to note here is that republican government is the only form of government that is consistent with the "principles of the Revolution," meaning, of course, the principles of the Declaration of Independence. As an aside, Hamilton in The Federalist No. 9 does not distinguish between free government and republican government as Professor Garry claims. To the contrary, his point is that republican government is a type of "free government." The attempt to argue that free governments protect individual rights and republican governments protect "a more general political freedom as a means to securing individual freedom" is simply mistaken.

[4] Letter to Henry Lee, May 8, 1825, in M. Peterson, ed., Jefferson: Writings (New York: Library of America, 1984), 1501 (emphasis added).

[5] See Madison, "Property," National Gazette, March 29, 1792, in Jack Rakove, ed., Madison: Writings (New York: Library of America, 1999), 515.

[6] See Edward Erler, "Natural Right in the American Founding," 23 Interpretation: A Journal of Political Philosophy (Spring, 1996), 457-475.

[7] Carl L. Becker, The Declaration of Independence (New York: Vintage Books, 1942 [originally published in 1922]), 277. Becker's view still dominates historiography today. All ideas are the product of their time and there are no ideas that transcend their time. It is curious, however, that Becker never seems to have questioned whether his own insight-that all thought was historically conditioned-was itself historically conditioned. He simply assumed that it was a though that was valid for all historical epochs. I dare say this is Garry's view as well. This is the reason he tried to impose a "model" on the thought of the Founders that was not within their own purview.

[8] Abrams v. U.S., 250 U.S. 616, 627 (1919).

[9] Gitlow v. N.Y., 268 U.S. 652m 673 (1925) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

[10] Madison, "Sovereignty" (1835), in Gaillard Hunt, ed. The Writings of James Madison (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1908), 9:570.

[11] Madison, "Sovereignty," 9:569-70.

[12] The Federalist, No. 84, 515.

[13] Letter to Thomas Jefferson, October 17, 1787, in William T. Hutchinson, et. al (Chicago: University of Chicago Press; Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1962 - ), 11:297.

[14] See Erler, "James Madison and the Framing of the Bill of Rights: Reality and Rhetoric in the New Constitutionalism," 9 Political Communication (1992), 213-229.

[15] See, Erler, "The Ninth Amendment and Contemporary Jurisprudence," in Eugene Hickok, Jr., ed., The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1991), 432-451.

[16] Garry is so eager to deny the relevance of individual or natural rights to the founding era that he completely misconstrues a quote from The Federalist No. 38, 235, to this effect: "Madison argued that the Bill of Rights 'ought to be declaratory, not of the personal rights of individuals, but of the rights reserved to the states in their political capacity'." Madison here was not speaking in his own name, but rather rehearsing complaints against the proposed constitution by various detractors: "a fourth [detractor] concurs in the absolute necessity of a bill of rights, but contends that it ought to be declaratory, not of the personal rights of individuals, but of the rights reserved to the States in their political capacity. A fifth is of opinion that a bill of rights of any sort would be superfluous and misplaced . . ." These are not Madison's opinions and to cite them as such is erroneous. We must also remember that Madison originally proposed an amendment to be included in the Bill of Rights that would have restricted the states: "No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases." This proposed amendment was not approval by Congress.

[17] "Notes for Speech in Congress," June 8, 1789, Papers of James Madison, 12:193.

[18] The Federalist, No. 78, 469.

[19] The Papers of James Madison, 12:120.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Natural Rights and the Limited Government Model of the Constitution: A Response to Patrick Garry - Law & Liberty

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There is much to commend Professor Garry's essay. He is eminently correct in saying that the Constitution contemplated a limited government. Whether it adhered to a "limited government model" is a different issue.

# data[].attributes.body
I CHOOSE THIS WEBSITE BECAUSE IT SHOWS THE KEY PEOPLE AND EVENTS THAT LEAD TO THE DISSATIFATION OF THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
the articles of confederation: 1777–1787

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SparkNotes: The Constitution (1781-1815): The Articles of Confederation: 1777-1787

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A summary of The Articles of Confederation: 1777-1787 in History SparkNotes's The Constitution (1781-1815). Learn exactly what happened in this chapter, scene, or section of The Constitution (1781-1815) and what it means. Perfect for acing essays, tests, and quizzes, as well as for writing lesson plans.

# data[].attributes.body
I CHOOSE THIS PICTURE BECAUSE IT THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE WAS A DOCUMENT THAT HELPD ESTABLISH A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT

# data[].attributes.body
I CHOOSE THIS PICTURE BECAUSE THE BILL OF RIGHTS STATED THE FIRST RIGHTS TO THE PEOPLE

# data[].attributes.body
I CHOOSE THIS PICTURE BECUSE IT SHOWS THE EARLY COLONIES AND THE DEVELPMENT OF EARLY AMERICA

# data[].attributes.body
explains the supreme court.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Home - Supreme Court of the United States

# data[].attributes.body
Different types of governments.

# data[].attributes.body
This website explains the difference between the 2 parties.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Polls show that a majority of Americans say that both the Republicans and Democrats are doing such a poor job representing the people that a new, third party is needed.

I've repeatedly warned that there is a scripted, psuedo-war between Dems and Repubs, liberals and conservatives which is in reality a false divide-and-conquer dog-and-pony show created by the powers that be to keep the American people divided and distracted. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

In fact, the Founding Fathers warned us about the threat from a two party system.

John Adams said:

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.

George Washington agreed, saying in his farewell presidential speech:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Founding Fathers Tried to Warn Us About the Threat From a Two-Party System

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Polls show that a majority of Americans say that both the Republicans and Democrats are doing such a poor job representing the people that a new, third party is needed. I've repeatedly warned that there is a scripted, psuedo-war between Dems and Repubs, liberals and conservatives which is in reality a false divide-and-conquer dog-and-pony show created by the powers that be to keep the American people divided and distracted.

# data[].attributes.body
Explain the different governments.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a picture of the declaration of independence.

# data[].attributes.body
This website explains the British Parliament.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Parliament is made up of the House of Commons and House of Lords. It is responsible for making laws, deciding taxes and scrutinising the Government.

# data[].attributes.body
This picture mean other countries were in debt with the US.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this w because it explains the difference in the 3 colonies.

# data[].attributes.body
This website shows the difference between the colonies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thomas Hagen: 2005 The diversity of the United States goes back to its beginning as a collection of northern, middle, and southern colonies. Their differences in religion, politics, economics, and social issues, and the way they dealt with them, are what shaped our country into what we are today.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this picture because it shows how  other countries were in debt with the United Sates

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this picture because it shows how old and important the Declaration of Independence is today.

# data[].attributes.body
This Gives On The Magna Carta

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Magna Carta and the US Constitution - Online Library of Liberty

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Indeed, rightly to understand the constitutional and legal history of the colonies and of the United States of America, in each period of which Magna Carta plays a rôle, we should not forget that the Englishmen who settled in America in the seventeenth century inherited all the preceding ages of English history.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this picture because it show the British Paliament.

# data[].attributes.body
This Explains The  Powers Of National Government

# data[].attributes.body
THis Shows Both Parties Together

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The State House in Boston was designed by Charles Bullfinch, who also designed the Capitol in Washington D.C.

The election of 1796 was the first election in American history where political candidates at the local, state, and national level began to run for office as members of organized political parties that held strongly opposed political principles.

This was a stunning new phenomenon that shocked most of the older leaders of the Revolutionary Era. Even Madison, who was one of the earliest to see the value of political parties, believed that they would only serve as temporary coalitions for specific controversial elections. The older leaders failed to understand the dynamic new conditions that had been created by the importance of popular sovereignty - democracy - to the American Revolution. The people now understood themselves as a fundamental force in legitimating government authority. In the modern American political system, voters mainly express themselves through allegiances within a competitive party system. 1796 was the first election where this defining element of modern political life began to appear.

The two parties adopted names that reflected their most cherished values. The Federalists of 1796 attached themselves to the successful campaign in favor of the Constitution and were solid supporters of the federal administration. Although Washington denounced parties as a horrid threat to the republic, his vice president John Adams became the de facto presidential candidate of the Federalists. The party had its strongest support among those who favored Hamilton's policies. Merchants, creditors and urban artisans who built the growing commercial economy of the northeast provided its most dedicated supporters and strongest regional support.

This mural, located at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., represents Thomas Jefferson's views on the necessity of education.

The opposition party adopted the name Democratic-Republicans, which suggested that they were more fully committed to extending the Revolution to ordinary people. The supporters of the Democratic-Republicans (often referred to as the Republicans) were drawn from many segments of American society and included farmers throughout the country with high popularity among German and Scots-Irish ethnic groups. Although it effectively reached ordinary citizens, its key leaders were wealthy southern tobacco elites like Jefferson and Madison. While the Democratic-Republicans were more diverse, the Federalists were wealthier and carried more prestige, especially by association with the retired Washington.

The 1796 election was waged with uncommon intensity. Federalists thought of themselves as the "friends of order" and good government. They viewed their opponents as dangerous radicals who would bring the anarchy of the French Revolution to America.

The Democratic-Republicans despised Federalist policies. According to one Republican-minded New York newspaper, the Federalists were "aristocrats, endeavoring to lay the foundations of monarchical government, and Republicans [were] the real supporters of independence, friends to equal rights, and warm advocates of free elective government."

This chart depicts the electoral vote distribution for the election of 1796. John Adams (green) edged out Thomas Jefferson (yellow) for the Presidency, with Thomas Pinckney (purple) and Aaron Burr (blue) leading the runners-up. Jefferson's second-place earned him the Vice Presidency.

Clearly there was little room for compromise in this hostile environment.

The outcome of the presidential election indicated the close balance between the two sides. New England strongly favored Adams, while Jefferson overwhelmingly carried the southern states. The key to the election lay in the mid-Atlantic colonies where party organizations were the most fully developed. Adams ended up narrowly winning in the electoral college 71 to 68. A sure sign of the great novelty of political parties was that the Constitution had established that the runner-up in the presidential election would become the vice president.

John Adams took office after a harsh campaign and narrow victory. His political opponent Jefferson served as second in command.

A History of American Agriculture: 1776-1990
A collection of timelines from the United States Department of Agriculture show the amazing rate of change in the demographics and technology of the American farm. Thomas Jefferson's hopes for an agrarian economy were ignored by the pace of change demonstrated in graphic detail by these 11 timelines. While Jefferson ran for office in 1796, 90 percent of the population were farmers. Today, farmers make up less than 3 percent of the population.

Report broken link

The Campaign and Election of 1796
The American President series presents a summary of the first American election where political parties played a part. See a chart of the candidates and the results; find out the political rationale for why the parties chose their candidates; learn strange facts that made this election unique.

Report broken link

George Washington's Farewell Address
George Washington's departure from the political scene created a political vacuum which laid the groundwork for the formation of political parties - something Washington despised. Early America offers this dusty original of Washington's farewell address, but provides a readable abstract as well. "[Political parties] ... distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration ... agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one ... against another ... it opens the door to foreign influence and corruption ..." -George Washington

Report broken link

If you like our content, please share it on social media!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The State House in Boston was designed by Charles Bullfinch, who also designed the Capitol in Washington D.C. The election of 1796 was the first election in American history where political candidates at the local, state, and national level began to run for office as members of organized political parties that held strongly opposed political principles.

# data[].attributes.body
This Give Everything Dilling With The Rughts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There is much to commend Professor Garry's essay. He is eminently correct in saying that the Constitution contemplated a limited government. Whether it adhered to a "limited government model " is a different issue.

What is more than curious, however, is Professor Garry's statement that the "the overall scheme of the original Constitution" is primarily concerned with structure and process and not "values." In other words, the Constitution merely provides a process for making decisions and is wholly indifferent to the results. The Constitution is thus process without purpose.

This view that the Constitution is unconcerned with "values"-or ends or purposes-is utterly alien to the framers' understanding. Madison famously wrote in The Federalist that "Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit."[1] The end of government is justice, the quintessential political "value." Justice was understood by the framers to mean the protection of rights and liberties under the rule of law. And the first object of the rule of law was simply the equal protection of equal rights. In The Federalist, Madison also wrote that the purpose of the Constitution was grounded in "the transcendent law of nature and nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed."[2] Everyone, of course, recognizes this statement as a paraphrase of the Declaration of Independence. Madison clearly says here and other places in The Federalist [3] that the principles of the Declaration supply the ends or purposes of the Constitution and that institutions-structures-are subordinate to the ends. There can be little doubt that this was the understanding of the Founding generation.

Professor Garry, however, disagrees with Madison on this point. A concern for "individual freedom and natural rights . . . had inspired the Declaration of Independences," Garry claims, but "to the framers, natural or individual rights were vague and highly abstract." In addition, "the framing generation did not know how to go about the goal of using specific constitutional provisions to protect natural rights or specific understandings of individual autonomy." During the founding era, apparently, ideas about natural rights were so "ambiguous and imprecise" that no broad consensus existed about their meaning or content. Thus we cannot take our bearings from such vague and inchoate expressions as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

All of Garry's evidence about the Founders' inability to understand individual freedom and natural rights is derived from secondary sources-not one contemporary source is mentioned. Jefferson, however, noted that when he wrote the Declaration he only sought to give expression to the "American mind" and that he believed that "all its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day."[4] Where twenty-first century scholars say that the Founders were confused about first principles, the Founders themselves believed there was a strong consensus among the American people as to what constituted natural rights.

The idea that the Founders did not understand that the natural right to life was an irrefragable conclusion from the "self-evident truth" that all men are created equal is rather incredible. The way of the world for more than a thousand years was divine right rule; the Founders posed the natural equality of all human beings as evidence that there are no inequalities-however measured-sufficient to make any human being by nature the ruler of another. No human being occupies the position with respect to any other human being that every human occupies with respect to any dog. Every human is by nature the ruler of every dog, but the same inequalities do not exist within the human species-this is a "self-evident truth" and it establishes the right to life as a principle of human nature, or as a principle of natural right.

Even more incredible is the claim that the framers were confused about the meaning of the natural right to liberty, even though they clearly said what they meant and meant what they said: the natural right to liberty means that no one can be ruled without his consent or be ruled for any purpose except for his benefit. Thus the natural right to liberty means, in the language of the Declaration that the "just powers" of government must be derived from "the consent of the governed." How ambiguous is that?

And the "pursuit of happiness?" Clearly for the Founders it meant the right to acquire and possess property understood in its most extensive sense-including free communication of ideas, free exercise of religion, and the right to the possession of the products of one's own labor.[5] These ideas are spelled out in numerous tracts and treatises of the founding era, including public documents, sermons, political broadsides, correspondence and, as Jefferson notes, "the elementary books of public right."[6]

The notion that the framers were confused about natural rights is simply a product of modernity's claim that reason cannot establish "value" claims or arbitrate "value" disputes. But this was no part of the universe inhabited by the American Founders. They knew-and conclusively demonstrated from the first principles of human nature-that natural rights were, to use Madison's phrase, part of "the fabric of human nature." Surely they did not believe that liberty was a mere "value judgment" or that it was impossible to prove that freedom was preferable to tyranny. A Progressive historian, writing near the beginning of the twentieth century, wrote that "to ask whether the natural rights philosophy of the Declaration of Independence is true or false is essentially a meaningless question."[7] It is meaningless because that philosophy was only an expression of the "value judgments" of the founders-the dominant thought of their day. But if it is meaningless to ask whether it is true that free government is preferable to tyranny, then it is equally meaningless to ask whether freedom is preferable to slavery. If all values are relative, and reason cannot decide between competing values, then the universe of politics is reduced to a simple contest in which justice becomes merely "the interest of the stronger."

The protection of natural rights was understood by the Founders as the necessary means to the preservation of the "safety and happiness of the people." The Founders were arguing about regime questions-what is the best regime to secure rights and liberties-not about procedural questions. It is utterly absurd to say that the sole purpose of government is to limit itself. The reductio ad absurdum of understanding the Constitution as merely a procedural document might be Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' view that the world of politics is simply one of "fighting faiths"-or as we might say today "competing value systems."

The views of the American Founders were merely one of several "fighting faiths" competing for dominance in the marketplace of ideas. "The best test of truth," Justice Holmes asserts, "is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market."[8] Thus, Justice Holmes concludes "if, in the long run, the beliefs expressed in proletarian dictatorship are destined to be accepted by the dominant forces of the community, the only meaning of free speech is that they should be given their chance and have their way."[9] Holmes views the Constitution as merely a procedural document without any purpose. Here he would allow the means that the framers designed to secure free government (free elections and freedom of speech) to destroy the ends.

The framers repeatedly stated that the purpose of the Constitution was to secure the "safety and happiness of the people." Surely, nothing in the Constitution can be allowed to annihilate the purposes for which it was formed, no matter how democratic the means. The "dictatorship of the proletariat," even if approved by a majority, would destroy the rights and liberties essential to the "safety and happiness" of the people.

Abraham Lincoln famously argued against Stephen Douglas' popular sovereignty plan which would have allowed majorities in the territories to approve slavery if they found it in their interest. Lincoln rightly noted that even a majority in a democracy does not have the right to do what is intrinsically wrong by nature, i.e., whatever violates the principles of natural right adumbrated in the Declaration of Independence. Madison also noted that the "majority may do anything that could be rightfully done by unanimous concurrence of the members; the reserved rights of individuals (of conscience for example) in becoming parties to the original compact being beyond the legitimate reach of sovereignty, wherever bested or however viewed."[10]

Madison frequently remarked that "just and free government is derived from compact." Madison continues that "The purpose of compact is to form one political society, in order that the rights the safety and the interest of each may be under the safeguard of the whole." This compact "must result from the free consent of every individual."[11] Madison notes that a second contract is executed between the people and government, specifying the terms and conditions upon which they consent to be governed and the duties and obligation which they owe in return. It is vital to note that the Preamble to the Constitution states that "We the People . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution." The people created the Constitution, the Constitution did not create the people.

When, then, did Americans become a "people?" Article VII specifies that the Constitution was "Done in Convention . . . in the Year of . . . the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth." Thus the "independence of the United States" is fixed on the date of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration, of course, refers to Americans as "one people" and as "the good People," and it denominates "the people" as the ultimate authority for independence. Thus, the people who established and ordained the Constitution were the same people who dissolved "all Allegiance to the British Crown." The Declaration specifies that the only legitimate basis for government is "the consent of the governed"-the doctrine of social compact is thus intrinsic to the principles of the Declaration.

The rights to be protected by civil society are not created by government-they exist by nature and are prior to government-although governments are necessary to secure them. Thus, political society exists to secure the equal protection of the equal rights of all who consent to be governed. But it is important to emphasize that each person who consents to become a member of civil society enjoys the equal protection of his own rights, while at the same time incurring the obligation to protect the rights of his fellow citizens. Here there are reciprocal rights and obligations-not "autonomous rights."

For the first time in the history of the world, a system of government based on the sovereignty of the people was established. In the American constitutional system the people, not the government was sovereign. In establishing the government, the people delegated specified portions of its sovereignty to government to be exercised for its benefit. What was not delegated remained within the sovereign prerogative of the people. One sovereign prerogative of the people that can never be delegated-and is specifically denominated a duty in the Declaration -is the right "to alter or abolish" government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established. The right to revolution is the ultimate expression of the sovereignty of the people and, in a very real sense, it is the right that guarantees every other right.

It should be obvious that with a government of delegated powers, a bill of rights is superfluous. Why prohibit the government from doing what it has no delegated power to do? In a monarchy-or any other system where government, not the people, is sovereign-bills of rights redound to the liberty of the people because in these systems the people's liberties exist only to the extent that exceptions can be made to the power of the sovereign. But as Hamilton wrote in The Federalist, "the Constitution is itself in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS."[12] What Hamilton meant, of course, is that the government under the Constitution can only exercise delegated powers and it has no delegated power (or even the reasonable inference from a delegated power) to interfered with rights and liberties. Why prohibit the government from interfering with freedom of the press, Hamilton queried, when there is no delegated power to do so

Madison agreed with Hamilton in opposing the addition of a bill of rights saying that rights are best protected "by the manner which the federal powers are delegated."[13] In other words, rights and liberties are best protected by confining government strictly to the exercise of its delegated powers. Under these circumstances rights do not have to be defined; the government has to justify the exercise of its power in terms of a delegated power or a fair inference from a delegated power. This would be a great advantage for the protection of rights and liberties.

Madison and the leading federalists did not think that a bill of rights was merely superfluous; they believed a bill of rights was dangerous to limited government. Although Madison became the chief architect of the Bill of Rights, he never changed his mind that in principle the addition of a bill of rights was unsound.[14] The push for a bill of rights was taken up by the anti-federalists who, of course, lost in the ratification elections. They used this popular issue in an attempt to call for a second constitutional convention in which they hoped to weaken the national elements of the new Constitution, particularly the commerce clause, the necessary and proper clause, the taxing powers and especially the supremacy clause. They were only tangentially interested in adding a bill of rights; their primary purpose was to use the bill of rights as an excuse for calling a convention in which they would try to weaken what they regarded as the centralizing tendencies of the Constitution.

The anti-federalists never seemed to have understood the revolutionary basis for the new government. They seemed to still regard governments as sovereign and to believe that the liberty of the people existed only within the interstices of the exceptions to government power. In short, they were still fighting against monarchical government, not fully accepting the fact that republican government posed entirely different regime questions.

Madison took up the project of pushing a bill of rights through the first Congress as a way of diffusing the anti-federalist movement for a new convention which he feared would seriously damage the Constitution by turning it back in the direction of the failed Articles of Confederation. Madison says that in proposing a bill of rights he hoped to reconcile the anti-federalists to the Constitution, but his real purpose was to prevent the anti-federalists from damaging the important national features of the Constitution.

What was dangerous about the bill of rights? If you include a specific exception to a governmental power, e.g.. that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . .," then you imply that if it were not for the prohibition Congress could make such a law. But in fact, a quick glace at the Constitution reveals no such delegated power and without a delegated power to establish a religion, Congress may not do so. But if we specifically say Congress may not do so, then we imply that Congress would have had the power "but for" the prohibition. Every prohibition thus implies a grant of power.

Here the idea of limited government is destroyed because we have now transformed government into one that can do everything except what the Constitution says it specifically may not do. Madison thought he could obviate this danger by the Tenth Amendment, which says, in effect, that an exception to government power may not be taken as an implied grant of power-powers not granted are reserved to the states or the people. But it appears from modern jurisprudence, some of which is chronicled by Professor Garry, that Madison's prophylactic failed in this regard.

A second danger comes from the fact that in writing a bill of rights, no list of rights can be complete. Future events will always reveal new exigencies that will require the assertion of new limitations on government through the assertion of rights reserved by the people. The right to privacy is only one example. A long-standing principle of constitutional construction, however, holds that every list must be interpreted as exclusive-that the inclusion of one thing excludes the other. This rule of construction-which is essential to a written constitution-means that the list of rights in the Bill of Rights will be presumed to be exhaustive or complete, not merely suggestive. Madison thought it was thus dangerous to reduce rights to a list.

He believed, however, that he could cure this defect by the Ninth Amendment. The list of rights contained in the Bill of Rights cannot be used to disparage other rights retained by the people. In other words, the Ninth Amendment is in some sense a counterpart to the Tenth: all rights not listed in the Bill of Rights are reserved by the people. It is essential to remind ourselves of the fact that under the original Constitution it would never have been necessary for the people to engage in the dangerous practice of specifying or defining its rights; rather the responsibility would have been on government always to justify its exercise of power.[15]

One of the problems with Professor Garry's approach is the implausible efforts he has to make to stretch the evidence to fit his "limited government model." Garry makes an heroic but unsuccessful attempt to deny that the rights protected in the Bill of Rights are individual rights.[16] Thus in terms of his "limited government model" the specific provisions of the Bill of Rights should be interpreted as limitations on government, not as protections for individual rights. But all the evidence is to the contrary. Garry is forced by his model to undermine the importance of the Declaration in the Founding and its relation to the Constitution because the natural rights described therein are obviously individual rights derived from the "self-evident truth" that "all men are created equal."

It is true that the provisions of the Bill of Rights are designed to restrain the federal government's exercise of power, but they do so by restricting the government's power to invade the rights of individuals. We have James Madison's own testimony that the provisions of the Bill of Rights "relate [first] . . . to private rights."[17] In his famous June 8, 1789 speech before the House of Representatives in which he introduced his proposals for the Bill of Rights, Madison noted that the judicial tribunals will be "the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulation for in the constitution by the declaration of rights." Here, Madison was merely echoing the argument of The Federalist No. 78 where Hamilton had argued that "the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments . . . [the] independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals . . ."[18] This does not mean that because individual rights were the focus of the Bill of Rights that the judiciary, as Garry asserts, would necessarily assume "unbounded power. . . to define and enforce individual rights." Indeed, in a system of government animated by separation of powers, no branch would have "unbounded power."

Professor Garry is eminently correct in opposing the notion of autonomy rights; but that notion was not a product of the founding; it was the invention of Progressivism, a movement that sought to supplant the founding. Natural rights have nothing to do with "autonomy rights." The founders did not view rights as idiosyncratic "value judgments," but as the rational pursuit of happiness within the context of ordered liberty or the rule of law. George Washington signaled the nation's understanding when, in his first inaugural (written by Madison),[19] he said that "there is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness." Thus, Washington-and undoubtedly the founding generation-understood the "pursuit of happiness" as the pursuit of virtue! It is only when rights are understood apart from nature or natural right that they can be conceived in terms of autonomy.

A proper understanding of the founding is the best antidote to the rampant notion of autonomy rights which I concur is undermining the moral, political and constitutional basis of civil society today. This has been, as Professor Garry rightly notes, the work of the Supreme Court beginning with the New Deal era and continuing through the activist years of the Warren Court and beyond. But understanding the founding in terms of a "model" that was not intrinsic to the framers' understanding, it seems to me, only distorts our understanding. We should stick with the framers and understand how they grounded the American regime in the principles of natural right.

[1] The Federalist, No. 51, Clinton Rossiter, ed., (New York: Mentor, 1961), 324.

[2] The Federalist, No. 43, 279.

[3] See e.g., The Federalist, No. 40, 252; No. 78, 469. In No. 39, Madison wrote that the people should reject the proposed constitution if they did not find it to be "strictly republican," because "it is evident," he continued, "that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government." What is important to note here is that republican government is the only form of government that is consistent with the "principles of the Revolution," meaning, of course, the principles of the Declaration of Independence. As an aside, Hamilton in The Federalist No. 9 does not distinguish between free government and republican government as Professor Garry claims. To the contrary, his point is that republican government is a type of "free government." The attempt to argue that free governments protect individual rights and republican governments protect "a more general political freedom as a means to securing individual freedom" is simply mistaken.

[4] Letter to Henry Lee, May 8, 1825, in M. Peterson, ed., Jefferson: Writings (New York: Library of America, 1984), 1501 (emphasis added).

[5] See Madison, "Property," National Gazette, March 29, 1792, in Jack Rakove, ed., Madison: Writings (New York: Library of America, 1999), 515.

[6] See Edward Erler, "Natural Right in the American Founding," 23 Interpretation: A Journal of Political Philosophy (Spring, 1996), 457-475.

[7] Carl L. Becker, The Declaration of Independence (New York: Vintage Books, 1942 [originally published in 1922]), 277. Becker's view still dominates historiography today. All ideas are the product of their time and there are no ideas that transcend their time. It is curious, however, that Becker never seems to have questioned whether his own insight-that all thought was historically conditioned-was itself historically conditioned. He simply assumed that it was a though that was valid for all historical epochs. I dare say this is Garry's view as well. This is the reason he tried to impose a "model" on the thought of the Founders that was not within their own purview.

[8] Abrams v. U.S., 250 U.S. 616, 627 (1919).

[9] Gitlow v. N.Y., 268 U.S. 652m 673 (1925) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

[10] Madison, "Sovereignty" (1835), in Gaillard Hunt, ed. The Writings of James Madison (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1908), 9:570.

[11] Madison, "Sovereignty," 9:569-70.

[12] The Federalist, No. 84, 515.

[13] Letter to Thomas Jefferson, October 17, 1787, in William T. Hutchinson, et. al (Chicago: University of Chicago Press; Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1962 - ), 11:297.

[14] See Erler, "James Madison and the Framing of the Bill of Rights: Reality and Rhetoric in the New Constitutionalism," 9 Political Communication (1992), 213-229.

[15] See, Erler, "The Ninth Amendment and Contemporary Jurisprudence," in Eugene Hickok, Jr., ed., The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1991), 432-451.

[16] Garry is so eager to deny the relevance of individual or natural rights to the founding era that he completely misconstrues a quote from The Federalist No. 38, 235, to this effect: "Madison argued that the Bill of Rights 'ought to be declaratory, not of the personal rights of individuals, but of the rights reserved to the states in their political capacity'." Madison here was not speaking in his own name, but rather rehearsing complaints against the proposed constitution by various detractors: "a fourth [detractor] concurs in the absolute necessity of a bill of rights, but contends that it ought to be declaratory, not of the personal rights of individuals, but of the rights reserved to the States in their political capacity. A fifth is of opinion that a bill of rights of any sort would be superfluous and misplaced . . ." These are not Madison's opinions and to cite them as such is erroneous. We must also remember that Madison originally proposed an amendment to be included in the Bill of Rights that would have restricted the states: "No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases." This proposed amendment was not approval by Congress.

[17] "Notes for Speech in Congress," June 8, 1789, Papers of James Madison, 12:193.

[18] The Federalist, No. 78, 469.

[19] The Papers of James Madison, 12:120.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Natural Rights and the Limited Government Model of the Constitution: A Response to Patrick Garry - Law & Liberty

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There is much to commend Professor Garry's essay. He is eminently correct in saying that the Constitution contemplated a limited government. Whether it adhered to a "limited government model" is a different issue.

# data[].attributes.body
This Gives You Doument

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As the individual states experimented in democracy, the need for a more comprehensive union became increasingly evident. The possession of common political beliefs provided a promising meeting ground upon which to forge an effective union. When the colonials issued the Declaration of Independence, it was presented as "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America." Despite the implications of this assertion, the revolutionists were careful not to excite suspicion by attempting to extend the scope of central authority. No one could forget that Britain's efforts in this direction brought about the revolution in the first place.

But war also revealed the dangers of decentralization. The Continental Congress had to supply the army, but was deprived of the right to levy taxes. The result was a paper currency system that created rampant inflation. Prices skyrocketed; public confidence in Continental currency plummeted. When Congress tried legislating price controls, they were rejected by the states as "the contrary of justice, policy, and necessity." Nor were matters helped when both the states and Congress printed money: the phrase "not worth a Continental" passed into the popular vocabulary. The added burden of military requisitions bore down upon the rickety structure of American finance. Only the desperate efforts of the able financier, Robert Morris, and the receipt of French specie, prevented a complete collapse of the Continental currency.

It is hardly surprising that the fiscal difficulties of the Congress confirmed public prejudices against central authority. Though the Articles of Confederation had been completed by November 17, 1777, the states, viewing with alarm the ineffective program of Congress, tended to reassert their sovereignty. Four years after the completion of the Articles, they were finally ratified by the states. Ratification gave Congress exclusive authority in foreign relations, together with the right to make war, to regulate admiralty cases, and to settle disputes between the states. Congress would also have the power to coin and borrow money. Representation in Congress was to be by states, with each state entitled to one vote. Decisions were by a simple majority, except in specified instances when nine votes were needed. Subverting the effective implementation of these powers was the absence of Continental control over taxation. The states jealously refused to surrender their taxing power, accepting as a cardinal principle: "The power to tax is the power to destroy." So there occurred the spectacle of Continental fiscal stability being swept away in an avalanche of paper issuances, while the states, secure in their taxing power, achieved considerable solvency.

The Controversy Over Western Lands

Claims of the States. The four-year delay in ratifying the Articles was due to conservative suspicion of the power assigned to the Confederation, and to the insistence of Maryland and New Jersey that Congress be vested with control of western lands. First there ensued extensive debates on the Articles in the state legislatures, chiefly over the question of limiting the central government's power. Then the legislatures of Maryland and New Jersey voiced the fears of those states that had no western land claims. These states anticipated that Virginia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, the Carolinas, and Georgia - all of whose charters placed their western boundaries at the Pacific Ocean - would possess an overweening power if their claims were acknowledged. They argued further that the western lands had been gained in a common colonial effort, and that there was no reason why some states should benefit at the expense of others. The impasse over the western lands was broken on January 2, 1781, when Virginia agreed to surrender her claims provided that all the western lands be held as a common fund preparatory to their admission into the union on a footing of equality with the original states.

Conquest of the Northwest Territory. The final disposition of the western lands, however, waited upon the completion of their seizure from the British and the Indians, and the settlement of the complex claims of western land companies. George Rogers Clark was almost solely responsible for the successful conquest of the Northwest Territory, the area lying between the rough 'V' formed by the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers, and held, before the Seven Years' War, by France. A resident of Kentucky, Clark realized that the security of the American settlements in the region could only be established by an aggressive campaign into the northwestern territories. Leading a force of less than two hundred men, Clark marched overland to seize Kaskaskia on the Mississippi River, and then turned eastward to Vincennes, completing the American conquest by early autumn of 1778. The British and their Indian allies mounted a counteroffensive that culminated in the recapture of Vincennes in mid-December of 1778. A bitter, sanguinary war ensued, which included the American massacre of the Christian Indians of Gnadenhutten and savage, retaliatory Indian attacks in the Ohio and Kentucky territories. Clark recaptured Vincennes in February 1779, and prevented the Indians from overwhelming the Kentucky frontier after their victory over frontiersmen at Blue Licks in the summer of 1782. In 1783, the Treaty of Paris finally brought peace to the frontier. Though warfare ceased, Congress faced the same difficulties that had puzzled George III's government in 1776 - how to placate the Indians; how to satisfy the frontiersmen; how to keep the uncertain peace in the West.

Cession of State Claims. The Indian problem was further complicated by Virginia's insistence that her surrender of western claims be accompanied by the voiding of all western land purchases from the Indians. This proviso stirred the implacable opposition of land speculators, and especially of the Illinois-Wabash Company and the Indiana Company, whose purchases of land in the Ohio country represented investments by speculators in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey. Fearful that Virginia's claims would supersede their own, the speculators preferred to risk their chances with a Congress, many of whose members held stock in the two companies. The speculators wielded considerable influence in the New Jersey and Maryland legislatures as well. But the surprising development of the whole affair was the genuine disinterestedness with which the Virginians, led by Jefferson and Richard Henry Lee, approached the dispute. They urged surrender of western lands as a necessary step toward cementing union. Eventually even this concession was reluctantly accepted by Maryland, which finally ratified the Articles in February 1781.

The Virginia cessions were preceded by those of New York and Connecticut. Massachusetts completed the cession of lands north of the Ohio in 1784. Connecticut retained the Western Reserve, a strip of 3,300,000 acres on Lake Erie, as a fund to reward Revolutionary War veterans. A smaller reservation, for Clark's veterans, was retained by Virginia. By 1786, the Confederation controlled the remainder of the vast northwestern territories. In the South, however, the Carolinas and Georgia saw their western territories as a potential source of revenue to retire their war debts. North Carolina sold lands in Tennessee for as little as five dollars per hundred acres; the cheapness of land resulted in sales of more than four million acres in the year 1783-84. The concurrent increase in North Carolina's tax costs to meet the need for protection of Tennessee soon convinced the eastern Tarheelers that they had made a bad bargain. Their influence was felt in 1784, when the North Carolina Assembly ceded Tennessee to the Confederation with the sole proviso that existing land titles be maintained.

This cession was promptly revoked by North Carolina when the residents of the ceded region petitioned Congress for admission to the union. The Carolina legislature, uncertain of the effect this would have upon its land claims, offered the frontiersmen better protection and improved justice. But the proponents of statehood, led by John Sevier, were able to form the rump state of Franklin which, despite the refusal of Congress to recognize it, had a shadowy existence until February 1788, when Sevier and his supporters were overturned by advocates of alliance with North Carolina. In the following year, the territory was finally turned over to Congress. A similar surrender had been made two years earlier by South Carolina. Only Georgia stubbornly refused to relinquish her claims until the first decade of the nineteenth century.

The Ordinance of 1785. With each new cession of western land, Congress came into possession of a greater empire. Determined to provide for orderly settlement, Congress authorized a committee chaired by Thomas Jefferson to plan for the administration of these territories. The result was the abortive Ordinance of 1784, which provided for the orderly transition of these territories into states. The congressional rejection of this first proposal only aggravated the problem of effective organization for the western territories. The acute fiscal problems of the Confederation led Congress to contemplate western land sales. That solution, however, required an orderly method for conducting these sales. From a debate that featured sectional differences emerged the Ordinance of 1785, which provided for the division of the Northwest lands into townships, each six miles square. These were further divided into thirty-six sections of 640 acres. Of these sections, one was set aside for the support of public education, and four for the United States. A seventh of the land first surveyed was to be used by the War Department for settlement of Revolutionary War veterans. A mixed system of disposal was employed; whole townships and individual sections were simultaneously placed on the market. Since the lowest price was a dollar an acre, comparatively few settlers could raise the $640 to purchase the minimal offering of a section. Much land thus fell prey to speculators, who purchased it with the depreciated paper currency of the Confederation.

The most notorious of these speculators was the Ohio Company, organized by General Rufus Putnam. The company bought up the scrip of veterans for a pittance, and then used it at face value to purchase western lands. Under the guidance of the Reverend Manasseh Cutler, the company entered into an arrangement with the Scioto Company, organized by public officials, members of Congress, and New York merchants. The Scioto Company was to provide a front through which western lands could be purchased without exciting public suspicion. With the full assistance of William Duer, secretary of the Confederation's Board of the Treasury, who was responsible for the sale of western lands, the Ohio Company obtained 1,781,000 acres, at an average cost of eight cents an acre in depreciated scrip. Cutler then turned his full attention to the establishment of stable governments in the region, as a likely inducement to purchasers. His efforts in this direction were aided by the general American sentiment that Congress should aid stability by organizing territorial governments.

The Northwest Ordinance. On July 13, 1787, Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance. The Ordinance provided for the establishment of no less than three and no more than five states in the Northwest Territory. It provided for three stages leading to self-government for the region. In the first period Congress would appoint a governor, secretary, and three judges to administer laws, drawn from the legislation of the established states, which best suited the new territory's needs. When five thousand adult males were residing in the territory, they would implement the second period by electing a territorial legislature. It in turn would nominate a ten-man advisory council from which Congress and the governor would choose a five-man legislative council to serve as the governor's cabinet. The territory would also send a nonvoting delegate to Congress. The third period would come when the territory achieved a population of sixty thousand. It could then apply for admission into the Union as a full state, with the same status as the original thirteen. Congress added guarantees of religious freedom, the right of habeas corpus, the upholding of common law, restriction of types of punishment, and proportional representation in the territorial legislatures. Congress also put its support behind public education, fair treatment of Indians, and the prohibition of slavery or other forms of involuntary servitude. With its passage, the Northwest Ordinance established the principles upon which the vast western territories were subsequently incorporated into the Union. The Confederation Congress had passed its most important legislation.

The Critical Period. In 1888, John Fiske, the historian, described the time of the Confederation as the "critical period," concluding that the American experiment in self-government reached its nadir between 1781 and 1789. From Fiske's description emerged the idea that the decision to draw up the Constitution was a response to urgent necessity. Recent scholarship has challenged Fiske's grim view, and has argued that the Confederation had established a stable peace and a viable nation at the time that it was superseded by the federal republic. Its land policy, though marred by speculative activities, was successful enough to establish a permanent precedent. The severe depression that followed the war was met, and signs of recovery were ample by 1786. Cut off from their British trade, American merchants and shippers sought markets wherever an American craft was permitted to drop anchor. The manufacturing enterprises that had existed before the Revolution grew rapidly, as larger numbers of Americans turned to consuming home products. Simultaneously, new enterprises sprang up throughout the land. Even as it approached the end of its existence the Confederation had begun to flourish.

Dissatisfaction with the Articles. Considerable discontent with the Confederation existed. Alexander Hamilton scorned the new government as "feeble and precarious," and lashed out at it as "confining the power of the Federal Government within too narrow limits." Washington subscribed to Hamilton's strictures, while Madison pressed for an amendment to compel the states to meet their obligations to the Confederation.

Other men, who had been active in the Revolution, recognized the urgency of establishing a stronger central government. They knew that America's success in 1783 had been primarily the result of the power rivalry between the French and British. Jefferson bridled at the patronizing contempt with which he was treated in Paris, and John Adams attempted in vain to persuade a condescending London government to compose a commercial treaty with the Americans and to surrender their Northwest trade posts. Spain's closing of New Orleans to American commerce also caused serious concern. And the heart of the matter was clearly the lack of power in Congress. Without centralized power America could hardly expect to command the respect of the world.

Shays' Rebellion. The men who had led the Revolution were also concerned at what seemed to be a rising threat to private property - the irresponsible fiscal behavior of an increasing number of states. Rhode Island issued depreciated paper which benefited debtors while it bankrupted creditors. In the autumn of 1786 there was panic among the propertied and commercial classes of western Massachusetts when farmers, trapped by a combination of high taxes and low prices, joined Daniel Shays in an armed rebellion. Its aim was to close the courts in Berkshire, Hampshire, and Worcester Counties, thus ending the lawsuits that threatened many farmers with foreclosure of their property. A state government, itself born in revolution, faced a revolutionary overthrow. Only the intervention of militia from eastern Massachusetts prevented the seizure of the United States arsenal at Springfield by the farmers. After urgent appeals, the Continental Congress ordered General Henry Knox to raise a force with which to check Shays. But before he could act, the Massachusetts militia under General Benjamin Lincoln (a force raised by private subscription, since the state treasury was empty) overwhelmed the rebels in the early spring of 1787. The Massachusetts authorities had the good sense to realize that their defeated opponents had been motivated by genuine grievances. The legislature reduced court costs, exempted personal property and tools of trade from debt seizure, and refused to raise taxes. They even pardoned Shays.

Nevertheless, the event had thrown a good scare into the established order. "What, Gracious God, is man," cried Washington on receipt of news of the uprising, "that there should be inconsistency and perfidiousness in his conduct?" Hamilton dismissed the participants as "villains & fools." When Massachusetts elected John Hancock to the governorship - thus neatly reversing at the polls the Shaysite defeat in the field - Madison indicted Hancock's sympathetic view of the farmer's plight as "not a little tainted by a dishonorable obsequiousness to popular follies." It was to counter the widespread feeling that this was "the mad cry of the mob" that Jefferson declared: I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in he political world as storms in the physical. . . . It prevents the degeneracy of overnment, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs.

But American conservatives felt (in the words of one Massachusetts merchant) that "the flames of internal insurrection were ready to burst out in every quarter . . . from one end to the other of the continent," and that they "walked on ashes, concealing fire beneath [their] feet." The time was ripe for a critical re-examination of the central authority, with a view to extending its scope and powers.

The Annapolis Convention. A smoldering dispute between Virginia and Maryland had long irritated relations between the two states. Maryland, which controlled the Potomac River to its south bank, taxed Virginia shipping using the river; Virginia retaliated by taxing Maryland shipping as it entered Chesapeake Bay. Relations were further strained by a varying tariff on English goods. James Madison moved in 1784 to settle the disputes by negotiation. Washington, as president of the Potomac Company, which aimed to improve river navigation, joined the conference at Alexandria. Subsequently the meeting adjourned to Mount Vernon, where the conferees agreed to support efforts toward the establishment of tariff uniformity, to press for interstate accords as a means of alleviating problems of commerce and defense, and to meet annually to discuss subsequent problems. Both the Maryland and Virginia legislatures voted their support of the Mount Vernon accord. But, as both soon learned, commercial accord between two states was meaningless unless adjacent states agreed to cooperate. So it was that Maryland called for the participation of Pennsylvania and Delaware in the accord; and Virginia took the final step by calling a convention of all the states to discuss trade problems.

The invitation from Virginia was sent out in January 1786, and designated the month of May as the time, and Annapolis, Maryland, as the place, for the convention, whose avowed purpose was to provide guidance to the Continental Congress in commercial matters. Only five states actually sent delegates, however: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia. The states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and North Carolina appointed delegates who failed to attend. The remaining states, Maryland being the most surprising absentee, did not bother even to appoint delegates. The convention finally settled down to business on September 11, 1786, with the aim of resolving conflicts in interstate commerce. But the New Jersey delegation proposed extending the discussion to include ways of strengthening the Articles of Confederation, a proposal which quickly occupied the attention of the assembled delegates.

Their response reflected the strongly nationalistic sentiments of those present at Annapolis. From New York came Alexander Hamilton, who had despaired of merely strengthening the Articles and now believed that nothing less than a complete reconstruction of the government was necessary. Delaware's George Read called for the absorption of the states by the national government, while Pennsylvania's Tench Coxe advocated the extension of central power to compel a more stable economic basis for union. James Madison, representing Virginia, hoped the meeting would prove "a plenipotentiary convention for amending the Confederation." But the sparse attendance seemed to preclude any fruitful outcome until Hamilton, always audacious, proposed that they recommend to the states another convention which would be authorized to discuss financial, commercial, and political problems facing the country. Since Hamilton lacked specific authorization from New York to take so radical a step, Abraham Clark of New Jersey submitted the proposal at Annapolis. It summoned a convention to meet at Philadelphia in May 1787. Despite James Madison's fears that the Annapolis convention was exceeding its powers, the proposal specifically requested that the states empower their delegates to make changes "necessary to render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Articles Of Confederation - Confederation And Constitution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the individual states experimented in democracy, the need for a more comprehensive union became increasingly evident. The possession of common political beliefs provided a promising meeting ground upon which to forge an effective union. When the colonials issued the Declaration of Independence, it was presented as "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America."

# data[].attributes.body
I Choose this link because it gives you in formation on how declaration of indenpents and how people were equal, etc .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Declaration of Independence gave birth to what is known today as the United States of America. The document is symbolic of American democracy and one of the free charters of freedom. The words stated in the Declaration rallied support from colonists at home, and colonists living abroad. The effects of the Declaration of Independence today can be seen and felt within the United States of America and also among many foreign nations.
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness
The Declaration of Independence gave birth to many other freedoms in the United States of America that may never have even been intended. One of the more immediate effects felt by the Declaration of Independence was the Emancipation of black slaves. Some say that Abraham Lincoln interpreted the Declaration in his own way and understanding. Some say he was inspired to do so. Either way, it brought about the Emancipation Proclamation which gave black slaves their freedom. Abraham Lincoln certainly took literally the statement from the Declaration, "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."? The American dream put in a nut shell
All Men are Created Equal
The Declaration of Independence also paved the way and created equality among all men and women. Today we can see the effects of the first sentence written in the Preamble: We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal."? Throughout history we have seen so many different changes, from freedom of slaves, to equality among men and women. Today moreso than in the past, women have been given every opportunity that men are now given and are truly equal among men.

The Declaration of Independence had a profound effect upon the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. The Declaration, it seems, may have ignited the fire under which the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were written. The Declaration is in large part a summary of what the Bill of Rights stands for. The Bill of Rights in the United States is the name by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known. While the Declaration offered independence from Britain and made general statements, the Bill of Rights offers conclusive and specific rights and laws, from freedom of speech, press and religion, to the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom of assembly; the freedom to petition; prohibits unreasonable search and seizure; cruel and unusual punishment; and compelled self-incrimination. The first ten amendments are truly and expansion on what the first fifty six signers of the Declaration had written.
Effects among foreign nations
The Declaration of Independence has also left lasting effects upon other foreign nations, including the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, and the Declaration of Independence for the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. The French Declaration is one of the fundamental documents of the French Revolution and defines a set of individual and collective rights of all of the estates as one. The First article states, "men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinction may be founded only upon the general good."? The principles in the French Declaration are still set forth today.

The Declaration of Independence has left its effects not just in the small and large details of the United States of America, but also in the details of other foreign countries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Effects of the Declaration of Independence " Independence Day " Surfnetkids

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Declaration of Independence gave birth to what is known today as the United States of America. The document is symbolic of American democracy and one of the free charters of freedom. The words stated in the Declaration rallied support from colonists at home, and colonists living abroad.

# data[].attributes.body
This slideshow Summarize the expansion of the power of the national government as a result of Supreme Court decisions under Chief Justice John Marshall, such as the establishment of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison and the impact of political party affiliation on the Court.

# data[].attributes.body
This website analyzes the development of the two-party system during the presidency of George Washington, including controversies over domestic and foreign policies and the regional interest of
the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The State House in Boston was designed by Charles Bullfinch, who also designed the Capitol in Washington D.C.

The election of 1796 was the first election in American history where political candidates at the local, state, and national level began to run for office as members of organized political parties that held strongly opposed political principles.

This was a stunning new phenomenon that shocked most of the older leaders of the Revolutionary Era. Even Madison, who was one of the earliest to see the value of political parties, believed that they would only serve as temporary coalitions for specific controversial elections. The older leaders failed to understand the dynamic new conditions that had been created by the importance of popular sovereignty - democracy - to the American Revolution. The people now understood themselves as a fundamental force in legitimating government authority. In the modern American political system, voters mainly express themselves through allegiances within a competitive party system. 1796 was the first election where this defining element of modern political life began to appear.

The two parties adopted names that reflected their most cherished values. The Federalists of 1796 attached themselves to the successful campaign in favor of the Constitution and were solid supporters of the federal administration. Although Washington denounced parties as a horrid threat to the republic, his vice president John Adams became the de facto presidential candidate of the Federalists. The party had its strongest support among those who favored Hamilton's policies. Merchants, creditors and urban artisans who built the growing commercial economy of the northeast provided its most dedicated supporters and strongest regional support.

This mural, located at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., represents Thomas Jefferson's views on the necessity of education.

The opposition party adopted the name Democratic-Republicans, which suggested that they were more fully committed to extending the Revolution to ordinary people. The supporters of the Democratic-Republicans (often referred to as the Republicans) were drawn from many segments of American society and included farmers throughout the country with high popularity among German and Scots-Irish ethnic groups. Although it effectively reached ordinary citizens, its key leaders were wealthy southern tobacco elites like Jefferson and Madison. While the Democratic-Republicans were more diverse, the Federalists were wealthier and carried more prestige, especially by association with the retired Washington.

The 1796 election was waged with uncommon intensity. Federalists thought of themselves as the "friends of order" and good government. They viewed their opponents as dangerous radicals who would bring the anarchy of the French Revolution to America.

The Democratic-Republicans despised Federalist policies. According to one Republican-minded New York newspaper, the Federalists were "aristocrats, endeavoring to lay the foundations of monarchical government, and Republicans [were] the real supporters of independence, friends to equal rights, and warm advocates of free elective government."

This chart depicts the electoral vote distribution for the election of 1796. John Adams (green) edged out Thomas Jefferson (yellow) for the Presidency, with Thomas Pinckney (purple) and Aaron Burr (blue) leading the runners-up. Jefferson's second-place earned him the Vice Presidency.

Clearly there was little room for compromise in this hostile environment.

The outcome of the presidential election indicated the close balance between the two sides. New England strongly favored Adams, while Jefferson overwhelmingly carried the southern states. The key to the election lay in the mid-Atlantic colonies where party organizations were the most fully developed. Adams ended up narrowly winning in the electoral college 71 to 68. A sure sign of the great novelty of political parties was that the Constitution had established that the runner-up in the presidential election would become the vice president.

John Adams took office after a harsh campaign and narrow victory. His political opponent Jefferson served as second in command.

A History of American Agriculture: 1776-1990
A collection of timelines from the United States Department of Agriculture show the amazing rate of change in the demographics and technology of the American farm. Thomas Jefferson's hopes for an agrarian economy were ignored by the pace of change demonstrated in graphic detail by these 11 timelines. While Jefferson ran for office in 1796, 90 percent of the population were farmers. Today, farmers make up less than 3 percent of the population.

Report broken link

The Campaign and Election of 1796
The American President series presents a summary of the first American election where political parties played a part. See a chart of the candidates and the results; find out the political rationale for why the parties chose their candidates; learn strange facts that made this election unique.

Report broken link

George Washington's Farewell Address
George Washington's departure from the political scene created a political vacuum which laid the groundwork for the formation of political parties - something Washington despised. Early America offers this dusty original of Washington's farewell address, but provides a readable abstract as well. "[Political parties] ... distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration ... agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one ... against another ... it opens the door to foreign influence and corruption ..." -George Washington

Report broken link

If you like our content, please share it on social media!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The State House in Boston was designed by Charles Bullfinch, who also designed the Capitol in Washington D.C. The election of 1796 was the first election in American history where political candidates at the local, state, and national level began to run for office as members of organized political parties that held strongly opposed political principles.

# data[].attributes.body
Standard 1.7

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Activity 1. What does Article III say?

This case is all about the power of the Supreme Court as outlined in the Constitution in relationship to the other two branches. So what does the Constitution say is the job of the Supreme Court? Students will read Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution and then, using the PDF, students will "explain" what they believe to be the job of the Supreme Court as defined in the Constitution. Leave time for discussion to ensure these questions are answered:

What is the job of the Supreme Court as described in Article III?

Is there any indication in this section that the Supreme Court has the "right" or "responsibility" to determine whether laws are constitutional-meaning whether they violate or go against what is written in the Constitution?

Is there any reference to the term "judicial review" in the Constitution?

Does Article III establish the limits of the Court's powers?

Activity 2. Marbury v. Madison

Students should read this short background piece about Marbury v. Madison to get an overview of the details and complexities of the case. The teacher should pose these questions to students to ensure understanding of the background reading:

What was William Marbury's complaint and how did it arise?

What did Marbury hope to achieve by suing Secretary of State James Madison?

Who "won" the case?

What did this decision say about the role of the Supreme Court? Why is it still relevant to us today?

Activity 3. John Marshall's Opinion

What did John Marshall write about the power of the Supreme Court in the actual decision? In groups, with partners, or alone, students will do a close textual analysis of excerpts of the decision to understand Marshall's argument. They may use class time or analyze these excerpts as homework; a final discussion in-class will check students' understanding and sum up.
Part 1: What is the relationship of the Constitution to ordinary laws? Students will read these paragraphs, and using the worksheet, explain Marshall's point of view on this question. Teachers may want to explore the differences between a Constitution and statutory law, at this time, if it is something with which their students are not familiar.
Excerpted from Marbury v. Madison:

The authority, therefore, given to the Supreme Court by the act establishing the judicial courts of the United States to issue writs of mandamus to public officers appears not to be warranted by the Constitution, and it becomes necessary to inquire whether a jurisdiction so conferred can be exercised.

The question whether an act repugnant to the Constitution can become the law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States, but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.

That the people have an original right to establish for their future government such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

This original and supreme will organizes the government and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments. The Government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it, or that the Legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.

This theory is essentially attached to a written Constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this Court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not, therefore, to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.

If an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the Courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory, and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration."

Part II: What is the job of the Supreme Court in cases where a law passed by Congress contradicts/violates part of the Constitution? Using the PDF, students will rewrite each paragraph of this section, and then summarize what Marshall is saying.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If, then, the courts are to regard the constitution, and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that the courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions - a written constitution - would of itself be sufficient, in America, where written constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.

The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution.

Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that in using it the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?

This is too extravagant to be maintained....

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

Part III: Once students have analyzed the excerpts, the teacher should lead a discussion to ensure that ALL students have grasped the scope and significance of Marshall's decision.
Teachers may want to consider these questions, among others:

First excerpt:

What has supremacy-the Constitution or ordinary laws?

How does the Constitution limit the power of legislative bodies?

Why is this limitation so important, in Marshall's view?

What would happen if the Constitution and "ordinary legislative acts" were on equal footing?

Second excerpt:

What does Marshall mean when he writes, "it is the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is"?

Why is this so fundamentally important to this case?

How does his reasoning in Part II support the theoretical foundation he established in Part I?

Activity 4. Alexander Hamilton on Judicial Review

Did Marshall's ideas about judicial review have support from other Founders? Students will read a short portion of Alexander Hamilton's views in Federalist #78, to see what he thought of Judicial Review. As another option, teachers may want their students to read Federalist #78 in its entirety, which can be found at this site.

Activity 5. Marshall's Later Defense of Judicial Review

At the time the decision in Marbury v. Madison was made and since then, opponents have challenged the Supreme Court's power to interpret the Constitution. In 1823, Marshall answered one of his critics, Senator Richard M. Johnson, who thought it should take more than a simple majority of the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
revolution and the new nation (1754-1820s)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
making inferences and drawing conclusions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, and Judicial Review-How the Court Became Supreme | EDSITEment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If James Madison was the "father" of the Constitution" John Marshall was the "father of the Supreme Court"-almost single-handedly clarifying its powers. This new lesson is designed to help students understand Marshall's brilliant strategy in issuing his decision on Marbury v.

# data[].attributes.body
Standard 1.6

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Development of the Two-party System - AP U.S. History Topic Outlines - Study Notes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
100% Free AP Test Prep website that offers study material to high school students seeking to prepare for AP exams. Enterprising students use this website to learn AP class material, study for class quizzes and tests, and to brush up on course material before the big exam day.

# data[].attributes.body
Standard 1.5

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Where do we begin?

Pretty much where every other college ends. You won't find standard grades and practices here. You will find an environment that challenges you to go as far as your potential. How far do you want to go?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Alverno | Catholic Women's College in Milwaukee WI - Alverno College

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Where do we begin? Pretty much where every other college ends. You won't find standard grades and practices here. You will find an environment that challenges you to go as far as your potential. How far do you want to go?

# data[].attributes.body
Standard 1.4

# data[].attributes.body
Standard 1.3

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united

# data[].attributes.body
Standard 1.2

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sea travel expanded the horizons of many European nations and created prosperity and the conditions for the Enlightenment. In turn, the Enlightenment ideals of liberty, equality, and justice helped to create the conditions for the American Revolution and the subsequent Constitution.

Democracy was not created in a heartbeat. In a world where people were ruled by monarchs from above, the idea of self-government is entirely alien. Democracy takes practice and wisdom from experience.

The American colonies began developing a democratic tradition during their earliest stages of development. Over 150 years later, the colonists believed their experience was great enough to refuse to recognize the British king. The first decade was rocky. The American Revolution and the domestic instability that followed prompted a call for a new type of government with a constitution to guarantee liberty. The constitution drafted in the early days of the independent American republic has endured longer than any in human history.

Where did this democratic tradition truly begin? The ideas and practices that led to the development of the American democratic republic owe a debt to the ancient civilizations of Greece and Rome, the Protestant Reformation, and Gutenberg's printing press. But the Enlightenment of 17th-century Europe had the most immediate impact on the framers of the United States Constitution.

The Philosophes

Europeans of the 17th century no longer lived in the "darkness" of the Middle Ages. Ocean voyages had put them in touch with many world civilizations, and trade had created a prosperous middle class. The Protestant Reformation encouraged free thinkers to question the practices of the Catholic Church, and the printing press spread the new ideas relatively quickly and easily. The time was ripe for the philosophes , scholars who promoted democracy and justice through discussions of individual liberty and equality.

The ideas of 18th-century philosophes inspired the Founding Fathers to revolt against what they perceived as unfair British taxation. Washington Crossing the Delaware is one of the most famous depictions of the American Revolution.

One of the first philosophes was Thomas Hobbes, an Englishman who concluded in his famous book, Leviathan, that people are incapable of ruling themselves, primarily because humans are naturally self-centered and quarrelsome and need the iron fist of a strong leader. Later philosophes, like Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Rousseau were more optimistic about democracy. Their ideas encouraged the questioning of absolute monarchs, like the Bourbon family that ruled France. Montesquieu suggested a separation of powers into branches of government not unlike the system Americans would later adopt. They found eager students who later became the founders of the American government.

John Locke

The single most important influence that shaped the founding of the United States comes from John Locke, a 17th century Englishman who redefined the nature of government. Although he agreed with Hobbes regarding the self-interested nature of humans, he was much more optimistic about their ability to use reason to avoid tyranny. In his Second Treatise of Government, Locke identified the basis of a legitimate government. According to Locke, a ruler gains authority through the consent of the governed. The duty of that government is to protect the natural rights of the people, which Locke believed to include life, liberty, and property. If the government should fail to protect these rights, its citizens would have the right to overthrow that government. This idea deeply influenced Thomas Jefferson as he drafted the Declaration of Independence.

Important English Documents

Ironically, the English political system provided the grist for the revolt of its own American colonies. For many centuries English monarchs had allowed restrictions to be placed on their ultimate power. The Magna Carta, written in 1215, established the kernel of limited government, or the belief that the monarch's rule was not absolute. Although the document only forced King John to consult nobles before he made arbitrary decisions like passing taxes, the Magna Carta provided the basis for the later development of Parliament. Over the years, representative government led by a Prime Minister came to control and eventually replace the king as the real source of power in Britain.

The ideas of the French Enlightenment philosophes strongly influenced the American revolutionaries. French intellectuals met in salons like this one to exchange ideas and define their ideals such as liberty, equality, and justice.

The Petition of Right (1628) extended the rights of "commoners" to have a voice in the government. The English Bill of Rights (1688) guaranteed free elections and rights for citizens accused of crime. Although King George III still had some real power in 1776, Britain was already well along on the path of democracy by that time.

The foundations of American government lie squarely in the 17th and 18th century European Enlightenment. The American founders were well versed in the writings of the philosophes, whose ideas influenced the shaping of the new country. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, and others took the brave steps of creating a government based on the Enlightenment values of liberty, equality, and a new form of justice. More than 200 years later, that government is still intact.

Thomas Hobbes
Thomas Hobbes said that humans are savages who need a strong leader to tell them what to do. Hard to believe he was just a stuffed orange cat.

Report broken link

If you like our content, please share it on social media!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sea travel expanded the horizons of many European nations and created prosperity and the conditions for the Enlightenment. In turn, the Enlightenment ideals of liberty, equality, and justice helped to create the conditions for the American Revolution and the subsequent Constitution. Democracy was not created in a heartbeat.

# data[].attributes.body
Standard 1.1

# data[].attributes.body
Americans lived on this continent with little discourse

# data[].attributes.body
James k. Polk was the 11th President of the United States (1845–1849).

# data[].attributes.body
democracy... of a challenge.

# data[].attributes.body
This Site Eamples The Maga Carta And Who Was Involved !!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Magna Carta and the US Constitution - Online Library of Liberty

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Indeed, rightly to understand the constitutional and legal history of the colonies and of the United States of America, in each period of which Magna Carta plays a rôle, we should not forget that the Englishmen who settled in America in the seventeenth century inherited all the preceding ages of English history.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this powerpoint, because it talks about the expansion of power.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this website for this standard, because it goes over the two party system during Washington's presidency

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The State House in Boston was designed by Charles Bullfinch, who also designed the Capitol in Washington D.C.

The election of 1796 was the first election in American history where political candidates at the local, state, and national level began to run for office as members of organized political parties that held strongly opposed political principles.

This was a stunning new phenomenon that shocked most of the older leaders of the Revolutionary Era. Even Madison, who was one of the earliest to see the value of political parties, believed that they would only serve as temporary coalitions for specific controversial elections. The older leaders failed to understand the dynamic new conditions that had been created by the importance of popular sovereignty - democracy - to the American Revolution. The people now understood themselves as a fundamental force in legitimating government authority. In the modern American political system, voters mainly express themselves through allegiances within a competitive party system. 1796 was the first election where this defining element of modern political life began to appear.

The two parties adopted names that reflected their most cherished values. The Federalists of 1796 attached themselves to the successful campaign in favor of the Constitution and were solid supporters of the federal administration. Although Washington denounced parties as a horrid threat to the republic, his vice president John Adams became the de facto presidential candidate of the Federalists. The party had its strongest support among those who favored Hamilton's policies. Merchants, creditors and urban artisans who built the growing commercial economy of the northeast provided its most dedicated supporters and strongest regional support.

This mural, located at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., represents Thomas Jefferson's views on the necessity of education.

The opposition party adopted the name Democratic-Republicans, which suggested that they were more fully committed to extending the Revolution to ordinary people. The supporters of the Democratic-Republicans (often referred to as the Republicans) were drawn from many segments of American society and included farmers throughout the country with high popularity among German and Scots-Irish ethnic groups. Although it effectively reached ordinary citizens, its key leaders were wealthy southern tobacco elites like Jefferson and Madison. While the Democratic-Republicans were more diverse, the Federalists were wealthier and carried more prestige, especially by association with the retired Washington.

The 1796 election was waged with uncommon intensity. Federalists thought of themselves as the "friends of order" and good government. They viewed their opponents as dangerous radicals who would bring the anarchy of the French Revolution to America.

The Democratic-Republicans despised Federalist policies. According to one Republican-minded New York newspaper, the Federalists were "aristocrats, endeavoring to lay the foundations of monarchical government, and Republicans [were] the real supporters of independence, friends to equal rights, and warm advocates of free elective government."

This chart depicts the electoral vote distribution for the election of 1796. John Adams (green) edged out Thomas Jefferson (yellow) for the Presidency, with Thomas Pinckney (purple) and Aaron Burr (blue) leading the runners-up. Jefferson's second-place earned him the Vice Presidency.

Clearly there was little room for compromise in this hostile environment.

The outcome of the presidential election indicated the close balance between the two sides. New England strongly favored Adams, while Jefferson overwhelmingly carried the southern states. The key to the election lay in the mid-Atlantic colonies where party organizations were the most fully developed. Adams ended up narrowly winning in the electoral college 71 to 68. A sure sign of the great novelty of political parties was that the Constitution had established that the runner-up in the presidential election would become the vice president.

John Adams took office after a harsh campaign and narrow victory. His political opponent Jefferson served as second in command.

A History of American Agriculture: 1776-1990
A collection of timelines from the United States Department of Agriculture show the amazing rate of change in the demographics and technology of the American farm. Thomas Jefferson's hopes for an agrarian economy were ignored by the pace of change demonstrated in graphic detail by these 11 timelines. While Jefferson ran for office in 1796, 90 percent of the population were farmers. Today, farmers make up less than 3 percent of the population.

Report broken link

The Campaign and Election of 1796
The American President series presents a summary of the first American election where political parties played a part. See a chart of the candidates and the results; find out the political rationale for why the parties chose their candidates; learn strange facts that made this election unique.

Report broken link

George Washington's Farewell Address
George Washington's departure from the political scene created a political vacuum which laid the groundwork for the formation of political parties - something Washington despised. Early America offers this dusty original of Washington's farewell address, but provides a readable abstract as well. "[Political parties] ... distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration ... agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one ... against another ... it opens the door to foreign influence and corruption ..." -George Washington

Report broken link

If you like our content, please share it on social media!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The State House in Boston was designed by Charles Bullfinch, who also designed the Capitol in Washington D.C. The election of 1796 was the first election in American history where political candidates at the local, state, and national level began to run for office as members of organized political parties that held strongly opposed political principles.

# data[].attributes.body
i chose this website, because the article goes over how limited government is protected by the constitution and bill of rights including democracy, republicanism, the separation of powers, and checks and balances.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mr. Powell is editor of Laissez-Faire Books and a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. He has written for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Barron's, American Heritage, and more than three dozen other publications. Copyright © 1996 by Jim Powell.

James Madison didn't originate the idea of checks and balances for limiting government power, but he helped push it farther than anyone else before or since. Previous political thinkers, citing British experience, had talked about checks and balances with a monarch in the mix, but Madison helped apply the principle to a republic. Contrary to such respected thinkers as Baron de Montesquieu, Madison insisted checks and balances could help protect liberty in a large republic.

If one must endure a central government, it seems hard to improve on the highly sophisticated checks and balances provided in the U.S. Constitution, which reflects a good deal of Madison's handiwork. Stalwart republican Thomas Jefferson embraced it. He told Madison, his best friend: "I like much the general idea of framing a government which should go on of itself peaceably, without needing continual recurrence to the state legislatures. I like the organization of the government into Legislative, Judiciary and Executive. I like the power given the Legislature to levy taxes; and for that reason solely approve of the greater house being chosen by the people directly . . . preserving inviolate the fundamental principle that the people are not to be taxed but by representatives chosen immediately by themselves. I am captivated by the compromise of the opposite claims of the great and little states, of the latter to equal, and the former to proportional influence. . . . I like the negative given to the Executive with a third of either house. . . ."

Madison didn't have a grand vision of liberty like Jefferson, but he acquired practical insights about how to protect liberty. Madison, recalled William Pierce, a Georgia delegate to the Constitutional Convention, "blends together the profound politician, with the Scholar. In the management of every great question he evidently took the lead in the Convention, and tho' he cannot be called an Orator, he is a most agreable [sic] eloquent, and convincing Speaker. From a spirit of industry and application, which he possesses in a most imminent degree, he always comes forward the best informed Man of any point in debate . . . a Gentleman of great modesty,-with a remarkably sweet temper."

Like his compatriots from Virginia, Madison's record was stained by slavery, an inheritance he could never escape. He tried several business ventures aimed at generating adequate income without slaves, but none worked. Ultimately, he didn't even liberate his slaves upon his death, as George Washington had done.

Madison, a shy man, was perhaps the least imposing Founder. He stood less than five feet, six inches tall. He had a sharp nose and receding hairline. He suffered a variety of chronic ailments including fevers, gastrointestinal problems, and seizures. "I am too dull and infirm now," he wrote at 21, "to look out for any extraordinary things in this world for I think my sensations for many months past have intimated to me not to expect a long or healthy life." The most distracting ailment, Madison recalled much later, was "a constitutional liability to sudden attacks, somewhat resembling Epilepsy, and suspending the intellectual functions. They continued thro' life, with prolonged intervals."

But he blossomed when, at 43, he met the 26-year-old, black- haired, blue-eyed widow Dolley Payne Todd. One of her friends reported: "At Night he Dreams of you & Starts in his Sleep a Calling on you to relieve his Flame for he Burns to such an excess that he will be shortly consumed. . . ." They were married September 15, 1794, and for the next four decades were the "first couple" of republican politics, keepers of the Jeffersonian flame.

James Madison was born March 16, 1751, at his stepgrandfather's plantation on the Rappahannock River, King George County, Virginia. His ancestors had come to America not as persecuted people seeking a sanctuary but as entrepreneurs hoping to profit. He was the eldest child of Nelly Conway, a tobacco merchant's daughter. His father, James Madison Sr., was a tobacco farmer in Orange County.

Biographer Ralph Ketcham describes Madison as "a sandy-haired, bright-eyed, rather mischievous youth." He had private tutors who taught Latin, arithmetic, algebra, geometry, history, and literature. Although most Virginians considering college would have chosen William and Mary, it had a reputation as a "drinking school," and in 1769, Madison left home for the College of New Jersey, which later became Princeton University. Its library was well stocked, and included books by Scottish Enlightenment authors like Adam Smith and Adam Ferguson as well as influential works on natural rights by John Locke and John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, co-authors of the radical Cato's Letters. Madison graduated in September 1771.

Madison was drawn to current affairs. He devoured newspapers. He read more books about liberty, such as Josiah Tucker's Tracts, Philip Furneaux's Essay on Toleration, Joseph Priestley's First Principles on Government, and Thomas Paine's pamphlet Common Sense.
An Early Dedication to Liberty
On April 25, 1776, 25-year-old Madison was elected a legislator to help draft a state constitution for Virginia. Proposals came from Thomas Jefferson and Richard Henry Lee, who were in Philadelphia preparing to declare American Independence. Madison's first contribution to liberty: a measure which affirmed that "all men are equally entitled to enjoy the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the magistrate, unless the preservation of equal liberty and the existence of the State are manifestly endangered."

Madison worked with Thomas Jefferson who shared his passion for religious liberty. The two men began meeting frequently after Jefferson was elected governor of Virginia. They both loved books, ideas, and liberty, and they remained best friends for a half-century.

In 1784, Madison persuaded the Virginia legislature to enact Jefferson's "Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom." He defeated Patrick Henry's proposal that the state subsidize the Anglican church. Madison declared government money corrupts. Christianity, he noted, "flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition to them. . . ."

During these debates on religious freedom, Madison got a key idea for protecting individual rights: ". . . freedom arises from that multiplicity of sects which pervades America, and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society."

Meanwhile, in December 1779, Madison had been appointed to the Continental Congress which, meeting in Philadelphia, performed legislative, executive, and judicial functions during the Revolutionary War. The government was broke and financed the war effort with vast issues of paper money known as "continentals," which triggered ruinous runaway inflation. Madison became the most articulate advocate of an alliance with France, and he supported Benjamin Franklin who was lobbying King Louis XVI for help. Madison participated in negotiations with Spain, which controlled Louisiana, aimed at assuring vital American access to the Mississippi River.

Madison served in Congress under the Articles of Confederation, ratified March 1, 1781. It was a voluntary association of states. Congress depended on voluntary contributions, not taxes. If people in a particular state didn't approve what Congress was doing, they kept their money, and that was that. Although states squabbled with each other, they were bit players in world politics, unlikely to become entangled with foreign wars. Amending the Articles required unanimous consent-the general rules people lived by couldn't be upset easily. Voluntary cooperation worked well enough that the states defeated Britain, the world's mightiest naval power, and they negotiated tremendous territorial concessions.

Madison, however, was frustrated at what he considered the irresponsible behavior of states. He objected to their trade wars and continued paper money inflation-a result of Revolutionary War costs. Devious New Englanders tried to arrange a monopoly on codfish sales to Spain in exchange for giving up American rights on the Mississippi River, which would have devastated people in the Kentucky territory. Madison believed things would be better if Congress could function as a centralized government. Just 12 days after ratification of the Articles, he conceived the dubious doctrine of implied power: if a government agency were assigned a particular responsibility, it could assume power it considered necessary to fulfill that responsibility even if the power wasn't enumerated in a constitution.
A "Fatal Omission"?
Madison, incredibly, insisted that to be legitimate, a government must coerce people. "A sanction is essential to the idea of law, as coercion is to that of Government," he wrote in his paper Vices of the Political System of the United States (April 1787). The Confederation, he continued, "being destitute of both, wants the great vital principles of a Political Constitution. Under the form of such a constitution, it is in fact nothing more than a treaty of amity of commerce and alliance, between independent and Sovereign States." Madison called the lack of coercion "a fatal omission" in the Confederation.

On February 21, 1787, Madison and Alexander Hamilton, Washington's former assistant who believed passionately in a powerful central government, persuaded Congress to name delegates who would revise the Articles of Confederation.

Madison got George Washington to attend the National Convention, where he served as presiding officer. This meant serious business would be done, convincing distinguished citizens that they, too, should attend. Benjamin Franklin would be present as well, lending his international prestige to the gathering.

Madison arrived in Philadelphia May 3, 1787. He was to be among 55 delegates from 12 states (Rhode Island refused to send delegates). The delegates included attorneys, merchants, physicians, and plantation owners. Thirty-nine delegates had served in the Continental Congress, and they were inclined to seek more power than permitted by the Articles of Confederation.

A quorum of seven states was present by May 25th. Proceedings began on the first floor of the Pennsylvania State House. During the next four months, delegates met six days a week from late morning till early evening. Details of what went on were kept secret at the time. "I chose a seat in front of the presiding member, with the other members on my right & left," Madison recalled. "In this favorable position for hearing all that passed . . . I was not absent a single day, nor more than a cassual fraction of an hour in any day, so that I could not have lost a single speech, unless a very short one." Madison was a major influence, rising to speak 161 times through the Convention.
The Virginia Plan
Defying explicit instructions to revise the Articles of Confederation, Madison launched the debates by helping to draft the "Virginia Plan," which called for a brand-new constitution. It described a two-branch national legislature. The House would be elected directly by the people, the Senate by the House. Seats would be proportionate to population. There would be a national executive and a national judiciary, both chosen by the legislature. Madison insisted the proposed national government must be the supreme power with a "negative" over state legislatures. Large states supported this plan.

Small states rallied to the "New Jersey Plan," which aimed to revise the Articles of Confederation with a single legislative body where each state had equal representation. The "New Jersey Plan" accepted the principle that all acts of Congress "shall be the supreme law of the respective States."

The Convention stalemated on the issue of state representation, and it was referred to a committee which proposed the "Great Compromise": each state would have equal representation in the Senate, the House would be apportioned by population, and money bills would originate in the House.

As for the executive, Madison hadn't worked out his ideas before the Convention. The Committee on Detail recommended an executive who would be called "President," be elected by the legislature, serve a single seven-year term and function as commander-in-chief of armed forces. Once delegates decided that each state would have an equal number of Senators, Madison became convinced that the executive should be elected independently of the legislature. He helped draft the final proposal to have the president selected by electors whom the people choose-the "electoral college."

Madison's collaborator, Alexander Hamilton, was the most outspoken critic of democracy at the Convention. After praising Britain's hereditary monarchy, he declared: "Let one branch of the Legislature hold their places for life or at least during good behavior. Let the Executive also be for life."

Slavery was an explosive issue. If the Constitution had prohibited it, Southern states would have surely bolted the Convention. Madison successfully pressed for a clause permitting the end of the slave trade in 20 years (1808), and he kept direct support for slavery out of the Constitution. The Constitution provided that the census count slaves ("other persons") as three-fifths of a person, thereby reducing Southern representation in the House.

The final draft of the Constitution, about 5,000 words, was engrossed and signed by 38 delegates on September 17, 1787. Sixteen delegates had quit the Convention or refused to sign it at the end. It was sent to Congress which, in turn, referred it to states for ratification by conventions of elected delegates. The Constitution would be adopted upon ratification in nine states.

By eliminating state tariffs, the Constitution created a large free trade area, eventually the world's largest, which made possible America's phenomenal peacetime prosperity starting in the early nineteenth century. Entrepreneurs could travel freely without the myriad tolls, tariffs, and other obstacles that plagued business enterprise in Europe.
Checks and Balances
The Constitution attempted to limit the power of central government through intricate checks and balances. A key principle was separation of powers: those who make laws, enforce laws, and interpret laws should be substantially independent and capable of limiting each other's power. The two houses of Congress provide a check on each other. The President can veto legislation, but he can be overruled by a two-thirds majority in both houses. The judiciary can strike down laws considered unconstitutional. Proposed amendments become part of the Constitution when approved by two-thirds of Congress and by legislatures in three-quarters of the states.

Yet the Constitution did establish unprecedented government power in America. The Constitution authorized federal taxes which never existed before. It gave the federal government power to overrule elected state and local officials who were closer to the people. Control over larger territory increased the temptation for U.S. presidents to become entangled in foreign wars, which had the consequence of further expanding federal power. There's some irony here, since many people supported the Constitution because of dissatisfaction with high inflation, high taxes, and other economic consequences of the Revolutionary War.

Madison accepted Alexander Hamilton's invitation to help promote ratification in New York State. Between October 1787 and March 1788, Madison wrote 29 essays which, together with 56 more essays by Hamilton and lawyer John Jay, appeared in New York newspapers. The essays became known as The Federalist Papers. All were signed "Publius" after the Roman lawmaker Publius Valerius Publicola who helped defend the Roman republic. In July 1788, the essays were published as a two-volume book. Madison seems to have recognized that by setting up a central government, the Constitution conflicted with ideals of liberty. Not until August 1788 did he finally tell Jefferson about his collaboration: "Col. Carrington tells me he has sent you the first volume of the federalist, and adds the 2nd. by this conveyance. I believe I never have yet mentioned to you that publication."

Because the Constitution proposed to expand government power, there was substantial opposition, spearheaded by the so- called "Antifederalists." They included New York governor George Clinton, Revolutionary War organizer Samuel Adams, and Virginians George Mason and Patrick Henry. Respected pro-Constitution historians Samuel Eliot Morison, Henry Steele Commager, and William E. Leuchtenburg admitted "There is little doubt that the Antifederalists would have won a Gallup poll."

The Antifederalists presented a wide range of often conflicting points against the Constitution. Most important: the lack of a Bill of Rights. Madison considered bills of rights to be mere "parchment barriers" which an oppressive majority could easily ignore. He was convinced that liberty would be best protected in a large republic with many competing interests, where it would be difficult for a single one to oppress the others.
Bill of Rights
Jefferson made clear he opposed the Constitution without a bill of rights. For example, on December 20, 1787, he told Madison he objected to "the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury. . . ." Jefferson added: a Bill of Rights is "what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference." Madison resisted. "I have never thought the omission a material defect," he wrote Jefferson, "nor been anxious to supply it even by subsequent amendment. . . ."

Madison, however, came to realize the Constitution wouldn't gain acceptance without a bill of rights. The Constitution was ratified in Delaware (December 7, 1787), Pennsylvania (December 12th), New Jersey (December 18th), Georgia (January 2, 1788), Connecticut (January 9th), Massachusetts (February 7th), Maryland (April 28th), South Carolina (May 23rd), New Hampshire (June 21st), Virginia (June 25th), and New York (July 26th), but the Antifederalists still had some aces. They threatened to campaign for a second constitutional convention, which Madison didn't want.

Madison, elected a Congressman, became the key advocate for a bill of rights. On June 8, 1789, he rose on the House floor and presented his version. He declared: ". . . those who have been friendly to the adoption of this constitution, may have the opportunity of proving to those who were opposed to it, that they were as sincerely devoted to liberty and a republican government. . . ." Madison led the debates and parliamentary maneuvering which involved conferences between House and Senate. The House voted for the proposed Bill of Rights on September 24, 1789, and the Senate followed the next day. State legislatures ratified the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791.

Madison conceived a limited role for this new government. "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government," he explained, "are few and defined. Those . . . will be exercised principally on external aspects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. . . ."

Madison was shocked at how fast the Federalists, led by President Washington's Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, expanded central government power beyond the limits he helped set up. As early as November 1789, Madison expressed opposition to Hamilton's recommendation that the self-interest of wealthy investors should be linked to the central government by issuing bonds-running up a big national debt.

Hamilton convinced President Washington to approve the establishment of a government bank as a convenience for the government, and Madison opposed it because the Constitution didn't say anything about a bank. Indeed, the Constitutional Convention had specifically rejected a proposal that the federal government charter corporations such as a bank. Madison rejected the doctrine of implied powers which he had previously advocated during his campaign for central government. Implied powers, he declared, struck "at the very essence of the Government as composed of limited and enumerated powers."
Countering the Federalists
Madison became nearly as radical as Jefferson. Both men praised Thomas Paine's The Rights of Man (1791), a clarion call for liberty which alarmed the Federalists. Hamilton unleashed nasty attacks against Jefferson in Philadelphia newspapers, and Madison together with James Monroe wrote counterattacks. Madison denounced Hamilton's view that the President should have considerable discretionary power to conduct foreign policy, even if it undermines Congressional power to declare war. In 1793, Madison spoke out against the military build-up sought by the Federalists. Three years later, Federalists wanted to suppress American societies sympathetic to the French Revolution, but Madison insisted they were innocent until proven guilty of some crime. Federalists warned that aliens posed grave dangers, while Madison introduced a bill which made it easier for aliens to become American citizens. Madison resisted Federalist demands for higher taxes. He denounced the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798), which empowered the government to silence, even deport critics. His was a crucial, courageous voice during the Federalist assault on liberty.

Jefferson won the 1800 presidential election, turning the Federalists out, and Madison became Secretary of State for two terms. Then Madison won the presidency twice himself. These years were marked by frustration as he groped for a way to discourage the warring British and French from seizing American merchant ships. He pursued an embargo which backfired, devastating American port cities. He stumbled into the War of 1812, and the British torched Washington, D.C.-retaliation against the United States, which had torched Toronto. Demands of wartime finance spurred Madison to ask for higher taxes and a second government bank, since the term of Hamilton's bank had expired. Madison was vindicated on one point, though. He relied on volunteers, not conscripts, and it was American privateers who ravaged the British coastline, forcing the British government to negotiate peace. London merchants couldn't even get maritime insurance between Britain and Ireland.

Despite his inconsistencies, Madison outlived all the other Founders and continued expressing the ideals of republican liberty. As Jefferson wrote in his most poignant letter, February 17, 1826: "The friendship which has subsisted between us, now half a century, and the harmony of our political principles and pursuits, have been sources of constant happiness to me. . . . It has also been a great solace to me, to believe that you are engaged in vindicating to posterity the course we have pursued for preserving to them, in all their purity, the blessings of self-government. . . . To myself you have been a pillar of support through life. Take care of me when dead, and be assured that I shall leave with you my last affections."

Madison's time came a decade later when, in early 1836, he began suffering from chronic fevers, fatigue, and shortness of breath. On June 27th, Madison wrote his final words, about his friendship with Jefferson. During breakfast the next day, he suddenly slumped over and died. He was buried in the family plot a half-mile south of his house.

For all their flaws, constitutional checks and balances endure as the most effective means ever devised for limiting government-a tribute to the insight, industry, and devotion of James Madison.

Jim Powell, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is an expert in the history of liberty. He has lectured in England, Germany, Japan, Argentina and Brazil as well as at Harvard, Stanford and other universities across the United States. He has written for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Esquire, Audacity/American Heritage and other publications, and is author of six books.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
James Madison-Checks and Balances to Limit Government Power | Jim Powell

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
James Madison didn't originate the idea of checks and balances for limiting government power, but he helped push it farther than anyone else before or since. Previous political thinkers, citing British experience, had talked about checks and balances with a monarch in the mix, but Madison helped apply the principle to a republic.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this website, because it analyzes the dissatisfactions about the government under the articles of confederation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By submitting your information you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time.

# data[].attributes.body
turnpike roads

# data[].attributes.body
Goes into detail about the judicial review and how it gave more power to the national government.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On this day in 1803, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, decides the landmark case of William Marbury versus James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States and confirms the legal principle of judicial review-the ability of the Supreme Court to limit Congressional power by declaring legislation unconstitutional-in the new nation.

The court ruled that the new president, Thomas Jefferson, via his secretary of state, James Madison, was wrong to prevent William Marbury from taking office as justice of the peace for Washington County in the District of Columbia. However, it also ruled that the court had no jurisdiction in the case and could not force Jefferson and Madison to seat Marbury. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court jurisdiction, but the Marshall court ruled the Act of 1789 to be an unconstitutional extension of judiciary power into the realm of the executive.

In writing the decision, John Marshall argued that acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution are not law and therefore are non-binding to the courts, and that the judiciary's first responsibility is always to uphold the Constitution. If two laws conflict, Marshall wrote, the court bears responsibility for deciding which law applies in any given case. Thus, Marbury never received his job.

Jefferson and Madison objected to Marbury's appointment and those of all the so-called "midnight judges" appointed by the previous president, John Adams, after Jefferson was elected but mere hours before he took office. To further aggravate the new Democratic-Republican administration, many of these Federalist judges-although Marbury was not one of them-were taking the bench in new courts formed by the Judiciary Act, which the lame-duck Federalist Congress passed on February 13, 1801, less than a month before Jefferson's inauguration on March 4.

As part of the "Revolution of 1800," President Thomas Jefferson and his Democratic-Republican followers launched a series of attacks against the Federalist-controlled courts. The new Democratic-Republican-controlled Congress easily eliminated most of the midnight judges by repealing the Judiciary Act in 1802. They impeached Supreme Court justice Samuel Chase, but acquitted him amidst inner-party squabbles. The Chase acquittal coupled with Marshall's impeccably argued decision put an end to the Jeffersonian attack.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Marbury v. Madison establishes judicial review - Feb 24, 1803 - HISTORY.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On this day in 1803, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, decides the landmark case of William Marbury versus James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States and confirms the legal principle of judicial review-the ability of the Supreme Court to limit Congressional power by declaring legislation unconstitutional-in the new nation.

# data[].attributes.body
This shows who own the colonies.

# data[].attributes.body
This link shows the expansion of the power in the national government after the Marbury v. Madison

# data[].attributes.body
This website goes into detail about the development of the two parties through taxes, constitution interpretation ect..

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Development of the Two-party System - AP U.S. History Topic Outlines - Study Notes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
100% Free AP Test Prep website that offers study material to high school students seeking to prepare for AP exams. Enterprising students use this website to learn AP class material, study for class quizzes and tests, and to brush up on course material before the big exam day.

# data[].attributes.body
Standard 1.7 this website explains  expansion of the power of the national government as a result of Supreme Court decisions under Chief Justice John Marshall, such as the establishment of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison and the impact of political party affiliation on the Court.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Activity 1. What does Article III say?

This case is all about the power of the Supreme Court as outlined in the Constitution in relationship to the other two branches. So what does the Constitution say is the job of the Supreme Court? Students will read Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution and then, using the PDF, students will "explain" what they believe to be the job of the Supreme Court as defined in the Constitution. Leave time for discussion to ensure these questions are answered:

What is the job of the Supreme Court as described in Article III?

Is there any indication in this section that the Supreme Court has the "right" or "responsibility" to determine whether laws are constitutional-meaning whether they violate or go against what is written in the Constitution?

Is there any reference to the term "judicial review" in the Constitution?

Does Article III establish the limits of the Court's powers?

Activity 2. Marbury v. Madison

Students should read this short background piece about Marbury v. Madison to get an overview of the details and complexities of the case. The teacher should pose these questions to students to ensure understanding of the background reading:

What was William Marbury's complaint and how did it arise?

What did Marbury hope to achieve by suing Secretary of State James Madison?

Who "won" the case?

What did this decision say about the role of the Supreme Court? Why is it still relevant to us today?

Activity 3. John Marshall's Opinion

What did John Marshall write about the power of the Supreme Court in the actual decision? In groups, with partners, or alone, students will do a close textual analysis of excerpts of the decision to understand Marshall's argument. They may use class time or analyze these excerpts as homework; a final discussion in-class will check students' understanding and sum up.
Part 1: What is the relationship of the Constitution to ordinary laws? Students will read these paragraphs, and using the worksheet, explain Marshall's point of view on this question. Teachers may want to explore the differences between a Constitution and statutory law, at this time, if it is something with which their students are not familiar.
Excerpted from Marbury v. Madison:

The authority, therefore, given to the Supreme Court by the act establishing the judicial courts of the United States to issue writs of mandamus to public officers appears not to be warranted by the Constitution, and it becomes necessary to inquire whether a jurisdiction so conferred can be exercised.

The question whether an act repugnant to the Constitution can become the law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States, but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.

That the people have an original right to establish for their future government such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

This original and supreme will organizes the government and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments. The Government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it, or that the Legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.

This theory is essentially attached to a written Constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this Court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not, therefore, to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.

If an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the Courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory, and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration."

Part II: What is the job of the Supreme Court in cases where a law passed by Congress contradicts/violates part of the Constitution? Using the PDF, students will rewrite each paragraph of this section, and then summarize what Marshall is saying.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If, then, the courts are to regard the constitution, and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that the courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions - a written constitution - would of itself be sufficient, in America, where written constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.

The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution.

Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that in using it the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?

This is too extravagant to be maintained....

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

Part III: Once students have analyzed the excerpts, the teacher should lead a discussion to ensure that ALL students have grasped the scope and significance of Marshall's decision.
Teachers may want to consider these questions, among others:

First excerpt:

What has supremacy-the Constitution or ordinary laws?

How does the Constitution limit the power of legislative bodies?

Why is this limitation so important, in Marshall's view?

What would happen if the Constitution and "ordinary legislative acts" were on equal footing?

Second excerpt:

What does Marshall mean when he writes, "it is the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is"?

Why is this so fundamentally important to this case?

How does his reasoning in Part II support the theoretical foundation he established in Part I?

Activity 4. Alexander Hamilton on Judicial Review

Did Marshall's ideas about judicial review have support from other Founders? Students will read a short portion of Alexander Hamilton's views in Federalist #78, to see what he thought of Judicial Review. As another option, teachers may want their students to read Federalist #78 in its entirety, which can be found at this site.

Activity 5. Marshall's Later Defense of Judicial Review

At the time the decision in Marbury v. Madison was made and since then, opponents have challenged the Supreme Court's power to interpret the Constitution. In 1823, Marshall answered one of his critics, Senator Richard M. Johnson, who thought it should take more than a simple majority of the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
revolution and the new nation (1754-1820s)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
making inferences and drawing conclusions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, and Judicial Review-How the Court Became Supreme | EDSITEment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If James Madison was the "father" of the Constitution" John Marshall was the "father of the Supreme Court"-almost single-handedly clarifying its powers. This new lesson is designed to help students understand Marshall's brilliant strategy in issuing his decision on Marbury v.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this website because it shows the impact of the declaration of independence and the American revolution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sea travel expanded the horizons of many European nations and created prosperity and the conditions for the Enlightenment. In turn, the Enlightenment ideals of liberty, equality, and justice helped to create the conditions for the American Revolution and the subsequent Constitution.

Democracy was not created in a heartbeat. In a world where people were ruled by monarchs from above, the idea of self-government is entirely alien. Democracy takes practice and wisdom from experience.

The American colonies began developing a democratic tradition during their earliest stages of development. Over 150 years later, the colonists believed their experience was great enough to refuse to recognize the British king. The first decade was rocky. The American Revolution and the domestic instability that followed prompted a call for a new type of government with a constitution to guarantee liberty. The constitution drafted in the early days of the independent American republic has endured longer than any in human history.

Where did this democratic tradition truly begin? The ideas and practices that led to the development of the American democratic republic owe a debt to the ancient civilizations of Greece and Rome, the Protestant Reformation, and Gutenberg's printing press. But the Enlightenment of 17th-century Europe had the most immediate impact on the framers of the United States Constitution.

The Philosophes

Europeans of the 17th century no longer lived in the "darkness" of the Middle Ages. Ocean voyages had put them in touch with many world civilizations, and trade had created a prosperous middle class. The Protestant Reformation encouraged free thinkers to question the practices of the Catholic Church, and the printing press spread the new ideas relatively quickly and easily. The time was ripe for the philosophes , scholars who promoted democracy and justice through discussions of individual liberty and equality.

The ideas of 18th-century philosophes inspired the Founding Fathers to revolt against what they perceived as unfair British taxation. Washington Crossing the Delaware is one of the most famous depictions of the American Revolution.

One of the first philosophes was Thomas Hobbes, an Englishman who concluded in his famous book, Leviathan, that people are incapable of ruling themselves, primarily because humans are naturally self-centered and quarrelsome and need the iron fist of a strong leader. Later philosophes, like Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Rousseau were more optimistic about democracy. Their ideas encouraged the questioning of absolute monarchs, like the Bourbon family that ruled France. Montesquieu suggested a separation of powers into branches of government not unlike the system Americans would later adopt. They found eager students who later became the founders of the American government.

John Locke

The single most important influence that shaped the founding of the United States comes from John Locke, a 17th century Englishman who redefined the nature of government. Although he agreed with Hobbes regarding the self-interested nature of humans, he was much more optimistic about their ability to use reason to avoid tyranny. In his Second Treatise of Government, Locke identified the basis of a legitimate government. According to Locke, a ruler gains authority through the consent of the governed. The duty of that government is to protect the natural rights of the people, which Locke believed to include life, liberty, and property. If the government should fail to protect these rights, its citizens would have the right to overthrow that government. This idea deeply influenced Thomas Jefferson as he drafted the Declaration of Independence.

Important English Documents

Ironically, the English political system provided the grist for the revolt of its own American colonies. For many centuries English monarchs had allowed restrictions to be placed on their ultimate power. The Magna Carta, written in 1215, established the kernel of limited government, or the belief that the monarch's rule was not absolute. Although the document only forced King John to consult nobles before he made arbitrary decisions like passing taxes, the Magna Carta provided the basis for the later development of Parliament. Over the years, representative government led by a Prime Minister came to control and eventually replace the king as the real source of power in Britain.

The ideas of the French Enlightenment philosophes strongly influenced the American revolutionaries. French intellectuals met in salons like this one to exchange ideas and define their ideals such as liberty, equality, and justice.

The Petition of Right (1628) extended the rights of "commoners" to have a voice in the government. The English Bill of Rights (1688) guaranteed free elections and rights for citizens accused of crime. Although King George III still had some real power in 1776, Britain was already well along on the path of democracy by that time.

The foundations of American government lie squarely in the 17th and 18th century European Enlightenment. The American founders were well versed in the writings of the philosophes, whose ideas influenced the shaping of the new country. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, and others took the brave steps of creating a government based on the Enlightenment values of liberty, equality, and a new form of justice. More than 200 years later, that government is still intact.

Thomas Hobbes
Thomas Hobbes said that humans are savages who need a strong leader to tell them what to do. Hard to believe he was just a stuffed orange cat.

Report broken link

If you like our content, please share it on social media!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sea travel expanded the horizons of many European nations and created prosperity and the conditions for the Enlightenment. In turn, the Enlightenment ideals of liberty, equality, and justice helped to create the conditions for the American Revolution and the subsequent Constitution. Democracy was not created in a heartbeat.

# data[].attributes.body
This website explains how the fundamental principle of limited government
protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, including democracy, republicanism, federalism, the separation of powers, the system of checks and balances, and individual rights.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
STANDARD CE.2a Fundamental Political Principles that Shaped our Government

# data[].attributes.body
Standard 1.7 -
I chose this website because it explains everything about Chief Justice Marshall.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
John Marshall | chief justice of United States

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
John Marshall: John Marshall, fourth chief justice of the United States and principal founder of the U.S. system of constitutional law. As perhaps the Supreme Court's most influential chief justice, Marshall was responsible for constructing and defending both the foundation of judicial power and the principles of

# data[].attributes.body
Standard 1.6 this website explains the development of the two-party system during the presidency of George Washington, including controversies over domestic and foreign policies and the regional interest of
the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Development of the Two-party System - AP U.S. History Topic Outlines - Study Notes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
100% Free AP Test Prep website that offers study material to high school students seeking to prepare for AP exams. Enterprising students use this website to learn AP class material, study for class quizzes and tests, and to brush up on course material before the big exam day.

# data[].attributes.body
Standard 1.6 - I chose this picture because it has to do with the 2 party system.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this because it talks about the constitution and names all the amendments. These keep some of the power in the people which limits the governments

# data[].attributes.body
This goes over how the two party system developed during the presidency of George Washington

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Development of the Two-party System - AP U.S. History Topic Outlines - Study Notes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
100% Free AP Test Prep website that offers study material to high school students seeking to prepare for AP exams. Enterprising students use this website to learn AP class material, study for class quizzes and tests, and to brush up on course material before the big exam day.

# data[].attributes.body
This website analyzes how dissatisfactions with the government under the Articles of Confederation were addressed with the writing of the Constitution of 1787. (Icluding the debates and compromises)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1.4- Articles of Confederation
Analyze how dissatisfactions with the government under the Articles of Confederation were addressed with the writing of the Constitution of 1787, including the debates and compromises reached at the Philadelphia Convention and the ratification of the Constitution.
Shay's Rebellion
&
Philadelphia Compromise
Shay's Rebellion frightened many of the elite which prompted their support for a better and stronger national government
The Philadelphia Compromise came about when there was no money to pay for an army; which led to the creation of the new constitution
During the Philadelphia Convention, a judicial branch was formed for the government; establishing the right to resolve disputes between states
The Confederation could not force the British government off the frontier of American soil.
Slave trade was illegal the year of 1808 after 20 years to attempt to do so by the federal government.
The confederation government had a weak point was the fact that they had a lack of power to solve national problems;the framers of the constitution soon made three branches :Executive,Judicial,and Legislative, and they being afraid that the Executive may become too strong they applied checks and balances to limit each of their power.

Voting during the Article of Confederations Era
Each state had two votes in the senate and each state was represented in the house of representatives by the population of the states not including slaves.

in 1787 the United States Constitutional Convention called for the 3/5ths compromise which allowed 3/5 of the slave population in the south to be counted as people in rights for population which let more representatives come from southern colonies.

Since the Framers believed in "no taxation without representation" The House of Representatives was given the right to initiate tax measures and therefore Representatives should be directly elected by the voters of their states.

An electoral college was also created so the the popular will of the election of the president

Articles of Confederation & Confederation Government

The Articles of Confederation were created to protect the rights that were won during the war, but didn't meet the needs of the nation
The new government was delayed when big and small states such as New York and Maryland argued over land claims

The Confederation government established a method known as Land Ordinance; and set the creation of the Northwest Ordinance
Northwest Ordinance declared slavery illegal in the old Northwest Territory
After the Treaty of Paris, Americans found that the Confederation government was too weak to fit the growing needs of the nation
1.4 Articles of confederation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Rebellion & Philadelphia Compromise Shay

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Articles of Confederation & Confederation Government The Articles of Confederation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
1.4- Articles of ConfederationAnalyze how dissatisfactions with the government under the Articles of Confederation were addressed with the writing of the Constitution of 1787, including the debates and compromises reached at the Philadelphia Convention and the ratification of the Constitution.Shay's Rebellion&Philadelphia CompromiseShay's Rebellion frightened many of the elite which prompted

# data[].attributes.body
Standard 1.3 - I chose this website because it's all about the Declaration of Independence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
These three documents, known collectively as the Charters of Freedom, have secured the rights of the American people for more than two and a quarter centuries and are considered instrumental to the founding and philosophy of the United States.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These three documents, known collectively as the Charters of Freedom, have secured the rights of the American people for more than two and a quarter centuries and are considered instrumental to the founding and philosophy of the United States.

# data[].attributes.body
Standard 1.5 this website explains how the fundamental principle of limited government is
protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, including democracy, republicanism, federalism, the separation of powers, the system of checks and balances, and individual rights.

# data[].attributes.body
This article goes over how the Constitution protected the idea of limited government.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The document, which introduced the idea of limited government in England, was:(Points : 2) The Bill of Rights The Magna Carta The Constitution The Petition of Right

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The document, which introduced the idea of limited government in England, was:(Points : 2) The Bill of Rights The Magna Carta The Constitution The Petition of Right

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this site for standard 1.2 because it shows in bullet points/note form about everything that needs to be known for this standard.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Copy of USHC 1-2 early development of representative government and political rights in American Colonies

# data[].attributes.body
This website is a good website because it goes into detail about the issues there where and exactly what compromises they used to settle the issues and in also goes into details about them which eventually leads to the ratification of the constitution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SparkNotes: The Founding and the Constitution: The Constitutional Convention

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A summary of The Constitutional Convention in 's The Founding and the Constitution. Learn exactly what happened in this chapter, scene, or section of The Founding and the Constitution and what it means. Perfect for acing essays, tests, and quizzes, as well as for writing lesson plans.

# data[].attributes.body
Standard 1.5 -

# data[].attributes.body
Standard 1.4 -
I chose this because it's about the ratification of the constitution .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Background

On September 17, 1787, a majority of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention approved the documents over which they had labored since May. After a farewell banquet, delegates swiftly returned to their homes to organize support, most for but some against the proposed charter. Before the Constitution could become the law of the land, it would have to withstand public scrutiny and debate. The document was "laid before the United States in Congress assembled" on September 20. For 2 days, September 26 and 27, Congress debated whether to censure the delegates to the Constitutional Convention for exceeding their authority by creating a new form of government instead of simply revising the Articles of Confederation. They decided to drop the matter. Instead, on September 28, Congress directed the state legislatures to call ratification conventions in each state. Article VII stipulated that nine states had to ratify the Constitution for it to go into effect.

Beyond the legal requirements for ratification, the state conventions fulfilled other purposes. The Constitution had been produced in strictest secrecy during the Philadelphia convention. The ratifying conventions served the necessary function of informing the public of the provisions of the proposed new government. They also served as forums for proponents and opponents to articulate their ideas before the citizenry. Significantly, state conventions, not Congress, were the agents of ratification. This approach insured that the Constitution's authority came from representatives of the people specifically elected for the purpose of approving or disapproving the charter, resulting in a more accurate reflection of the will of the electorate. Also, by bypassing debate in the state legislatures, the Constitution avoided disabling amendments that states, jealous of yielding authority to a national government, would likely have attached.

Ratification was not a foregone conclusion. Able, articulate men used newspapers, pamphlets, and public meetings to debate ratification of the Constitution. Those known as Antifederalists opposed the Constitution for a variety of reasons. Some continued to argue that the delegates in Philadelphia had exceeded their congressional authority by replacing the Articles of Confederation with an illegal new document. Others complained that the delegates in Philadelphia represented only the well-born few and consequently had crafted a document that served their special interests and reserved the franchise for the propertied classes. Another frequent objection was that the Constitution gave too much power to the central government at the expense of the states and that a representative government could not manage a republic this large. The most serious criticism was that the Constitutional Convention had failed to adopt a bill of rights proposed by George Mason. In New York, Governor George Clinton expressed these Antifederalist concerns in several published newspaper essays under the pen name Cato, while Patrick Henry and James Monroe led the opposition in Virginia.

Those who favored ratification, the Federalists, fought back, convinced that rejection of the Constitution would result in anarchy and civil strife. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay responded to Clinton under the pen name Publius. Beginning in October 1787, these three penned 85 essays for New York newspapers and later collected them into 2 volumes entitled The Federalist, which analyzed the Constitution, detailed the thinking of the framers, and responded to the Antifederalist critics.

They successfully countered most criticism. As for the lack of a bill of rights, Federalists argued that a catalogued list might be incomplete and that the national government was so constrained by the Constitution that it posed no threat to the rights of citizens. Ultimately, during the ratification debate in Virginia, Madison conceded that a bill of rights was needed, and the Federalists assured the public that the first step of the new government would be to adopt a bill of rights.

It took 10 months for the first nine states to approve the Constitution. The first state to ratify was Delaware, on December 7, 1787, by a unanimous vote, 30 - 0. The featured document is an endorsed ratification of the federal Constitution by the Delaware convention. The names of the state deputies are listed, probably in the hand of a clerk. The signature of the President of Delaware's convention, Thomas Collins, attests to the validity of the document, which also carries the state seal in its left margin. Delaware's speediness thwarted Pennsylvania's attempt to be first to ratify in the hope of securing the seat of the National Government in Pennsylvania.

The first real test for ratification occurred in Massachusetts, where the fully recorded debates reveal that the recommendation for a bill of rights proved to be a remedy for the logjam in the ratifying convention. New Hampshire became the ninth state to approve the Constitution in June, but the key States of Virginia and New York were locked in bitter debates. Their failure to ratify would reduce the new union by two large, populated, wealthy states, and would geographically splinter it. The Federalists prevailed, however, and Virginia and New York narrowly approved the Constitution. When a bill of rights was proposed in Congress in 1789, North Carolina ratified the Constitution. Finally, Rhode Island, which had rejected the Constitution in March 1788 by popular referendum, called a ratifying convention in 1790 as specified by the Constitutional Convention. Faced with threatened treatment as a foreign government, it ratified the Constitution by the narrowest margin (two votes) on May 29, 1790.

The Document

Click to Enlarge

Read the Transcription

National Archives and Records Administration
General Records of the U.S. Government
Record Group 11

Lesson Resources

Standards Correlations

Teaching Activities

Document Analysis Worksheet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On September 17, 1787, a majority of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention approved the documents over which they had labored since May. After a farewell banquet, delegates swiftly returned to their homes to organize support, most for but some against the proposed charter.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this website because it really goes into what the declaration did to the minds of the people in the U.S. It goes into about the idea that a ll men are created equal and Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Declaration of Independence gave birth to what is known today as the United States of America. The document is symbolic of American democracy and one of the free charters of freedom. The words stated in the Declaration rallied support from colonists at home, and colonists living abroad. The effects of the Declaration of Independence today can be seen and felt within the United States of America and also among many foreign nations.
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness
The Declaration of Independence gave birth to many other freedoms in the United States of America that may never have even been intended. One of the more immediate effects felt by the Declaration of Independence was the Emancipation of black slaves. Some say that Abraham Lincoln interpreted the Declaration in his own way and understanding. Some say he was inspired to do so. Either way, it brought about the Emancipation Proclamation which gave black slaves their freedom. Abraham Lincoln certainly took literally the statement from the Declaration, "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."? The American dream put in a nut shell
All Men are Created Equal
The Declaration of Independence also paved the way and created equality among all men and women. Today we can see the effects of the first sentence written in the Preamble: We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal."? Throughout history we have seen so many different changes, from freedom of slaves, to equality among men and women. Today moreso than in the past, women have been given every opportunity that men are now given and are truly equal among men.

The Declaration of Independence had a profound effect upon the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. The Declaration, it seems, may have ignited the fire under which the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were written. The Declaration is in large part a summary of what the Bill of Rights stands for. The Bill of Rights in the United States is the name by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known. While the Declaration offered independence from Britain and made general statements, the Bill of Rights offers conclusive and specific rights and laws, from freedom of speech, press and religion, to the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom of assembly; the freedom to petition; prohibits unreasonable search and seizure; cruel and unusual punishment; and compelled self-incrimination. The first ten amendments are truly and expansion on what the first fifty six signers of the Declaration had written.
Effects among foreign nations
The Declaration of Independence has also left lasting effects upon other foreign nations, including the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, and the Declaration of Independence for the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. The French Declaration is one of the fundamental documents of the French Revolution and defines a set of individual and collective rights of all of the estates as one. The First article states, "men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinction may be founded only upon the general good."? The principles in the French Declaration are still set forth today.

The Declaration of Independence has left its effects not just in the small and large details of the United States of America, but also in the details of other foreign countries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Effects of the Declaration of Independence " Independence Day " Surfnetkids

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Declaration of Independence gave birth to what is known today as the United States of America. The document is symbolic of American democracy and one of the free charters of freedom. The words stated in the Declaration rallied support from colonists at home, and colonists living abroad.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this image of the Magna Carta because the Magna Carter is the first attempt at a structured government. It a cornerstone in American history. This was the first development of political rights and a representative government.

# data[].attributes.body
This website analyzes the Declaration Independence and the American Revolution establishing ideas of a democratic republic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
From an early age many of us are aware of the importance of the Fourth of July. How could we miss how important it is with all the fireworks and barbecues and elaborate decorations? But when we are young we don't fully grasp the concept of Independence Day. When we start school we are taught about the Declaration of Independence and the important role that it plays for our country. By the time we finish elementary school we can tell you who wrote the Declaration of Independence and what it actually stood for, but what we don't know is why the Declaration of Independence is so significant to everybody.

One thing that many kids don't realize is that the Declaration of Independence was important to other countries besides the United States. By our founding fathers bravery we became a role model for other countries who were experiencing things similar to what the colonists were suffering from with England and King George III. In fact shortly after we gained our independence France revolted against King Louis XVI to gain their independence in a sense.

The Declaration of Independence has great significance to the American people because it is what led to our independence from King George III. The Declaration of Independence justified our right to revolt against a government that no longer guaranteed us our natural rights. And it also helped us to get increased foreign assistance from France in our fight to become free from King George III of England. The Declaration of Independence stated certain ideals that the colonists believed were important for man to have, such as liberty and equality.

Not only did the Declaration of Independence give us the right to go to war against England to obtain our freedom, but the Declaration of Independence also listed what the colonists thought was wrong of England to do. It gave a voice to their list of grievances. Prior to the American Revolution, England had passed a series of Acts known in history as the Intolerable Acts. These acts were in part a major cause of the American Revolution because they were written and passed to give England complete control over the thirteen colonies. Some of the acts that were passed included the Tea Tax, the Stamp Act, the Quartering Act, as well as many others. England even required that revenue be returned to England that was made in the colonies, thus trying to prevent the colonies from being self-sufficient. Because England was trying to control everything, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, the Sons of Liberty, and a few others tried to convince the colonists that England was being a tyrant and the colonists did not have to put up with it.

The Declaration also includes the following quote "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."? So the Declaration of Independence was a way of telling the colonists that they were entitled to certain things and that the actions England was taking was proof enough that England did not believe everybody was created equal or that they have the right to be happy.

The Declaration also plays a significant role in our world today and in recent history. It is because of the words in that document that women are now treated the same as men and that all races are treated equally. Without the words of our founding fathers some of the civil rights that have been passed might never have come to light. That is why the Declaration of Independence is so significant to everyone.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Significance of the Declaration of Independence " Independence Day " Surfnetkids

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From an early age many of us are aware of the importance of the Fourth of July. How could we miss how important it is with all the fireworks and barbecues and elaborate decorations? But when we are young we don't fully grasp the concept of Independence Day.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that this properly covers 1.4

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was an agreement among the 13 original states of the United States of America that served as its first constitution. It was approved, after much debate (between July 1776 and November 1777), by the Second Continental Congress on November 15, 1777, and sent to the states for ratification. The Articles of Confederation came into force on March 1, 1781, after being ratified by all 13 states. A guiding principle of the Articles was to preserve the independence and sovereignty of the states. The weak central government established by the Articles received only those powers which the former colonies had recognized as belonging to king and parliament.

The document provided clearly written rules for how the states' "league of friendship" would be organized. During the ratification process, the Congress looked to the Articles for guidance as it conducted business, directing the war effort, conducting diplomacy with foreign states, addressing territorial issues and dealing with Native American relations. Little changed politically once the Articles of Confederation went into effect, as ratification did little more than legalize what the Continental Congress had been doing. That body was renamed the Congress of the Confederation; but most Americans continued to call it the Continental Congress, since its organization remained the same.

As the Confederation Congress attempted to govern the continually growing American states, delegates discovered that the limitations placed upon the central government rendered it ineffective at doing so. As the government's weaknesses became apparent, especially after Shays' Rebellion, some prominent political thinkers in the fledgling union began asking for changes to the Articles. Their hope was to create a stronger government. Initially, some states met to deal with their trade and economic problems. However, as more states became interested in meeting to change the Articles, a meeting was set in Philadelphia on May 25, 1787. This became the Constitutional Convention. It was quickly agreed that changes would not work, and instead the entire Articles needed to be replaced. On March 4, 1789, the government under the Articles was replaced with the federal government under the Constitution. The new Constitution provided for a much stronger federal government by establishing a chief executive (the President), courts, and taxing powers.

Background and context

The political push to increase cooperation among the then-loyal colonies began with the Albany Congress in 1754 and Benjamin Franklin's proposed Albany Plan, an inter-colonial collaboration to help solve mutual local problems. Over the next two decades, some of the basic concepts it addressed would strengthen; others would weaken, especially in the degree of loyalty (or lack thereof) owed the Crown. Civil disobedience resulted in coercive and quelling measures, such as the passage of what the colonials referred to as the Intolerable Acts in the British Parliament, and armed skirmishes which resulted in dissidents being proclaimed rebels. These actions eroded the number of Crown Loyalists ( Tories) among the colonials and, together with the highly effective propaganda campaign of the Patriot leaders, caused an increasing number of colonists to begin agitating for independence from the mother country. In 1775, with events outpacing communications, the Second Continental Congress began acting as the provisional government.

To transform themselves from outlaws into a legitimate nation, the colonists needed international recognition for their cause and foreign allies to support it. In early 1776, Thomas Paine argued in the closing pages of the first edition of Common Sense that the "custom of nations" demanded a formal declaration of American independence if any European power were to mediate a peace between the Americans and Great Britain. The monarchies of France and Spain, in particular, could not be expected to aid those they considered rebels against another legitimate monarch. Foreign courts needed to have American grievances laid before them persuasively in a "manifesto" which could also reassure them that the Americans would be reliable trading partners. Without such a declaration, Paine concluded, "[t]he custom of all courts is against us, and will be so, until, by an independence, we take rank with other nations."

Beyond improving their existing association, the records of the Second Continental Congress show that the need for a declaration of independence was intimately linked with the demands of international relations. On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee introduced a resolution before the Continental Congress declaring the colonies independent; at the same time, he also urged Congress to resolve "to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances" and to prepare a plan of confederation for the newly independent states. Congress then created three overlapping committees to draft the Declaration, a model treaty, and the Articles of Confederation. The Declaration announced the states' entry into the international system; the model treaty was designed to establish amity and commerce with other states; and the Articles of Confederation, which established "a firm league" among the thirteen free and independent states, constituted an international agreement to set up central institutions for the conduct of vital domestic and foreign affairs.

On June 12, 1776, a day after appointing a committee to prepare a draft of the Declaration of Independence, the Second Continental Congress resolved to appoint a committee of 13 to prepare a draft of a constitution for a union of the states. The committee met frequently, and chairman John Dickinson presented their results to the Congress on July 12, 1776. Afterward, there were long debates on such issues as state sovereignty, the exact powers to be given to Congress, whether to have a judiciary, western land claims and voting procedures. To further complicate work on the constitution, Congress was forced to leave Philadelphia twice, for Baltimore, Maryland, in the winter of 1776, and later for Lancaster then York, Pennsylvania, in the fall of 1777, to evade advancing British troops. Even so, the committee continued with its work.

The final draft of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was completed on November 15, 1777. Consensus was achieved by: including language guaranteeing that each state retained its sovereignty, leaving the matter of western land claims in the hands of the individual states, including language stating that votes in Congress would be en bloc by state, and establishing a unicameral legislature with limited and clearly delineated powers.

Ratification

The Articles of Confederation was submitted to the states for ratification in late November 1777. The first state to ratify was Virginia on December 16, 1777; 12 states had ratified the Articles by February 1779, 14 months into the process. The lone holdout, Maryland, refused to go along until the landed states, especially Virginia, had indicated they were prepared to cede their claims west of the Ohio River to the Union. It would be two years before the Maryland General Assembly became satisfied that the various states would follow through, and voted to ratify. During this time, Congress observed the Articles as its de facto frame of government. Maryland finally ratified the Articles on February 2, 1781. Congress was informed of Maryland's assent on March 1, and officially proclaimed the Articles of Confederation to be the law of the land.

The several states ratified the Articles of Confederation on the following dates:

Article summaries

The Articles of Confederation contain a preamble, thirteen articles, a conclusion, and a signatory section. The individual articles set the rules for current and future operations of the confederation's central government. Under the Articles, the states retained sovereignty over all governmental functions not specifically relinquished to the national Congress, which was empowered to make war and peace, negotiate diplomatic and commercial agreements with foreign countries, and to resolve disputes between the states. The document also stipulates that its provisions "shall be inviolably observed by every state" and that " the Union shall be perpetual".

Summary of the purpose and content of each of the 13 articles:

1. Establishes the name of the confederation with these words: "The stile of this confederacy shall be 'The United States of America.'"

2. Asserts the sovereignty of each state, except for the specific powers delegated to the confederation government: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated."

3. Declares the purpose of the confederation: "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever."

4. Elaborates upon the intent "to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this union," and to establish equal treatment and freedom of movement for the free inhabitants of each state to pass unhindered between the states, excluding "paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice." All these people are entitled to equal rights established by the state into which they travel. If a crime is committed in one state and the perpetrator flees to another state, he will be extradited to and tried in the state in which the crime was committed.

5. Allocates one vote in the Congress of the Confederation (the "United States in Congress Assembled") to each state, which is entitled to a delegation of between two and seven members. Members of Congress are to be appointed by state legislatures. No congressman may serve more than three out of any six years.

6. Only the central government may declare war, or conduct foreign political or commercial relations. No state or official may accept foreign gifts or titles, and granting any title of nobility is forbidden to all. No states may form any sub-national groups. No state may tax or interfere with treaty stipulations already proposed. No state may wage war without permission of Congress, unless invaded or under imminent attack on the frontier; no state may maintain a peacetime standing army or navy, unless infested by pirates, but every State is required to keep ready, a well-trained, disciplined, and equipped militia.

7. Whenever an army is raised for common defense, the state legislatures shall assign military ranks of colonel and below.

8. Expenditures by the United States of America will be paid with funds raised by state legislatures, and apportioned to the states in proportion to the real property values of each.

9. Powers and functions of the United States in Congress Assembled.

Grants to the United States in Congress assembled the sole and exclusive right and power to determine peace and war; to exchange ambassadors; to enter into treaties and alliances, with some provisos; to establish rules for deciding all cases of captures or prizes on land or water; to grant letters of marque and reprisal (documents authorizing privateers) in times of peace; to appoint courts for the trial of pirates and crimes committed on the high seas; to establish courts for appeals in all cases of captures, but no member of Congress may be appointed a judge; to set weights and measures (including coins), and for Congress to serve as a final court for disputes between states.

The court will be composed of jointly appointed commissioners or Congress shall appoint them. Each commissioner is bound by oath to be impartial. The court's decision is final.

Congress shall regulate the post offices; appoint officers in the military; and regulate the armed forces.

The United States in Congress assembled may appoint a president who shall not serve longer than one year per three-year term of the Congress.

Congress may request requisitions (demands for payments or supplies) from the states in proportion with their population, or take credit.

Congress may not declare war, enter into treaties and alliances, appropriate money, or appoint a commander in chief without nine states assented. Congress shall keep a journal of proceedings and adjourn for periods not to exceed six months.

10. When Congress is in recess, any of the powers of Congress may be executed by "The committee of the states, or any nine of them", except for those powers of Congress which require nine states in Congress to execute.

11. If Canada [referring to the British Province of Quebec] accedes to this confederation, it will be admitted. No other colony could be admitted without the consent of nine states.

12. Affirms that the Confederation will honor all bills of credit incurred, monies borrowed, and debts contracted by Congress before the existence of the Articles.

13. Declares that the Articles shall be perpetual, and may be altered only with the approval of Congress and the ratification of all the state legislatures.

Congress under the Articles

George Washington had been one of the very first proponents of a strong federal government. The army had nearly disbanded on several occasions during the winters of the war because of the weaknesses of the Continental Congress. ... The delegates could not draft soldiers and had to send requests for regular troops and militia to the states. Congress had the right to order the production and purchase of provisions for the soldiers, but could not force anyone to supply them, and the army nearly starved in several winters of war.

The Continental Congress, before the Articles were approved, had promised soldiers a pension of half pay for life. However Congress had no power to compel the states to fund this obligation, and as the war wound down after the victory at Yorktown the sense of urgency to support the military was no longer a factor. No progress was made in Congress during the winter of 1783-84. General Henry Knox, who would later become the first Secretary of War under the Constitution, blamed the weaknesses of the Articles for the inability of the government to fund the army. The army had long been supportive of a strong union. Knox wrote:

The army generally have always reprobated the idea of being thirteen armies. Their ardent desires have been to be one continental body looking up to one sovereign. ... It is a favorite toast in the army, "A hoop to the barrel" or "Cement to the Union".

As Congress failed to act on the petitions, Knox wrote to Gouverneur Morris, four years before the Philadelphia Convention was convened, "As the present Constitution is so defective, why do not you great men call the people together and tell them so; that is, to have a convention of the States to form a better Constitution."

Once the war had been won, the Continental Army was largely disbanded. A very small national force was maintained to man the frontier forts and to protect against Native American attacks. Meanwhile, each of the states had an army (or militia), and 11 of them had navies. The wartime promises of bounties and land grants to be paid for service were not being met. In 1783, George Washington defused the Newburgh conspiracy, but riots by unpaid Pennsylvania veterans forced Congress to leave Philadelphia temporarily.

The Congress from time to time during the Revolutionary War requisitioned troops from the states. Any contributions were voluntary, and in the debates of 1788, the Federalists (who supported the proposed new Constitution) claimed that state politicians acted unilaterally, and contributed when the Continental army protected their state's interests. The Anti-Federalists claimed that state politicians understood their duty to the Union and contributed to advance its needs. Dougherty (2009) concludes that generally the States' behavior validated the Federalist analysis. This helps explain why the Articles of Confederation needed reforms.

Foreign policy

The 1783 Treaty of Paris, which ended hostilities with Great Britain, languished in Congress for several months because too few delegates were present at any one time to constitute a quorum so that it could be ratified. Afterward, the problem only got worse as Congress had no power to enforce attendance. Rarely did more than half of the roughly sixty delegates attend a session of Congress at the time, causing difficulties in raising a quorum. The resulting paralysis embarrassed and frustrated many American nationalists, including George Washington. Many of the most prominent national leaders, such as Washington, John Adams, John Hancock, and Benjamin Franklin, retired from public life, served as foreign delegates, or held office in state governments; and for the general public, local government and self-rule seemed quite satisfactory. This served to exacerbate Congress's impotence.

Inherent weaknesses in the confederation's frame of government also frustrated the ability of the government to conduct foreign policy. In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, concerned over the failure of Congress to fund an American naval force to confront the Barbary pirates, wrote in a diplomatic correspondence to James Monroe that, "It will be said there is no money in the treasury. There never will be money in the treasury till the Confederacy shows its teeth."

Furthermore, the 1786 Jay-Gardoqui Treaty with Spain also showed weakness in foreign policy. In this treaty, which was never ratified, the United States was to give up rights to use the Mississippi River for 25 years, which would have economically strangled the settlers west of the Appalachian Mountains. Finally, due to the Confederation's military weakness, it could not compel the British army to leave frontier forts which were on American soil - forts which, in 1783, the British promised to leave, but which they delayed leaving pending U.S. implementation of other provisions such as ending action against Loyalists and allowing them to seek compensation. This incomplete British implementation of the Treaty of Paris would later be resolved by the implementation of Jay's Treaty in 1795 after the federal Constitution came into force.

Taxation and commerce

Under the Articles of Confederation, the central government's power was kept quite limited. The Confederation Congress could make decisions but lacked enforcement powers. Implementation of most decisions, including modifications to the Articles, required unanimous approval of all thirteen state legislatures.

Congress was denied any powers of taxation: it could only request money from the states. The states often failed to meet these requests in full, leaving both Congress and the Continental Army chronically short of money. As more money was printed by Congress, the continental dollars depreciated. In 1779, George Washington wrote to John Jay, who was serving as the president of the Continental Congress, "that a wagon load of money will scarcely purchase a wagon load of provisions." Mr. Jay and the Congress responded in May by requesting $45 million from the States. In an appeal to the States to comply, Jay wrote that the taxes were "the price of liberty, the peace, and the safety of yourselves and posterity." He argued that Americans should avoid having it said "that America had no sooner become independent than she became insolvent" or that "her infant glories and growing fame were obscured and tarnished by broken contracts and violated faith." The States did not respond with any of the money requested from them.

Congress had also been denied the power to regulate either foreign trade or interstate commerce and, as a result, all of the States maintained control over their own trade policies. The states and the Confederation Congress both incurred large debts during the Revolutionary War, and how to repay those debts became a major issue of debate following the War. Some States paid off their war debts and others did not. Federal assumption of the states' war debts became a major issue in the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention.

Accomplishments

Nevertheless, the Confederation Congress did take two actions with long-lasting impact. The Land Ordinance of 1785 and Northwest Ordinance created territorial government, set up protocols for the admission of new states and the division of land into useful units, and set aside land in each township for public use. This system represented a sharp break from imperial colonization, as in Europe, and it established the precedent by which the national (later, federal) government would be sovereign and expand westward-as opposed to the existing states doing so under their sovereignty.

The Land Ordinance of 1785 established both the general practices of land surveying in the west and northwest and the land ownership provisions used throughout the later westward expansion beyond the Mississippi River. Frontier lands were surveyed into the now-familiar squares of land called the township (36 square miles), the section (one square mile), and the quarter section (160 acres). This system was carried forward to most of the States west of the Mississippi (excluding areas of Texas and California that had already been surveyed and divided up by the Spanish Empire). Then, when the Homestead Act was enacted in 1867, the quarter section became the basic unit of land that was granted to new settler-farmers.

The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 noted the agreement of the original states to give up northwestern land claims, organized the Northwest Territory and laid the groundwork for the eventual creation of new states. While it didn't happen under the articles, the land north of the Ohio River and west of the (present) western border of Pennsylvania ceded by Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, eventually became the states of: Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and the part of Minnesota east of the Mississippi River. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 also made great advances in the abolition of slavery. New states admitted to the union in this territory would never be slave states.

No new states were admitted to the Union under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles provided for a blanket acceptance of the Province of Quebec (referred to as "Canada" in the Articles) into the United States if it chose to do so. It did not, and the subsequent Constitution carried no such special provision of admission. Additionally, ordinances to admit Frankland (later modified to Franklin), Kentucky, and Vermont to the Union were considered, but none were approved.

Presidents of Congress

Under the Articles of Confederation, the presiding officer of Congress-referred to in many official records as President of the United States in Congress Assembled-chaired the Committee of the States when Congress was in recess, and performed other administrative functions. He was not, however, an executive in the way the later President of the United States is a chief executive, since all of the functions he executed were under the direct control of Congress.

There were 10 presidents of Congress under the Articles. The first, Samuel Huntington, had been serving as president of the Continental Congress since September 28, 1779.

The U.S. under the Articles

The peace treaty left the United States independent and at peace but with an unsettled governmental structure. The Articles envisioned a permanent confederation but granted to the Congress-the only federal institution-little power to finance itself or to ensure that its resolutions were enforced. There was no president, no executive agencies, no judiciary, and no tax base. The absence of a tax base meant that there was no way to pay off state and national debts from the war years except by requesting money from the states, which seldom arrived. Although historians generally agree that the Articles were too weak to hold the fast-growing nation together, they do give credit to the settlement of the western issue, as the states voluntarily turned over their lands to national control.

The Continental Congress printed paper money which was so depreciated that it ceased to pass as currency, spawning the expression "not worth a continental". Congress could not levy taxes and could only make requisitions upon the States. Less than a million and a half dollars came into the treasury between 1781 and 1784, although the governors had been asked for two million in 1783 alone.

By 1787 Congress was unable to protect manufacturing and shipping. State legislatures were unable or unwilling to resist attacks upon private contracts and public credit. Land speculators expected no rise in values when the government could not defend its borders nor protect its frontier population.

The idea of a convention to revise the Articles of Confederation grew in favor. Alexander Hamilton realized while serving as Washington's top aide that a strong central government was necessary to avoid foreign intervention and allay the frustrations due to an ineffectual Congress. Hamilton led a group of like-minded nationalists, won Washington's endorsement, and convened the Annapolis Convention in 1786 to petition Congress to call a constitutional convention to meet in Philadelphia to remedy the long-term crisis.

Signatures

The Second Continental Congress approved the Articles for distribution to the states on November 15, 1777. A copy was made for each state and one was kept by the Congress. On November 28, the copies sent to the states for ratification were unsigned, and the cover letter, dated November 17, had only the signatures of Henry Laurens and Charles Thomson, who were the President and Secretary to the Congress.

The Articles, however, were unsigned, and the date was blank. Congress began the signing process by examining their copy of the Articles on June 27, 1778. They ordered a final copy prepared (the one in the National Archives), and that delegates should inform the secretary of their authority for ratification.

On July 9, 1778, the prepared copy was ready. They dated it and began to sign. They also requested each of the remaining states to notify its delegation when ratification was completed. On that date, delegates present from New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and South Carolina signed the Articles to indicate that their states had ratified. New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland could not, since their states had not ratified. North Carolina and Georgia also were unable to sign that day, since their delegations were absent.

After the first signing, some delegates signed at the next meeting they attended. For example, John Wentworth of New Hampshire added his name on August 8. John Penn was the first of North Carolina's delegates to arrive (on July 10), and the delegation signed the Articles on July 21, 1778.

The other states had to wait until they ratified the Articles and notified their Congressional delegation. Georgia signed on July 24, New Jersey on November 26, and Delaware on February 12, 1779. Maryland refused to ratify the Articles until every state had ceded its western land claims. Chevalier de La Luzerne, French Minister to the United States, felt that the Articles would help strengthen the American government. In 1780 when Maryland requested France provide naval forces in the Chesapeake Bay for protection from the British (who were conducting raids in the lower part of the bay), he indicated that French Admiral Destouches would do what he could but La Luzerne also "sharply pressed" Maryland to ratify the Articles, thus suggesting the two issues were related.

On February 2, 1781, the much-awaited decision was taken by the Maryland General Assembly in Annapolis. As the last piece of business during the afternoon Session, "among engrossed Bills" was "signed and sealed by Governor Thomas Sim Lee in the Senate Chamber, in the presence of the members of both Houses... an Act to empower the delegates of this state in Congress to subscribe and ratify the articles of confederation" and perpetual union among the states. The Senate then adjourned "to the first Monday in August next." The decision of Maryland to ratify the Articles was reported to the Continental Congress on February 12. The confirmation signing of the Articles by the two Maryland delegates took place in Philadelphia at noon time on March 1, 1781, and was celebrated in the afternoon. With these events, the Articles were entered into force and the United States of America came into being as a sovereign federal state.

Congress had debated the Articles for over a year and a half, and the ratification process had taken nearly three and a half years. Many participants in the original debates were no longer delegates, and some of the signers had only recently arrived. The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were signed by a group of men who were never present in the Congress at the same time.

The signers and the states they represented were:

Roger Sherman (Connecticut) was the only person to sign all four great state papers of the United States: the Continental Association, the United States Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the United States Constitution.

Robert Morris (Pennsylvania) signed three of the great state papers of the United States: the United States Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the United States Constitution.

John Dickinson (Delaware), Daniel Carroll (Maryland) and Gouverneur Morris (New York), along with Sherman and Robert Morris, were the only five people to sign both the Articles of Confederation and the United States Constitution (Gouverneur Morris represented Pennsylvania when signing the Constitution).

Original parchment pages of the Articles of Confederation, National Archives and Records Administration.

Revision and replacement

On January 21, 1786, the Virginia Legislature, following James Madison's recommendation, invited all the states to send delegates to Annapolis, Maryland to discuss ways to reduce interstate conflict. At what came to be known as the Annapolis Convention, the few state delegates in attendance endorsed a motion that called for all states to meet in Philadelphia in May 1787 to discuss ways to improve the Articles of Confederation in a "Grand Convention." Although the states' representatives to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia were only authorized to amend the Articles, the representatives held secret, closed-door sessions and wrote a new constitution. The new Constitution gave much more power to the central government, but characterization of the result is disputed. The general goal of the authors was to get close to a republic as defined by the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment, while trying to address the many difficulties of the interstate relationships. Historian Forrest McDonald, using the ideas of James Madison from Federalist 39, describes the change this way:

The constitutional reallocation of powers created a new form of government, unprecedented under the sun. Every previous national authority either had been centralized or else had been a confederation of sovereign states. The new American system was neither one nor the other; it was a mixture of both.

In May 1786, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina proposed that Congress revise the Articles of Confederation. Recommended changes included granting Congress power over foreign and domestic commerce, and providing means for Congress to collect money from state treasuries. Unanimous approval was necessary to make the alterations, however, and Congress failed to reach a consensus. The weakness of the Articles in establishing an effective unifying government was underscored by the threat of internal conflict both within and between the states, especially after Shays' Rebellion threatened to topple the state government of Massachusetts.

Historian Ralph Ketcham comments on the opinions of Patrick Henry, George Mason, and other Anti-Federalists who were not so eager to give up the local autonomy won by the revolution:

Antifederalists feared what Patrick Henry termed the "consolidated government" proposed by the new Constitution. They saw in Federalist hopes for commercial growth and international prestige only the lust of ambitious men for a "splendid empire" that, in the time-honored way of empires, would oppress the people with taxes, conscription, and military campaigns. Uncertain that any government over so vast a domain as the United States could be controlled by the people, Antifederalists saw in the enlarged powers of the general government only the familiar threats to the rights and liberties of the people.

Historians have given many reasons for the perceived need to replace the articles in 1787. Jillson and Wilson (1994) point to the financial weakness as well as the norms, rules and institutional structures of the Congress, and the propensity to divide along sectional lines.

When the war ended in 1783, certain special interests had incentives to create a new "merchant state," much like the British state people had rebelled against. In particular, holders of war scrip and land speculators wanted a central government to pay off scrip at face value and to legalize western land holdings with disputed claims. Also, manufacturers wanted a high tariff as a barrier to foreign goods, but competition among states made this impossible without a central government.

Legitimacy of closing down

Political scientist David C. Hendrickson writes that two prominent political leaders in the Confederation, John Jay of New York and Thomas Burke of North Carolina believed that "the authority of the congress rested on the prior acts of the several states, to which the states gave their voluntary consent, and until those obligations were fulfilled, neither nullification of the authority of congress, exercising its due powers, nor secession from the compact itself was consistent with the terms of their original pledges."

According to Article XIII of the Confederation, any alteration had to be approved unanimously:

[T]he Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

On the other hand, Article VII of the proposed Constitution stated that it would become effective after ratification by a mere nine states, without unanimity:

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

The apparent tension between these two provisions was addressed at the time, and remains a topic of scholarly discussion. In 1788, James Madison remarked (in Federalist No. 40) that the issue had become moot: "As this objection...has been in a manner waived by those who have criticised the powers of the convention, I dismiss it without further observation." Nevertheless, it is an interesting historical and legal question whether opponents of the Constitution could have plausibly attacked the Constitution on that ground. At the time, there were state legislators who argued that the Constitution was not an alteration of the Articles of Confederation, but rather would be a complete replacement so the unanimity rule did not apply. Moreover, the Confederation had proven woefully inadequate and therefore was supposedly no longer binding.

Modern scholars such as Francisco Forrest Martin agree that the Articles of Confederation had lost its binding force because many states had violated it, and thus "other states-parties did not have to comply with the Articles' unanimous consent rule". In contrast, law professor Akhil Amar suggests that there may not have really been any conflict between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution on this point; Article VI of the Confederation specifically allowed side deals among states, and the Constitution could be viewed as a side deal until all states ratified it.

Final months

By the end of July 1788, 11 of the 13 states had ratified the new Constitution. Congress continued to convene under the Articles with a quorum until October. On Saturday, September 13, 1788, the Confederation Congress voted the resolve to implement the new Constitution, and on Monday, September 15 published an announcement that the new Constitution had been ratified by the necessary nine states, set the first Wednesday in February 1789 for the presidential electors to meet and select a new president, and set the first Wednesday of March 1789 as the day the new government would take over and the government under the Articles of Confederation would come to an end. On that same September 13, it determined that New York would remain the national capital.

References

Further reading

Brown, Roger H. (1993). Redeeming the Republic: Federalists, Taxation, and the Origins of the Constitution. ISBN 978-0-8018-6355-4.

-- (1943). "The Idea of a National Government During the American Revolution". Political Science Quarterly. 58 (3): 356-79. doi:10.2307/2144490. JSTOR 2144490.

Morison, Samuel Eliot (1965). The Oxford History of the American People. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nevins, Allan (1924). The American States during and after the Revolution, 1775-1789. New York: Macmillan.

Parent, Joseph M. (Fall 2009). "Europe's Structural Idol: An American Federalist Republic?". Political Science Quarterly. 124 (3): 513-535. doi:10.1002/j.1538-165x.2009.tb00658.x.

-- (1988). "The Collapse of the Articles of Confederation". In Barlow, J. Jackson; Levy, Leonard W. & Masugi, Ken (eds.). The American Founding: Essays on the Formation of the Constitution. Greenwood Press. pp. 225-45. ISBN 0-313-25610-1.

External links

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was an agreement among the 13 original states of the United States of America that served as its first constitution. It was approved, after much debate (between July 1776 and November 1777), by the Second Continental Congress on November 15, 1777, and sent to the states for ratification.

# data[].attributes.body
standard 1.4 this website explains
how dissatisfactions with the government under the Articles of Confederation were addressed with the writing of the Constitution of 1787

# data[].attributes.body
Standard 1.3 This website explains

Impact of  Declaration of Independence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Declaration of Independence was supported not only by the colonies, but also many foreign countries. The Declaration helped convince France to ally with America, and influenced the Constitutional Convention in 1789.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this because it shows the effect that the Declaration of independence had on the world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Declaration of Independence gave birth to what is known today as the United States of America. The document is symbolic of American democracy and one of the free charters of freedom. The words stated in the Declaration rallied support from colonists at home, and colonists living abroad. The effects of the Declaration of Independence today can be seen and felt within the United States of America and also among many foreign nations.
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness
The Declaration of Independence gave birth to many other freedoms in the United States of America that may never have even been intended. One of the more immediate effects felt by the Declaration of Independence was the Emancipation of black slaves. Some say that Abraham Lincoln interpreted the Declaration in his own way and understanding. Some say he was inspired to do so. Either way, it brought about the Emancipation Proclamation which gave black slaves their freedom. Abraham Lincoln certainly took literally the statement from the Declaration, "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."? The American dream put in a nut shell
All Men are Created Equal
The Declaration of Independence also paved the way and created equality among all men and women. Today we can see the effects of the first sentence written in the Preamble: We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal."? Throughout history we have seen so many different changes, from freedom of slaves, to equality among men and women. Today moreso than in the past, women have been given every opportunity that men are now given and are truly equal among men.

The Declaration of Independence had a profound effect upon the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. The Declaration, it seems, may have ignited the fire under which the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were written. The Declaration is in large part a summary of what the Bill of Rights stands for. The Bill of Rights in the United States is the name by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known. While the Declaration offered independence from Britain and made general statements, the Bill of Rights offers conclusive and specific rights and laws, from freedom of speech, press and religion, to the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom of assembly; the freedom to petition; prohibits unreasonable search and seizure; cruel and unusual punishment; and compelled self-incrimination. The first ten amendments are truly and expansion on what the first fifty six signers of the Declaration had written.
Effects among foreign nations
The Declaration of Independence has also left lasting effects upon other foreign nations, including the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, and the Declaration of Independence for the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. The French Declaration is one of the fundamental documents of the French Revolution and defines a set of individual and collective rights of all of the estates as one. The First article states, "men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinction may be founded only upon the general good."? The principles in the French Declaration are still set forth today.

The Declaration of Independence has left its effects not just in the small and large details of the United States of America, but also in the details of other foreign countries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Effects of the Declaration of Independence " Independence Day " Surfnetkids

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Declaration of Independence gave birth to what is known today as the United States of America. The document is symbolic of American democracy and one of the free charters of freedom. The words stated in the Declaration rallied support from colonists at home, and colonists living abroad.

# data[].attributes.body
This website  analyzes the early development of representative government and political rights in the American colonies. This website includes the influence of British political system and the rule of law as written in the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sea travel expanded the horizons of many European nations and created prosperity and the conditions for the Enlightenment. In turn, the Enlightenment ideals of liberty, equality, and justice helped to create the conditions for the American Revolution and the subsequent Constitution.

Democracy was not created in a heartbeat. In a world where people were ruled by monarchs from above, the idea of self-government is entirely alien. Democracy takes practice and wisdom from experience.

The American colonies began developing a democratic tradition during their earliest stages of development. Over 150 years later, the colonists believed their experience was great enough to refuse to recognize the British king. The first decade was rocky. The American Revolution and the domestic instability that followed prompted a call for a new type of government with a constitution to guarantee liberty. The constitution drafted in the early days of the independent American republic has endured longer than any in human history.

Where did this democratic tradition truly begin? The ideas and practices that led to the development of the American democratic republic owe a debt to the ancient civilizations of Greece and Rome, the Protestant Reformation, and Gutenberg's printing press. But the Enlightenment of 17th-century Europe had the most immediate impact on the framers of the United States Constitution.

The Philosophes

Europeans of the 17th century no longer lived in the "darkness" of the Middle Ages. Ocean voyages had put them in touch with many world civilizations, and trade had created a prosperous middle class. The Protestant Reformation encouraged free thinkers to question the practices of the Catholic Church, and the printing press spread the new ideas relatively quickly and easily. The time was ripe for the philosophes , scholars who promoted democracy and justice through discussions of individual liberty and equality.

The ideas of 18th-century philosophes inspired the Founding Fathers to revolt against what they perceived as unfair British taxation. Washington Crossing the Delaware is one of the most famous depictions of the American Revolution.

One of the first philosophes was Thomas Hobbes, an Englishman who concluded in his famous book, Leviathan, that people are incapable of ruling themselves, primarily because humans are naturally self-centered and quarrelsome and need the iron fist of a strong leader. Later philosophes, like Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Rousseau were more optimistic about democracy. Their ideas encouraged the questioning of absolute monarchs, like the Bourbon family that ruled France. Montesquieu suggested a separation of powers into branches of government not unlike the system Americans would later adopt. They found eager students who later became the founders of the American government.

John Locke

The single most important influence that shaped the founding of the United States comes from John Locke, a 17th century Englishman who redefined the nature of government. Although he agreed with Hobbes regarding the self-interested nature of humans, he was much more optimistic about their ability to use reason to avoid tyranny. In his Second Treatise of Government, Locke identified the basis of a legitimate government. According to Locke, a ruler gains authority through the consent of the governed. The duty of that government is to protect the natural rights of the people, which Locke believed to include life, liberty, and property. If the government should fail to protect these rights, its citizens would have the right to overthrow that government. This idea deeply influenced Thomas Jefferson as he drafted the Declaration of Independence.

Important English Documents

Ironically, the English political system provided the grist for the revolt of its own American colonies. For many centuries English monarchs had allowed restrictions to be placed on their ultimate power. The Magna Carta, written in 1215, established the kernel of limited government, or the belief that the monarch's rule was not absolute. Although the document only forced King John to consult nobles before he made arbitrary decisions like passing taxes, the Magna Carta provided the basis for the later development of Parliament. Over the years, representative government led by a Prime Minister came to control and eventually replace the king as the real source of power in Britain.

The ideas of the French Enlightenment philosophes strongly influenced the American revolutionaries. French intellectuals met in salons like this one to exchange ideas and define their ideals such as liberty, equality, and justice.

The Petition of Right (1628) extended the rights of "commoners" to have a voice in the government. The English Bill of Rights (1688) guaranteed free elections and rights for citizens accused of crime. Although King George III still had some real power in 1776, Britain was already well along on the path of democracy by that time.

The foundations of American government lie squarely in the 17th and 18th century European Enlightenment. The American founders were well versed in the writings of the philosophes, whose ideas influenced the shaping of the new country. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, and others took the brave steps of creating a government based on the Enlightenment values of liberty, equality, and a new form of justice. More than 200 years later, that government is still intact.

Thomas Hobbes
Thomas Hobbes said that humans are savages who need a strong leader to tell them what to do. Hard to believe he was just a stuffed orange cat.

Report broken link

If you like our content, please share it on social media!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sea travel expanded the horizons of many European nations and created prosperity and the conditions for the Enlightenment. In turn, the Enlightenment ideals of liberty, equality, and justice helped to create the conditions for the American Revolution and the subsequent Constitution. Democracy was not created in a heartbeat.

# data[].attributes.body
Standard 1.2 This website explains early development of representative government and political rights in American Colonies  No description

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Magna Carta Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Magna Carta
Recognized the right of Englishmen to be consulted on the levying of taxes and have their rights protected by a jury of their peers
this was the Basis of the English Parliamentary and Judical Systems. Settlers brought Magna Carta concepts with them and later were influenced by the English Bill of Rights English Bill of Rights People have the right to be consulted through their representatives, on the levying of taxes
settlers applied this rule of law in the colonial government
power of the king (executive) should be limited by Parliament Representative government in the colonies House of Burgesses
Jamestown
way of maintaining order and attract new colonists
only property owners were allowed to vote
not a true democratic government
Mayflower Compact and New England Town Meetings
Puritans
Male members of church also governed society through town meetings
each town send 2 representative to Boston All 13 colonies established a representative assembly which had the right to levy taxes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Magna Carta Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Magna Carta

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
USHC 1-2 early development of representative government and political rights in American Colonies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Magna Carta Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Magna Carta Recognized the right of Englishmen to be consulted on the levying of taxes and have their rights protected by a jury of their peersthis was the Basis of the English Parliamentary and Judical Systems. Settlers brought Magna

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this because I believe that it describes the early development of America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Magna Carta Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Magna Carta
Recognized the right of Englishmen to be consulted on the levying of taxes and have their rights protected by a jury of their peers
this was the Basis of the English Parliamentary and Judical Systems. Settlers brought Magna Carta concepts with them and later were influenced by the English Bill of Rights English Bill of Rights People have the right to be consulted through their representatives, on the levying of taxes
settlers applied this rule of law in the colonial government
power of the king (executive) should be limited by Parliament Representative government in the colonies House of Burgesses
Jamestown
way of maintaining order and attract new colonists
only property owners were allowed to vote
not a true democratic government
Mayflower Compact and New England Town Meetings
Puritans
Male members of church also governed society through town meetings
each town send 2 representative to Boston All 13 colonies established a representative assembly which had the right to levy taxes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Magna Carta Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Magna Carta

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
USHC 1-2 early development of representative government and political rights in American Colonies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Magna Carta Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Magna Carta Recognized the right of Englishmen to be consulted on the levying of taxes and have their rights protected by a jury of their peersthis was the Basis of the English Parliamentary and Judical Systems. Settlers brought Magna

# data[].attributes.body
Standard 1.2 -

I picked this website because the Declaration of Independence laid the ground work for the constitution, it served as a guide for other nations that wanted to end tyranny.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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 to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. - Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all 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; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. - And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

# data[].attributes.body
<a href="The'>http://www.myrevolutionarywar.com/">The American Revolutionary War</a>

# data[].attributes.body
Standard 1.1 This website explains each  colony had its own unique characteristics, but historians  lump them into groups based on where they were, why they  were founded, and what kinds of industry they had

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Thirteen American Colonies

Part 2: Characteristics of the Colonies

Each colony had its own unique characteristics, but historians lump them into groups based on where they were, why they were founded, and what kinds of industry they had:

Motivations
By and large, the people who settled in the New England Colonies wanted to keep their family unit together and practice their own religion. They were used to doing many things themselves and not depending on other people for much. Some of these people came to New England to make money, but they were not the majority.

The people who founded the Middle Colonies were looking to practice their own religion (Pennsylvania mainly) or to make money. Many of these people didn't bring their families with them from England and were the perfect workers for the hard work required in ironworks and shipyards.

The founders of the Southern Colonies were, for the most part, out to make money. They brought their families, as did the New England colonists, and they kept their families together on the plantations. But their main motivation was to make the good money that was available in the new American market.

Economy
The New England Colonies were largely farming and fishing communities. The people made their own clothes and shoes. They grew much of their own food. Crops like beans, corn, and squash grew in large numbers, and much was shipped to England. Foods that didn't grow in America were shipped from England. Boston was the major New England port.

The Middle Colonies were part agriculture, part industrial. Wheat and other grains grew on farms in Pennsylvania and New York. Factories in Maryland produced iron, and factories in Pennsylvania produced paper and textiles. Trade with England was plentiful in these colonies as well.

The Southern Colonies were almost entirely agricultural. The main feature was the plantation, a large plot of land that contained a great many acres of farmland and buildings in which lived the people who owned the land and the people who worked the land. (A large part of the workforce was African slaves, who first arrived in 1619.)

Southern plantations grew tobacco, rice, and indigo, which they sold to buyers in England and elsewhere in America.

Graphics courtesy of ArtToday

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Thirteen American Colonies Part 2: Characteristics of the Colonies Each colony had its own unique characteristics, but historians lump them into groups based on where they were, why they were founded, and what kinds of industry they had: Motivations By and large, the people who settled in the New England Colonies wanted to keep their family unit together and practice their own religion.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this because I believe that it properly answers standard 1.1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
British colonization of the Americas - Wikipedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The British colonization of the Americas (including colonization by both the English and the Scots) began in 1607 in Jamestown, Virginia, and reached its peak when colonies had been established throughout the Americas. The English, and later the British, were among the most important colonizers of the Americas, and their American empire came to rival the Spanish American colonies in military and economic might.

# data[].attributes.body
http://users.humboldt.edu/ogayle/hist110/unit1/col.html http://users.humboldt.edu/ogayle/hist110/unit1/col.html
I Picked This B/C  It Explains The British In North America Step By Step If You Just Scroll Down A Little. This Also Explains The Goals Of Their Econ

# data[].attributes.body
Standard 1.1 -

I picked this website because it has good information about the first Europeans and it also gives information about how there was many different groups who came to the new world

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Outline of American History - Chapter 1: Early America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At the height of the Ice Age, between 34,000 and 30,000 B.C., much of the world's water was contained in vast continental ice sheets. As a result, the Bering Sea was hundreds of meters below its current level, and a land bridge, known as Beringia, emerged between Asia and North America.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this website, because it goes over what colonies there were, the government, what they needed, and religion they had.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Thirteen Colonies - Trade, Government & Religion ***

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Check out this site for the founding, government, people, religion and establishment of the first Thirteen Colonies. History, people, dates and years of Thirteen Colonies. Facts and information from the Thirteen Colonies

# data[].attributes.body
This website summarizes distinct characteristics of the colonial region in the settlement and development of British North America (including religious, social, political, and economic diffrences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SparkNotes: SAT Subject Test: U.S. History: The Early English Colonies

# data[].attributes.body
Declaration of Independence

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this website because it gives all of the information need and it also goes on to tell imports, exports, and many other things that describe the colonies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Thirteen Colonies - Trade, Government & Religion ***

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Check out this site for the founding, government, people, religion and establishment of the first Thirteen Colonies. History, people, dates and years of Thirteen Colonies. Facts and information from the Thirteen Colonies

# data[].attributes.body
Students are to use the indicators below to find relevant posts that demonstrate their understanding of Standard 1

USHC 1: The student will demonstrate an understanding of the conflicts between
regional and national interest in the development of DEMOCRACY in the United
States.

USHC 1.1  Summarize the distinct characteristics of each colonial region in the settlement and development of British North America, including religious, social, political, and economic
differences.

USHC 1.2  Analyze the early development of representative government and political rights in the American colonies, including the influence of the British political system and the rule of law as written in the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights, and the conflict between the colonial
legislatures and the British Parliament over the right to tax that resulted in the American Revolutionary War.

USHC 1.3  Analyze the impact of the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution on establishing the ideals of a democratic republic.

USHC 1.4  Analyze how dissatisfactions with the government under the Articles of Confederation were addressed with the writing of the Constitution of 1787, including the debates and compromises
reached at the Philadelphia Convention and the ratification of the Constitution.

USHC 1.5  Explain how the fundamental principle of limited government is
protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, including democracy, republicanism, federalism, the separation of powers, the system of checks and balances, and individual rights.

USHC 1.6  Analyze the development of the two-party system during the presidency of George Washington, including controversies over domestic and foreign policies and the regional interest of
the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists.

USHC 1.7  Summarize the expansion of the power of the national government as a result of Supreme Court decisions under Chief Justice John Marshall, such as the establishment of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison and the impact of political party affiliation on the Court.