CHAPTER XIII
THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTION
The purpose of this chapter is to explain how the constitution was framed, how it has developed, and how it can be changed.
The Achievement of Union.—The greatest achievement of the American people has been the welding of separate states into a single nation. To have brought into a permanent federation thirteen relatively small communities, containing less than four million people in all, may not seem to us to have been a remarkable feat. These thirteen communities had won their independence together in a common war; they were inhabited for the most part by people of the same race, speaking the same language, and accustomed to the same laws. Why should there have been any difficulty in getting them to form a union in order to provide for the common defence and promote the general welfare? Is not unification a natural process?
Well, if the gathering of different states into a single permanent union is an easy matter, why did not the warring cities of Ancient Greece unite? Why did they persist in their disunion, and through disunion ultimately fall a prey to their common enemy? The whole of Attica was smaller than the single state of South Carolina. Why did not the various states of Central America, or of South America, form a union after they had won their independence from Spain? How different the history of these Latin-American countries would have been during the past hundred years if they had established a federal union like that of the United States!
The forming of the American union was not an easy task. It was brought about by dint of hard work, patience, a rare display of public spirit on the part of the leaders in the several states, and the common sense of the masses of the people. If the men and women of 1787 had regarded themselves alone and given no thought to posterity; if they had placed the immediate interests of the individual states above the ultimate well-being of the whole; if they had allowed themselves to be moved by prejudice rather than by patriotism, the American union would not have been formed.
Why the Task was Difficult.—The thirteen colonies were founded independently. Some of them grew out of trading-company operations. Others were founded by men and women who left their homes in the old country to escape religious persecution. Others, again, owed their beginnings to wealthy men who obtained large grants of land from the English crown in order to establish settlements. Founded in different ways, these various colonies had from the outset very little community of interest. Each had its own government and these governments differed somewhat from one another. The people did not travel about from one colony to another, for transportation was crude and traveling was difficult. From Massachusetts to Georgia seemed a much longer distance in 1787 than a journey across the entire continent seems today. Each colony, moreover, was primarily interested in its own problems and gave little thought to outside affairs except when dangers threatened. It is true that the colonies also had some things in common, but the forces which tended to keep them apart were far stronger than those which tended to bring them together.
For this reason the first attempts at union resulted in no permanent federation. As early as 1643 the four principal New England settlements united themselves into a league of friendship known as the New England Federation, but this union went out of existence after the danger of Indian attacks had passed away. William Penn, in 1696, proposed a general union of all the colonies but nothing came of his suggestion. At various times during the next sixty years conferences were called and the matter discussed, the most important being the Albany Congress of 1754, at which a plan of union was framed in detail. Local jealousies, however, always proved too strong until the impending quarrel with the mother country showed the necessity of united action.
How the War paved the Way for Union.—The attempt of the English government to tax the colonies without their consent brought home to them, for the first time, the fact that they were all in the same boat. If they should attempt to resist these taxes individually, they would be coerced one by one. For this reason they hastened to consult with one another and in due course sent delegates to a Continental Congress which handled the common interests of the colonies during the war. The stress and strain of the war made unity essential for the time being, but it did not produce an organic union. The colonies were united in declaring their independence, but this declaration did not create a union of new states.
The Declaration of Independence.—The Declaration of Independence is one of the most famous documents in all history. Drawn by Thomas Jefferson it is at once a statement of political principles and a recital of the colonial grievances. Four outstanding political principles are set forth in the following words:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable 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 to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.”
“That governments long established should not be changed for light or transient causes.”
The Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land and never has been; its text is not legally binding upon Congress, the legislatures, or the courts. It is an assertion of fundamental principles. It did not create a united nation, save in sentiment. By the declaration thirteen new sovereign states were established, each with the right to determine its own form of government. From a governmental standpoint these thirteen communities were less united after the declaration than they had been before it. Prior to 1776 there had been a single sovereign; after that date there were thirteen. But although the Declaration of Independence did not make any provision for the union of the several states it is none the less an immortal document because it boldly asserted principles that were new to the world. In 1776 there was very little democracy anywhere. The four truths above mentioned are commonplace today; but one hundred and fifty years ago they were a challenge to revolution in all despotic countries. In our time the greater part of the civilized world has come to accept them as the only sound basis of democratic government. The declaration, therefore, is not merely a landmark in the history of American democracy; it marks the beginning of a great epoch in the history of human freedom.
The Articles of Confederation.—Having given their pledge to common principles and having stood shoulder to shoulder through the dark hours of a hard-fought war, it might be thought that these thirteen states would have seen clearly the wisdom of welding themselves into a single, united nation. But they were not yet ready to drop their jealousies or abate their zeal for individual independence. The best they were willing to do, for the time being, was to give their assent to a plan for a loose confederation, something that was little better than an offensive and defensive alliance. |Provisions of the articles.| This plan, drawn up by the Continental Congress in 1777, was embodied in the Articles of Confederation and sent to the several states to be ratified. It met with very little enthusiasm, and not until 1781 was it accepted by all the states. In truth, these Articles did not deserve much enthusiasm, for they provided an unworkable form of federal government. A Congress composed of a single chamber made up of delegates from the states was the sole organ of the Confederation. No provision was made for an executive or for a system of courts. In the Congress of the Confederation all the states, large and small, were given equal voting powers; the delegates were appointed by the states, paid by the states, and subject to recall at any time by the states. The people, as such, were given no direct share in the government; on the other hand the central government could not deal directly with the people, itit could act only through the states.
The states were so jealous of their own sovereignty and independence that they withheld from the government of the Confederation most of the essential powers which a government must have in order to do its work. They gave it no power to tax and hence no certain means of procuring a revenue. They gave it no power to borrow money save with the assent of nine states. They gave it no power to regulate trade. The Articles of Confederation, although drawn and adopted in the midst of a war, gave the Congress no power to summon men into the army. When it needed troops it could only call upon the states to supply them. Sometimes the states responded to these calls, but more often they did not, and in the latter case the Congress had no way of enforcing its demands for men. Under the circumstances it is amazing that the government of the Confederation managed to carry on the war and bring it to a successful conclusion.
The Drift to Anarchy after the War.—Despite the utter weakness of the Confederation the war continued to be a unifying force so long as it lasted. In the face of a common danger and with a common goal ahead of them the states kept their jealousies in the background. But as soon as the war was over the bickerings began in earnest. Each state began to look upon its own interests as the thing of greatest importance; each sought to gain advantages at the expense of its neighbors. Each was at liberty to impose its own tariff and to regulate trade at its own ports. So they began to quarrel among themselves over trading privileges and over disputed boundaries until a civil war seemed to be quite within the bounds of possibility.
Why did not the Congress of the Confederation intervene to prevent this drift to anarchy? The Congress would gladly have done so but it had no power. It had no authority to intervene in disputes between the states, or even to prevent war among them. It had no army of its own, no money to raise an army. Some of the states, now that the war was over, took so little interest in the Confederation that they stopped sending delegates to the Congress altogether. Time and again it was found impossible to get a quorum in order to do business. The utter weakness of the Congress was tragically displayed in 1783 when it was driven out of its quarters at Philadelphia by a mob of soldiers clamoring for their pay.
The whole country was in a bad way. During the war a huge debt had been created, and Congress now found itself with no money to pay interest on it. Millions in paper money had been issued, but nowhere was there any gold to redeem them. Prices had been high during the war, as prices always are during war time. When the war ended there was a general fall in prices with the result that the farmers got less for their products and became discontented. Farmers, in those days, formed ninety per cent of the population and they completely controlled the legislatures of the various states. They clamored for relief from the effects of the decline in prices, called for the issue of more paper money, for high tariffs, and for measures that would lessen the burden of mortgages on their lands. In some of the states there was open rioting and disorder. These years have been well called the “critical period” of American history. It looked for a time as though independence was to be merely a prelude to anarchy.
No wonder the leaders of the people were discouraged and alarmed. Washington was in despair. “I am mortified beyond expression”, he wrote, “when I view the clouds that have spread over the brightest morn that ever dawned upon any country.... I am lost in amazement when I behold what intrigue, ignorance, and jealousy are capable of effecting.... It is but the other day that we were shedding our blood to obtain the constitutions under which we now live—constitutions of our own choice and making—and now we are unsheathing the sword to overturn them.... What a triumph for the advocates of despotism to find that we are incapable of governing ourselves!” These are bitter words, but the condition of the country quite justified them. Sensible men in all the states shared this alarm and felt that what had been won during the war might easily be lost, for if the states should fall to fighting among themselves, it would be very easy for Europe to take a hand in the fray and divide the spoils. The fate of Poland was fresh in the minds of those who had read history.
The Triumph of Public Spirit over Selfishness.—But presently there came a rift in the clouds. The four million people who formed the population of the thirteen states, despite their sectional prejudices, were possessed of common sense and patriotism. They were blessed, moreover, with as fine a group of leaders as ever carried a young nation through troublous years. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, and the others of this notable galaxy held different views as to the best means of bringing order out of chaos; but they were ready, when the time came, to sink these personal differences in order that some effective form of central government might be established. They lent the weight of their great influence, therefore, to a movement for revising the Articles of Confederation in such a way that a better union of the thirteen states might be achieved. In truth it was a difficult task to induce the states to move towards unity, for they were all headed in exactly the opposite direction. But by the exercise of tact and patience, and after discouraging delays, twelve of the states finally sent delegates to a convention that was called to meet at Philadelphia in 1787 to see what could be done. If the states had been asked to join in the making of an entirely new constitution and the establishing of a real federal union, there is no doubt that some of them would have declined. The convention was called to consider changes in the Articles of Confederation. But when the delegates set to work they soon found that no patchwork performance would ever solve the problem of welding the American people into a unified nation. So they proceeded to make an entirely new covenant containing provision for a real central government endowed with adequate powers.
The Constitutional Convention: Its Members.—In the convention there were fifty-five delegates representing twelve states. Some states sent six or seven delegates; others only two or three. The number did not matter much, for each state had one vote on all questions. The delegates were never all present at any one time; some of them came and soon went away; others kept coming and going; but the majority stayed right through the summer and attended the meetings regularly. The convention met in the old brick state house in Philadelphia, the building in which the Declaration of Independence had been signed eleven years before. It met behind closed doors and the delegates agreed that they would not tell what was going on. Day after day, from May to September, they wrestled with the problem of framing a new constitution and although their differences of opinion often seemed impossible to adjust, the convention finally managed to draft a document which a majority of the delegates were willing to sign.
This picture is in the Pennsylvania State Capitol at Harrisburg.
It portrays the Fathers of the Republic at their great work of framing the national constitution. Washington, the presiding officer of the convention, is appealing to his colleagues with the notable words which encircle the top of the picture. Around and below him are Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, William Paterson, James Dickinson, Edmund Randolph, Robert Morris, and Gouverneur Morris, all of them in quaint costumes of the later eighteenth century.
The picture is symbolic of America’s great aspiration—Let us raise a standard to which the honest can repair!
WASHINGTON AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
By Violet Oakley
Copyright by Violet Oakley. From a Copley Print, copyright by Curtis & Cameron, Boston. Reproduced by permission.
The men who took a prominent part in this convention performed a service of such value and permanence that their names can never be forgotten. Washington, who headed the delegation from Virginia, was chosen by the convention to be its presiding officer. This debarred him from taking an active part in the discussions on the floor, but his great personal influence was on many occasions exerted in the interests of harmony. Benjamin Franklin, the wisest man of his time, was the senior member of the Pennsylvania delegation. His broad knowledge of men and affairs, gained through a long life of more than eighty years, made him one of the most valuable members. Then there was James Madison, still a young man but already a thorough scholar in matters of government. Among all the delegates Madison ranked first in point of active helpfulness and fully earned the distinction which posterity has given him as the Father of the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, of New York, young and brilliant, with plenty of imagination and strong political opinions, was the orator of the convention; but oratory did not carry far with the delegates. They listened with rapt attention to Hamilton’s impassioned speeches and applauded him generously at the end; but when the question was put to a vote he sometimes got nobody’s vote but his own. Arguments counted for more than eloquence in this gathering. Among the delegates of ability and prominence were Robert Morris and James Wilson, of Pennsylvania, the former a wizard in financial matters, the latter a hard-headed Scotchman of great political sense; Roger Sherman, the shoemaker-statesman, of Connecticut; the two Pinckneys, of South Carolina, John Dickinson, of Delaware, and a dozen others whose names were known throughout the nation in their day. They were not all of the same mind on political questions, not by any means; some were conservative and some were radical; some looked far into the future and others only to the needs of the hour; some were always willing to compromise and others were not ready to compromise at all; but taken as a whole they formed an able, well-balanced group of men, fairly reflecting the intelligence and patriotism of their time.[106]
How the Convention Solved its Difficulties.—In a body made up of men who held such widely-differing opinions it was inevitable that bitter controversies should arise. And that is what happened. Delegates from the smaller states disagreed with the delegates from the larger states on the question whether, under the new constitution, the voting power of the states should be equal, as it had been under the Articles of Confederation. Delegates from the North clashed with delegates from the South on the question of giving the new government power to regulate trade; for the South did not want export taxes placed upon tobacco, cotton, and the other plantation staples. The divergence of opinion was often very wide, and on one occasion the convention almost broke off its proceedings because there seemed to be no hope that any agreement could be reached. But patience and public spirit finally prevailed on all points and by means of one compromise after another the convention managed to finish its work without splitting its ranks wide open.[107]
When all the main features had been agreed upon they were put together into a constitution which thirty-nine of the delegates were willing to sign. Of the others, some were absent; some refused to put their names to it. Even among those who signed it there were many who did so without the least enthusiasm. The provisions of the new constitution were not what any individual delegate wanted, but merely what a majority could be induced to agree upon. What influenced the delegates most of all was the fact that everyone knew the existing situation to be bad; the new constitution, whatever its defects, was sure to be an improvement. The immediate thing was to get the states headed towards the center and not towards the circumference of a circle. This being accomplished, the leaders of the convention believed the future might be trusted to take care of itself. It was in this broad and patriotic spirit that thirty-nine men appended their names to what the English statesman, Gladstone, once called “the greatest achievement ever struck off in a given time by the hand and brain of man”,—the constitution of the United States.
The Final Step.—But by signing their names to this document the members of the convention did not make it the law of the land. Before the constitution could go into force it must be submitted to the states and adopted by them. And there was grave danger that several of the states would reject it. Public sentiment seemed to be about evenly divided; the small farmers were largely opposed to accepting the new government, while the people of the towns and the large property-owners were in favor of it. |The Federalist.| Some of those who had been leaders in the convention, notably Hamilton and Madison, organized a campaign to influence public opinion in favor of the new constitution, in the course of which they wrote numerous letters to the newspapers explaining and defending the various provisions. These letters were subsequently compiled into book form and published under the title of The Federalist. Even today they form an admirable exposition of what the various provisions of the constitution express and imply. In the end the campaign for ratification was successful and notwithstanding strong opposition in some of the states all were finally induced to accept the constitution. This being accomplished the Congress of the Confederation dissolved and in 1789 the new federal government came into office with New York City as the temporary capital.[108]
The Constitution as a Whole.—The constitution of the United States as framed by the convention is a relatively short document. It is printed in the back of this book and can be read in about twenty minutes. It is the oldest and the shortest among republican constitutions in the great countries of the world. Napoleon Bonaparte once said that a good constitution should be “short and obscure”, short, so that people would not have to waste time in reading it, and obscure so that rulers could interpret it in any way they chose. The constitution of the United States fulfils the first of Napoleon’s requirements but not the second. It is a remarkably clear document, well-arranged, saying in a few words exactly what it means, and couched in admirable English. Let anyone read the first six lines of it, for example, and see if he can put the purposes of a free government into fewer and more telling words. It is the supreme law of the land, the last word on all questions of American government. No one can claim to know how the affairs of the United States are administered without mastering, at least in a general way, the contents of the constitution.
How the Constitution has Developed.—But the constitution today is not what it was a hundred and twenty-odd years ago. Were that the case, it would be sadly out of touch with the needs of the nation. To be satisfactory a constitution must be capable of steady expansion and development; it must be able to keep step with political, social, and economic progress. This the constitution of the United States has been able to do through various agencies of development, usage, judicial interpretation, and amendment. Established for thirteen states containing four million people it has been expanded to cover the needs of nearly four times as many states and more than twenty-five times as many people. Framed in days of stage coaches and sailing ships, hand-industry and primitive methods of agriculture, it has carried through into the days of airships and tractors, giant factories and miracles of industry. It is endowed with dynamic qualities.
Let us look a little more closely at these agencies of development. Usage is one of them. Alongside the written document there have grown up many practices which have practically the strength of written provisions. Take the method of electing the President, for example. Indirect election is provided in the constitution; by usage the election has become direct. The constitution provides that the President shall make appointments with the “advice and consent” of the Senate; but as a matter of usage its advice is never asked and its consent, in some cases, is never refused (see p. 298). The constitution says not a word about the Cabinet, but by usage a Cabinet system has grown up in the United States as in England. Nor does it say a word about political parties, nevertheless usage has given them a large part in government. These illustrations could be multiplied. Why does no President seek a third term? Why does a President usually consult individual representatives before making local appointments? Why are non-residents in a congressional district practically never elected to represent it? Usage answers these and many other questions.
The constitution has also been modified by decisions of the courts. The courts cannot change a single word in the constitution; they merely interpret its meaning. Their function is jus dicere, non dare (to interpret the law, not to make it), as the saying goes. But the fact remains that changes in the meaning of words are equivalent for all practical purposes to changes in the words themselves. The Supreme Court, in a long series of decisions, has greatly expanded the powers of the national government by the interpretation of words and clauses in the written constitution. It has decided that the power to borrow money includes the power to establish banks, that the power to regulate commerce includes the power to fix railroad rates, that the power to establish post-offices includes the power to punish those who use the mails for a fraudulent purpose, and so on. It has been the function of the court to make the words spell out new meanings to fit new situations. One cannot today obtain an adequate knowledge of what these words and phrases mean by merely reading the document; it is necessary to go through the decisions of the Supreme Court and find out just how this great tribunal has interpreted them.
The constitution has been developed by law. Many things were left in general terms in order that the details might be settled by Congress or by the state legislature. Nothing is said in the constitution about the organization or procedure of the federal courts. All this has been built up by laws. Nor is anything said about the method of nominating congressmen, or the form of the ballot, or the duties of election officials. That, too, is arranged by law. Much of what we call the machinery of American government today rests upon ordinary laws which can be changed by Congress or the state legislatures at any time.
Finally, the constitution can be changed, and on nineteen matters has been changed by amending it. The constitution provides four possible methods of making and ratifying amendments,—two of initiating and two of ratifying. These various ways are stated in the document (Article V) more briefly and more clearly than they can be recapitulated here. But every one of the amendments thus far made has been proposed and adopted in one and the same way, namely, proposal by Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures. |Method of making amendments.| The other plan of proposing amendments, that is by calling a constitutional convention, would open the gates for a general revision or for the submission of an entirely new constitution, which is something that public opinion has not yet seemed to favor. If, however, Congress should at any time endeavor to thwart the will of the people by declining to propose an amendment strongly demanded by public opinion its hand could be forced by resort to the convention method.
The Nineteen Amendments.—Of the nineteen amendments which have been made since the constitution went into force, the first ten were added in 1791. When the convention of 1787 finished its work and sent the document to the states for their approval there was a chorus of protest because no Bill of Rights had been included. “Where are there in this document”, the objectors cried out, “any provisions guaranteeing us free speech, trial by jury, freedom of the press, and the other securities against oppression?” The reply was that the people needed no guarantees against their own government but only against governments imposed upon them from outside. But this explanation did not satisfy, and assurance was given that if the constitution were adopted in its original form a Bill of Rights would be added. The first ten amendments represent the keeping of that pledge. The last of these amendments is of particular importance in explicitly proclaiming that all powers not given to the national government by the constitution, or prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively, and to the people.
The latest nine amendments require little comment although some are of great importance. Three of them, the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth, were needed to make permanent the results of the Civil War. One of these, the fourteenth, contains provisions, relating to the rights of citizens, which have been given a wide application and have been the cause of a great deal of litigation before the Supreme Court. Intended to protect the negro they have been used, in large measure, to secure for business corporations the equal protection of the laws. As for the negro he has gained very little from amendments which were primarily made for his benefit. The fifteenth amendment was intended to secure him the right to vote; but in many of the states it has not succeeded in doing so. The two latest amendments, namely, the eighteenth, which established national prohibition, and the nineteenth, which provides for woman suffrage, have both been ratified since the World War.
Twenty years ago it was commonly urged that the process of amending the constitution ought to be made easier. It was pointed out in those days that no amendment had been made for more than a generation. But the adoption of four amendments during the past ten years seems to indicate that when the people demand an amendment the process of getting it is not too difficult. In each of these instances there was a strong popular demand.
Why Men Honor the Constitution.—Americans have a great respect for the constitution of their country even though many of them would like to see some changes made in it. And why should they not honor it? Its reign has been long in the land. No king ever ruled his people so long or kept faith with them so well. Under it the country has waxed great and prosperous; the government which it established has become increasingly democratic in form and in spirit; it has grown strong enough to protect its citizens at home and abroad, and it has become the model upon which several other governments of the world have been patterned.
It is easy enough to pick flaws in the constitution of the United States—or in the constitution of any country for that matter—but where are the Washingtons, Madisons, and Hamiltons of today whom we would trust with the task of making a better one? During the past few years a dozen countries of the world have framed new republican constitutions,—Germany, Austria, Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, and so on. They have had the experience of an additional century to draw upon and the combined political wisdom of the world at their disposal. Is there any constitution in this list which the rank and file of the American people would prefer to their own? You can pick a line out of Shakespeare, here and there, and improve upon it. But when it comes to improving upon the whole of Shakespeare’s work,—ah, that is quite a different proposition.
James Bryce, The American Commonwealth, Vol. I, pp. 15-31; 360-410 (Abridged Edition, pp. 224-284);
Charles A. Beard, American Government and Politics, 3d edition, pp. 1-77; Ibid., Readings in American Government and Politics, pp. 1-69; Ibid., History of the United States, pp. 139-161;
Everett Kimball, National Government of the United States, pp. 1-46;
W. B. Munro, The Government of the United States, pp. 1-70; Ibid., Selections from the Federalist, pp. 1-17; 56-86;
Max Farrand, The Framing of the Constitution of the United States, especially pp. 42-67.
1. The means of securing co-operation among states and men as illustrated by the American government before, during, and after the Revolution. The obstacles to union. The cohesive forces. The influence and nature of leadership. Historical analogies in other parts of the world. The problem of forming a league of states compared with that of forming a league of nations. References: Woodrow Wilson, The State, pp. 267-298; John Fiske, The Critical Period, pp. 50-89; Max Farrand, The Framing of the Constitution, pp. 65-112; A. C. McLaughlin, Confederation and the Constitution, pp. 35-52.
2. The Declaration of Independence: its origin, its importance, and an analysis of its political principles. References: C. H. Van Tyne, The American Revolution, pp. 50-87; John Fiske, The American Revolution, Vol. I, pp. 147-197; The Madison Papers, Vol. I, pp. 19-27; H. Friedenwald, The Declaration of Independence, an Interpretation and Analysis, pp. 121-151.
3. From what sources did the framers of the constitution borrow their ideas? References: C. E. Stevens, The Sources of the Constitution, pp. 35-116; J. H. Robinson, The Original and Derived Features of the Constitution, pp. 203-210; S. G. Fisher, The Evolution of the Constitution, pp. 11-25.
4. How the constitution has developed. References: James Bryce, The American Commonwealth, Vol. I, pp. 360-410; W. B. Munro, Government of the United States, pp. 57-70; C. G. Tiedeman, The Unwritten Constitution of the United States, pp. 16-53.
1. The spirit of America. Woodrow Wilson, History of the American People, Vol. II, pp. 98-126.
2. How England controlled the Colonies. G. C. Lewis, The Government of Dependencies, pp. 189-240.
3. The New England Confederation. Edward Channing, History of the United States, Vol. I, pp. 414-436.
4. The Stamp Act. Edward Channing, History of the United States, Vol. III, pp. 46-79.
5. The Articles of Confederation. C. H. Van Tyne, The American Revolution, pp. 175-202.
6. The weakness of the Confederation. John Fiske, The Critical Period of American History, pp. 90-133.
7. The personnel of the constitutional convention. Max Farrand, The Framing of the Constitution of the United States, pp. 14-41.
8. The difficulties which confronted the convention. The Federalist, No. XXXVI; (in W. B. Munro, Selections from the Federalist, pp. 109-116; also in C. A. Beard, Readings on American Government and Politics, pp. 44-47).
9. Contemporary objections to the constitution. A. C. McLaughlin, Confederation and the Constitution, pp. 277-281; 287-288; P. L. Ford, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, especially pp. 3-23.
10. The political ideas of the Fathers. H. J. Ford, Rise and Growth of American Politics, pp. 17-34.
11. Outstanding features of the constitution as a document. W. B. Munro, Government of the United States, pp. 44-56.
12 How amendments are made. C. A. Beard, Readings in American Government and Politics, pp. 56-61.
1. Show how the form of government established by England in the American colonies compares with the form of government maintained by the United States in Alaska, Hawaii, and Porto Rico today.
2. In what respects did the colonies differ from one another and in what respects were they pretty much alike?
3. Make a critical examination of the four great political principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence. How would you apply them today in the case of (a) Ireland; (b) the Philippines; (c) India?
4. Name the chief weaknesses of the Confederation.
5. Who is commonly called the “Father of the Constitution”? Does he deserve this title, and if so, why?
6. Read the constitution carefully and then answer the following questions, “yes” or “no,” pointing out the provision on which you base your answer: (a) Must the Vice President be a natural-born citizen? (b) May an American citizen accept a foreign order of nobility? (c) May any one who is not a citizen vote at presidential elections? (d) May Congress pass a law impairing the obligations of contracts? (e) May the President and Vice President both be residents of the same state? (f) May the President pardon a person convicted of treason? May he pardon a federal official convicted of bribery?
7. What did you find in the constitution that you did not expect to find there? What did you expect and fail to find? What seems to you to be the most important section of the whole document?
8. Explain the procedure by which the constitution may be amended. Classify the nineteen amendments into four groups and give a general title to each group.
9. Give some examples of constitutional development (a) by law; (b) by usage; (c) by judicial interpretation.
10. If we were to revise the entire constitution today what changes would probably be made?
1. A national convention should be called to revise the constitution.
2. The process of amending the constitution should be made easier.