Great job on the Dahl fight! Tonight, you should:
1. Chapt 2:
- pp, 27-40: w/ margin notes & Qs
- pp. 41-48: read for NK, mark PK and any questions, especially “what” clarification.
- pp. 49-52: w/ margin notes & Qs
- pp. 53-56: read for NK, mark PK and any questions, especially “what” clarifications
2.Chapt 3:
- pp 63-74: read for NK, mark PK and any questions, especially “what” clarifications
** please use the Glossary at the end of the chapters!
3. Blog: Post your most essential Qs on the blog here, say 5 per student.
Tomorrow:
To celebrate the 4th of July, we will read James Madison’s Federalist no. 10. I will hand out the reading tomorrow. Many of you may already know this document, but all of you are about to really know it (I just read that split infinitives are okay, so there!).
My contact info is on the blog here. I need everyone registered so that I can close access the comments system. You will need to login from now on. Let me know any problems you encounter.
– Bromley
Why did George Washington think the constitution would last no longer than twenty years? What factors led to it prevailing?
Was the American Revolution caused by many different factors or a chain of events that eventually led to it?
Why were the Articles of Confederation replaced by the Constitution and not merely altered?
If the Supreme Court had never been established, what would our justice system look like?
Is the intended role of the president to be more iconic or more of a unitary leader?
A)Why and how did the ratification and durability of the Constitution provoke doubt?
B)How would America be if the founders of the Constitution had never been the ones who did adopt it in 1787?
C)What kind of freedom did people give up in exchange for an ordered society?
D) If there had been a fair commerce system and the colonies had remained social conflict. Would this still have led to a declaration of independence?
E)Was the slogan “no taxation without representation” the only critical factor that motivated opposition? what were other ones?
F)What kind of benefit did the England parliament sought when they alienated and restricted the Southern planters from Western movement? Did they already know the condition they were dealing with –possible unpredicted circumstances?
G) What does it mean to be incensed by concession?
H) How would people in modern time respond if a constitution was created to improve the American government and apply more reasonable fundamentals on establishing true equality in such society?
1. If the opposition to the new constitution feared democracy because it would bring about an autocracy, then what governmental system did they have in mind?
2. Did Britain have any idea about the potential impact that their political repression of the colonies would cause?
3. Was an incident like Shays’s rebellion inevitable given the conditions? If it hadn’t occurred, would another event have triggered the Constitutional Convention?
4. Could the Union have survived if it broke away from the South? Was the issue of slavery and its inherent consequences really better than succession?
5. Is it possible for tyranny to exist if an illusion of freedom is maintained?
If the break of America from Great Britain was inevitable why was it necessary to form such a new and controversial government?
Why was it necessary for the people to sacrifice some of their rights in the balance of power between the government?
It was not the colonial elite but the “middle class” that pushed for revolution, what was the greater motivation for this group?
If not for their financial stakes in a future without Britain, would the Founding Fathers still been anxious to split from the UK?
The Articles of Confederation gave states most of the power, why then were they considered to be inadequate?
Why was there so much doubt and controversy about the Constitution?
Even after the colonist chanted and boycotted, why didn’t they get there representation? If they did, where would we be now?
Were European Powers taking advantage of the new country with its weak political power?
If Antifederalists were so against the Constitution, why weren’t they better organized on what they want?
Couldn’t a National Government represent the Nation through State Governments? Wouldn’t that make Antifederalists wrong?
pg. 27-40
Has the Constitution stuck to its original purpose to continue to balance democracy and protect citizens’ liberties?
If it’s claimed that “all men are created equal”, why were only white men granted citizenship?
How did the citizens’ attitude towards government change after the Constitution was ratified?
What ideas of the Enlightened philosophers appealed to the Founding Fathers?
Did the Founding Fathers have more radical or liberal ideas?
How would the English government’s attention towards the United States be different without the Boston Tea Party?
Have our “unalienable rights” been violated within today’s society?
Does the Congress deserve more power than they have already?
What can the United States do to eliminate their weaknesses?
Did the government result into a corrupt society?
What were the motives of the Founding Fathers when constructing the Constitution?
Why was the Three-Fifths Compromise necessary?
Will discrimination, racism, and prejudice derived from early slavery ever end within society?
5 Essential Q’s
Has the Constitution stuck to its original purpose to continue to balance democracy and protect citizens’ liberties?
Have our “unalienable rights” been violated within today’s society?
Will discrimination, racism, and prejudice derived from early slavery ever end within society?
Why did the government have weak power and control over its citizens? How could it gain that power back without oppressing the citizens?
Is national unity a cause or a result of centralized government power?
What is the worry of having too much immigrants?
Which philosopher contributed the most? Locke? Hobbes? Montesquieu?
Why were the “colonial elite”(merchants and planters) content when the British government eliminated the tax but the shopkeepers, artisans, and laboreres weren’t?
Does life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness really sum up all the necessary fundamental rights?
If most if not all Americans came for a freedom or change, why were the merchants and planters so scared of change, to shift from the British?
Would it have been possible for the Founding Fathers to abolish slavery at the ratification of the Constitution? Or did the need for a majority vote outweigh this concern?
In contrast to Hobbes Leviathin theory, he sees man as a “brutish”, could the fathers have established a utopia?
Where would we be as a society had Samuel Adams plan to anger the British ( Boston Tea Party ) been unsuccessful?
What evidence led Charles Beard to believe that the fathers were writing the constitution solely for personal advantages?
Would the anti-federalists have preferred a direct democracy over one based on representatives?
Are “checks and balances” the only means for intergovernmental regulation?
pg. 49-52
What are some beliefs and ideas of Federalism?
Were Federalists just greedy for the most power possible?
Why did the government have weak power and control over its citizens? How could it gain that power back without oppressing the citizens?
Is national unity a cause or a result of centralized government power?
1.Did the founding fathers lean more to the idea that humans were naturally good or naturally evil when writing the constitution?
2.Did Locke’s concept of the people being able to overthrow a tyrannical government hold true in the constitution? If so, why does the government have the right to violently stop protests?
3.What unalienable constitutional rights are sole concepts of the founding fathers? (and not of enlightenment philosophers)
4.Why did the radicals promote inflation?
5.How have the modern responsibilities of the Senate and the House of Representatives changed from their original duties?
1. When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution did they take into account the skepticism that would come about due to the similarities and differences in democracy, freedom, liberty, and equality based on how they were regulated through the government?
2. Did elements of the Constitution make Anti-Federalists believe that America’s democracy was moving to an authoritarian for of government?
3. How did people react to Thomas Hobbes theory that monarchs didn’t deserve their power derived from God (divine right). How did this affect a monarch’s legitimacy?
4. Has monarchial power proved to be dangerous? If so then why is it still in existence today? Don’t people still think there is legitimacy in a monarchial government?
5. What caused tax payers to finally take a stand against British taxes? How did they organize parties to make the impact that they did with events such as the Boston Tea Party?
6. Did the English think that provoking Americans through different tax acts and systems was a effective way to maintain rule just because they had economic authority over America?
7. Does the government today abridge our unalienable rights?
8. Did the Founding Fathers create a democracy to lose association with monarchy, particularly the English monarchy?
9. In the Articles of Confederation, if the central government couldn’t prevent discrimination against other states in the search for foreign commerce, how would that challenge the idea of equality in America?
10. If America did renew the Articles of Confederation and the Declaration of Independence could the country have one again fall under European (particularly British) rule?
11. Did Americans, particularly whites, take some of their rights for granted even in the early 1800s?
12. Why did the Founders of America have to reevaluate so many political documents in order to set up a democracy? Was this due to the fact that they were doubtful of democracy? Would America exist if these revisions wouldn’t have occurred?
13. How do the Senate and the House of Representatives differ in what they decide in government?
14. Which has more separation in terms of party’s views, the Great Compromise or the Three-Fifths Compromise?
How would circumstances change is northern and southern states split? Would slavery in America still exist today?
Sorry didn’t realize the 5 question rule also applied to chapter 2 here are my 5 most important questions for chapter 2:
1. How would circumstances change is northern and southern states split? Would slavery in America still exist today?
2. Why did the Founders of America have to reevaluate so many political documents in order to set up a democracy? Was this due to the fact that they were doubtful of democracy? Would America exist if these revisions wouldn’t have occurred?
3. How did people react to Thomas Hobbes theory that monarchs didn’t deserve their power derived from God (divine right). How did this affect a monarch’s legitimacy?
4. Did elements of the Constitution make Anti-Federalists believe that America’s democracy was moving to an authoritarian for of government?
5. Did the English think that provoking Americans through different tax acts and systems was a effective way to maintain rule just because they had economic authority over America?
pg 27-40
1) Was the constitution intended to be an enduring document that would last for decades?
2) In what circumstances can the state governments better represent the people as opposed to the federal government? and vise versa?
3) Can an ordered society be achieved and maintained without needing the people to compromise their freedoms?
4) At the constitutional convention, smaller states preferred the New Jersey Plan, which called for equal representation in the national legislature. Larger states preferred the Virginia Plan, which called for representation in the national legislation based on state population and revenue contribution. How would both small and large states benefit from their respective plans?
5) What are some of the limitations to equal representation? What are the benefits? Are the effects drastically different between large and small states?
1. If the radical forces had been given an equal say with the elites in government ealier on, would the American Revolution have happened?
2. Was the American Revolution a result of actual intolerable tyrannies forced upon them, or more a result of a group of colonists wanting to be able to rule themselves?
3. Was it a flaw to make the states responsible for paying their representatives? Does giving the states the athority to determine how much their representatives get paid, based on how well they represent their contituents adavance or subtract from democracy?
4. When America’s leaders allow themselves to be influenced by foreign countries, and those inluences may or may not represent the best interests of the people, are the country’s leaders diverting from democracy?
5. Article IV in the Constitution tries to make all states recognize similar laws, to promote national unity and prohibit states from acting like a separte nation from other states. Would this make the citizens of certain states feel alienated from their government, if their state recongizes a law because the state next to it did, like adopting a law that says all people have to eat meat?
Language from the Articles of Confederation on delegates:
I suspected it had to do with corruption in some way or another. Under the Articles, each state had one vote but could send up to seven delegates. The only condition on those delegates was that they not hold any national office while representing the state in the Continental Congress. The reason for this is to avoid ambiguous or cross- loyalties or obligations between the duties as state delegate or a role in the Continental Congress or other national office.
The Articles did not dictate State pay for the delegates, and I don’t know what if any compensation they earned.
I see how this prevents corruption, but I was not referring to the Continental Congress. But how does the ability of the constituents to determine the salary of their leaders affect democracy in that nation? More specifically the direct constituents of those leaders, to make sure those leaders best represent the wishes of the people.
I really like your idea here to apply Price Theory to representation. Ideally, the voting process holds Congress accountable… lol. Ideally. And it does, although imperfectly, as there are so many other inputs into representation beyond the voter. So, if lobbyists can pay for trips and conventions and deliver information to representatives, what can the voters do? Well, cut their pay!
Where else would you take your idea?
There was a movie back in the 90s about an unemployed guy who wanted a job that paid well but didn’t require any specific skills or previous experience. So, he decided to run for Congress!
Why did the Founding Fathers decide to make their government a democracy when they thought it led to tyranny and would not last long?
Are the Antifederalists proven right due to the fact that my local senators abuse their authority? Does that mean America would be better off if the state government represent the people instead of the national government ?
If not for British retaliation to the Boston Tea Party and repression would America still be under the British monarchy? Did British reaction play a key part in causing an unintentional Revolution of America from the British government ?
Would The American political system be better if Congress could be immediately recalled by state authorities ? Would America’s economy be better if Congress was still prohibited from levying taxes?
Does “the American Comstitution was chiefly organized by the New England merchants and southern planters” mean that the Constitution was organized by LOYAL ENGLiSHMEN AND STRONGWILLED AFFIRMED RACISTS?!?
pg. 49-52
1. Did Federalist views support the notion of a difference between the political and apolitical strata?
2. Have Anti-federalists and Federalists’ fears that tyranny would occur in democracy with the new Constitution come true today with corruption in Congress?
3. How did the constitution represent the minority?
4. By amending the Constitution has the government drawn away from the Constitution’s original intent or has the government put these amendments in place to accommodate for growing society needs like advancements in technology, science, etc.? Or both?
5. Where the Ant federalists trying to represent the minority groups by being so interested in individual rights?
Page 27 and 28 Question 1
If the Articles of Confederation was such a failure, then why was the Constitution highly controversial and its ratification and durability in doubt? Why did George Washington believe the Constitution would need to be rewritten in twenty years? Is it because he knew the conditions, standards and norms of 1787 could or would be drastically different by 1807? Is this proof that the Constitution is not infallible and anachronistic and therefore parts of the Constitution should be changed to accommodate the new norms, standards and conditions of modern society?
Page 29 Question 2
If the legitimacy of a monarchy stems from “contract theory” then does divine rule add or support the legitimacy of a monarchy or is it irrelevant?
Page 31 Question 3
Did the colonists (majority) really support the actions of the British Soldiers during the Boston Massacre, if so, WHY? In retrospect, can it be assumed that John Adams regretted representing the British Soldiers and did his political opponents use this against him?
Page 32-33 Question 4
Even if done by accident, why did the British enact policy that radicalized the colonists against the British and then take further action further alienating the non-radicalized colonists? Essentially, how did Britain not realize that their political repression of the colonists fanned support for the colonists’ independence?
Page 55 Question 5
Is the difficulty to pass an amendment to the Constitution a good thing (being it would protect the people) or a bad thing (being that it allows the government to control the people by limiting their set unarguable rights)?
Chapter 2 Questions
1. Has the government fulfilled their purposes?
2. Why was the constitution controversial? Amongst who?
3. Why did Washington doubt that the constitution wouldn’t last more than 20 years?
4. If we are a democracy and labeled an authoritarian form of government, which is true?
5. What is full citizenship according to the constitution? When will there be an answer? Pg. 28
6. Did Britain’s separation of powers work? Which structure is of a better quality, Britain’s or the U.S.?
7. Would have monopoly worked in the colonies?
8. Would monopoly violate the early constitution?
9. Is it fair that majority of the people who were there to write/ build the process of creating the constitution there or should other people had the opportunity to be there?
10. What would prevent one state from discriminating against other states if the Articles of Confederation did not?
11. Did the change of political power affect the colonies positively or negatively?
12. Where the Articles of Confederation really improving?
13. What are recognized as fundamental flaws in the Articles of Confederation?
14. Can the New Jersey and what was going on at that time be perceived as a pluralist action?
Do you think the issues of taxation, trade, and commerce among the five sectors of society was caused by the fact that others were more socioeconomically better than others?
Why did John Locke think that monarchial power was too dangerous and should be limited?
Why was Shay’s rebellion so effective in showing how weak the government was and exposing it for what it was doing wrong?
Did the Anti-Federalists essays, all published under “Brutus”, stack up to what the essays of Hamilton, Madison, and Jay in terms of persuading New Yorkers and the Constitution’s many critics?
Why did it take so long for the Articles of Confederation to be ratified, especially since it took 4 years to do so?
1. Is the fact that people care so much about what they inherited by being born into the United States (The Constitution) that is disallows them from trying to fix or establish what they’re after?
2. Did the Articles of Confederation prove that regulation and stricter centralized power is a necessity in the hands of the government?
3. Is the hypocrisy of political figures picking and choosing which of the philosophies and thoughts of the founding fathers to follow known to the American public?
4. Have the Bill of Rights shown to be nominal at best?
5. Is leaving many public safety and public standard responsibilities up to the states reckless, and does it endanger the lives of citizens because of the fact that some states refuse to act on certain issues?
*Were not the Bill of Rights controversial too in the making of the Constitution? (“pg. 29- Constitution was highly controversial at first, and as a result, the Bill of Rights was added to calm the critics’ fears.)
*What factors determine someone being a citizen of the US?
*Why was a “bulwark against tyranny” Montesquieu’s key solution for the balance of power?
*Would it be considered that Britain also determined the success/failure of each state through trading?
*Could there have been any other political concept other than federalism that America would have grown from?
1. If injustices exist, is retaliation inevitable, or does it take a specific course of action to turn into Rebellion? What did players like Adams do to shape the reality into actions worthy of revolution?
2. Does it always take some mass injustice for conditions to allow unification versus separation?
3. Who should lands under revolution look to for legitimacy most effectively? (the patria or the world?)
4. At what point to do we as a society stop complaining about policies and officials and realize that the structure is wrong and must be changed?
5. What are the benefits/ drawbacks to positive rule vs. negative rules?
*What cause George Washington to have a doubtful belief of the Constitution?
Why did he have such thinking that it would only last a short period of time?
*The Articles of Confederation, United States’s first written constitution, which was voted 9/13 of the states. It was a fail, because it had no natural court system, was voted 9 out of 13 states, there was only a unicameral legislature(Seperation of Power), etc.. But if the Article of Confederation was perfect, would all these virtual imposssiblities be rejected and make injustice laws more justice?
*The Three-Fifths compromise, which had to do with property taxation , fairly setled powers yet did not give the slave the purposes of apportion. Had slaves been granted full weight for apportionment purposes, that would have strengthened the South?
*If the government was powerless, how did Constitution keep balance of individuals?
Was it the political power that was shared to increase power create within the government? Or by individual senates.?
*As Mr. Bromley said that the Supreme Court was a left over of thought or whatever.
What would our way of Jurisdiction be like if the Supreme Court wasn’t established?
Correction on Question 4: ” If the government were to be powerless, how would the Constitution keep balance of Individuals?
Was the shared power of politics increased within the government or by individuals?
If the colonies never broke away from England, would textbooks even mention democracy? If they did, would it be in a positive light or a negative light?
Was the Constitution meant to be replaceable?
When did the idea of White Citizenry go away?
Would a Confederation work if it had a better, but still weaker than state, central government as a fallback?
Under the Articles of Confederation, were Americans more or or less financially stable than under British rule?
see above for Delegate pay under Articles in response to Milo’s question.
Posting Qs emailed from Nicholas Liu:
1. Did the Founding Fathers base the Constitution more so on Hobbe’s theory of evil men than on the theory that men were good?
2. Was the constitution created for keeping citizens in line or checking the power of the government?
3. How much did the public view and incentives structure the formation?
4. Since the Constitution was created such a long time ago, is it wrong to assume the context that it was structured off of is different today and thus is anachronistic?
5. What is checking vice by vice? Is the system reliable?
6. Does the Constitution really address the human nature of ambition? If it does, isn’t that a subtle way of governing our way of thinking?
7. Would a single party ruler, or monarchy, be more stable?
8. Is property still the driving force of modern interpretation of the Constitution?
9. If the basic rights that we now enjoy had to be later added on as Amendments, does that mean the Constitution was originally not for the well being of the people?
10. If so, then are we wrong in using the Constitution as a cornerstone of the American values? After all, the Constitution was created to out of security of property and self interest.
11. Are the rights of every class represented?
12. Does “the people who own the country ought to govern it” relate to the entire US or does it say that the rich and powerful should govern?
I’m just testing out HTML tags on an old post.
does this work?what does strong do?