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._
[Sidenote: _E pluribus unum._]
=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.
[Sidenote: Obstacles in the way of union.]
=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.
[Sidenote: Early attempts at federation.]
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.
[Sidenote: The Revolution as a unifying force.]
=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.”
[Sidenote: Importance of the Declaration.]
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. [Sidenote: 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, it could act
only through the states.
[Sidenote: Weakness of the Confederation.]
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.
[Sidenote: The critical period.]
=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.
[Sidenote: Impotence of the Congress.]
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.
[Sidenote: The economic disorder.]
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.
[Sidenote: The leaders in despair.]
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.
[Sidenote: A Constitutional Convention called.]
=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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION OF 1787
By Violet Oakley
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!
[Illustration:
WASHINGTON AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
By Violet Oakley
_Copyright by Violet Oakley. From a Copley Print, copyright by Curtis
& Cameron, Boston. Reproduced by permission._
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Sidenote: The Fathers of the Republic.]
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]
[Sidenote: The obstacles and the compromises.]
=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]
[Sidenote: The constitution drafted.]
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.
[Sidenote: Ratification by the 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. [Sidenote: 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]
[Sidenote: A notable document.]
=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.
[Sidenote: Factors in the development 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.
[Sidenote: 1. Usage.]
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.
[Sidenote: 2. Interpretation.]
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.
[Sidenote: 3. Statutes.]
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.
[Sidenote: 4. Amendments.]
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. [Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: Nature of the nineteen amendments.]
=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.
General References
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.
Group Problems
=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.
Short Studies
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.
Questions
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?
Topics for Debate
1. A national convention should be called to revise the constitution.
2. The process of amending the constitution should be made easier.