Unit II Congressional District Questions

Q1: How does the Constitution limit government power to protect

individual rights while promoting the common good?
The Constitution set forth a relatively strong government compared
to the short-lived Articles of Confederation. The goal of the framers in their
shaping of the Constitution was to find the correct balance between limiting
the federal government for the sake of individual rights, something the
Articles succeeded at, and empowering the federal government enough to
protect the common good, at which the Articles failed.
The Constitution gave a fair amount of power to the federal
government, but set forth limitations to prevent this from creating an
overbearing state. These limits spawn from the use of a federal republic
system, and are reinforced by checks and balances. The federal system of
government gave only necessary powers to a central government. The
central government could protect the nation and dictate interstate
relations, but could not interfere with the enumerated state powers. This
division of power ensured that the federal government provided for the
common good with little possibility of encroaching on liberty.
The republican system of representation used concepts described by
the Federalist papers to ensure personal liberties. Representation in
Congress was designed to use good leaders to represent the interests of
citizens, but not necessarily citizens demands. Debate in Congress is

meant to prevent majority rule and silencing of minorities, a problem

common to democracies and smaller republics.
Checks and balances, in conjunction with the division of federal
powers into branches, act as a safeguard system on federal power. For
example, a single leader is responsible for presiding over the country. To
prevent this leader from imposing tyrannical executive actions, he is
monitored by Congress and the Judicial branch, and must be approved in
most things he/SHE does.
a. Why did the Federalists and Anti-Federalists disagree on
whether the Constitution sufficiently protected individual rights and
promoted the common good?
There was much debate among the Federalists and Anti-Federalists
about whether or not the constitution sufficiently protected individual
rights and promoted the common good. Anti-Federalists did not believe the
Constitution sufficiently protected individual rights. They feared that a
republic as large-scale as the one set forth in the Constitution would fail to
correctly represent the interests of everyday citizens. A small group of
representatives for each state risked silencing of any number of groups in
that state. Federalists disagreed, proposing that a large republic of states
would be much more successful than a democracy as it used proper leaders
to solve issues, with an emphasis on preventing factions from gaining
power.

Anti-Federalists believed that the Constitutional government would

have too much power in all three branches. Clauses such as the elastic
clause, and the inability of state governments to overrule federal decisions
presented the risk of a tyrannical state, and was somewhat reminiscent of
the harsh British rule, where the colonies could not overrule or defy the
crowns demands. Federalists disagreed, promising that the checks in the
government were sufficient enough to prevent any branch from becoming
overbearing, and ensured that the foundation of central power was on
representation of state interests. This made it safe to give the national
government power to protect the common good.
What responsibilities, if any, do citizens have for seeing that individual
rights are protected and the common good is promoted?
Citizens in a democratic-republic have small, but important
responsibilities in protecting the common good and individual liberties.
First off, the democratic-republican form of representation requires that
individuals participate, both in voting and by being politically active in
communities. Lack of involvement undermines the idea that citizens
interests can be represented, especially at a national level. Political
enthusiasm at the local level promotes that in others, and reinforces the
necessity of individual action in local and state governments.
Furthermore, each citizen has a set of natural rights that the
government is in place to protect, and, in the event that any of those rights
are being infringed upon by the national government, it is the duty of the

citizen to stand up for their fellow people in defense of those rights.

However, citizens have the duty to uphold the constitution, and follow any
just law, even if it contradicts their own interests. Placing faith in the
government is necessary for it to function, and prevents the need for
further legislation.

2. What were the major conflicts at the Philadelphia Convention and how
were they resolved? michaela noah taran
After a collective decision to abandon the Articles of Confederation,
several major conflicts arose in the Philadelphia Convention: Apportioning
representation, addressing slavery, and determining the strength of the
federal government. Two sides arose for the first two issues, one side
constituted of large states, supporting slavery and proportionate
representation, and another side consisting of smaller states, opposing
slavery and supporting equal representation. Various opinions were held
on the appropriate power of the federal government.

The Philadelphia Convention, among other things, created a new

Congress. In making it, delegates at the convention fervently disagreed on
the method of issuing representation to states. A population-based system
favored large states, and equal representation gave smaller states more
clout for less population. A singular method could not be agreed upon, so
the Connecticut Compromise was made. The new Congress would be
bicameral. Representation in the lower house is proportionate , and
representation in the upper house is the same for each state.
Slavery was not directly addressed in the Constitution. The
Constitution was made to neither support nor defy the peculiar
institution. While anti-slavery delegates made sure that slavery would
never be upheld at the national level, pro-slavery delegates pushed to
include clauses, such as the Three-Fifths clause, that ensured slave states
would not be disadvantaged in the new government.
The conflict over deciding the extent to which the federal government
could command power over the states was resolved through endless debate,
even after the Constitution. The eventual compromise was that the federal
government would have supreme power in a small, limited area of
influence, and all other power was given to state governments. The Bill of
Rights was made to ensure that this power of the government could not
encroach on personal liberties.
Giving each state equal representation in the senate is important to
keep every opinion and perspective in consideration. While all expenditure

bills are created in the House, the Senate must approve these bills for use.
Equal representation in the Senate gives small states the ability to have a
firm voice in Congress, with adequate say in the final decision to create
legislation. This creates a safeguard against majority rule, which could be
damaging to citizens liberties in smaller states.
However, this raises the possibility that the beliefs of a small amount
of people could prevent the nation from promoting the common good of a
large part of the nation by refusing to approve certain bills.
Deciding whether or not to add the Fugitive slave clause and the
Three-Fifths compromise to the Constitution was a difficult choice for those
framing the constitution. With sectionalism becoming more evident at the
Philadelphia Convention, those involved in framing the constitution knew
they would have to make compromises in order to protect the union.
It was arguable that if the south did not have ample representation,
slavery could easily be stamped out if an issue regarding it was presented to
congress, and their economy would be obliterated. Additionally, there was
the idea that governments came into being to protect property, and they
depended on that property as well. So, Southern states should receive more
representation because they had more property. It was also very likely that
slaves would try to escape to the northern free states, and that would
damage the Souths economy and therefore merited constitutional
protection through the Fugitive Slave clause.

However, many of the arguments that supported adding the fugitive

slave clause and three-fifths compromise to the Constitution were
dependent on logical fallacies like false cause. Southerners feared slavery
would be put to an end and their economy would fail if they did not have
more say in the matter. However, a smaller amount of representation was
not actually a foreseeable cause of the end of slavery. In fact, many people
in the north were confident that slavery would die out on its own because it
would become impractical and grow less lucrative over time, and there was
a general consensus that an immediate end to slavery was not worth
disintegration of the union.
While the souths constituent states are large and did have more
property, their free population was not significant. Therefore, their
readiness to relabel slaves as citizens in this situation was a transparent
attempt to add to their power in the national government, especially
because their addition to the population would only strengthen their
owners views.
nice content says kecz
break up the slave and proportionate issue
1st question: states v national government - invention of federalism;
checks+balances
democracy debate
states
ratification and bill of rights

MORE PASSION

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 --QUESTION 3-- 3 3 3 3 3 3 33 3 3 3 33 3 3
At the time of the creation of the Constitution, two major groups, the
Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, debated on the appropriate extent of
federal government, and eventually the ratification of the Constitution.
Federalists supported ratification of the Constitution and a much stronger
union of the states, with a strong, active federacy. The Anti-Federalists had
the opposite stance, opposing ratification and the stronger federal
government described in the Constitution.
The two groups differed on the national governments ability to
enforce uniformity in the states. Federalists argued that strong unity under
a central government would promote liberty in the nation, prevent
damaging competition among the states, and facilitate inter-state
commerce. Anti-Federalists disagreed, holding that the proposed central
government would encroach on personal liberties and damage the
commerce and rights of individual states.
Anti-Federalists argued that a single government would be improper
in directly or actively governing the people of a diverse confederacy. They
argued that it would silence interests of states, or that of smaller
populations within the states. They also believed that states, not the federal
government, should have the primary power of taxation because the
citizens money could be used to meet needs that the citizens had
determined themselves.
Federalists disagreed, supposing that a large republic would prevent
factions from threatening the common good, as their voice in government
would be placed among countless others as a method of filtration.
Federalists also believed in more central taxation, as an active federal role
in the nation would be necessary to maintain unity and stability.

Federalist opinions As an introduction to the Federalist Papers,

Madison said, there is not sufficient virtue among men for self
government. Through this, they support a social contract that indicates
that some rights must be sacrificed to the government in order to protect a
large majority of our natural rights, especially from groups of people or
institutions that do not have the common good in mind.
Anti-Federalists argued with an example: People living in small
communities were so used to sacrificing their own self interest for the
common good, that they naturally possessed the civic virtue necessary for
self-government. Thus, they felt that natural rights were sufficiently
protected in small societies that fit the republican model, and they did not
need to sacrifice any of them to a government for the sake of protection.
In Federalist 10, Madison argued for the creation of a new political
system that deviated from classical republicanism substantially. Their
arguments for revising republicanism show that they did not revere
classical republicanism as much as their Anti-federalist counterparts, and
they found it to be undependable as a system for their large nation.
However, they did agree with the Anti-federalists on the subject of keeping
the government in check.
Anti-federalists argued from a historical perspective, as
republicanism had failed on a large scale throughout history due to abuses
of power. They reasoned that republicanism was only in its true form when
practiced at the state level. Thus, we know that they were highly supportive
of republicanism and did not want to see it marred because of the new
constitution or the new union.
With a few exceptions, Anti-Federalists believed that most governing
authority should go to states for the sake of avoiding a tyrannical or overwieldy national government. Federalists, however, believed that states
rights fell behind national security and unity as a priority. They wanted to
lessen states rights in order to create a stronger federal government and
nation.

The debate over the appropriate power of the central government has
remained constant up to current times. As federal laws increase in number,
federal involvement in individual lives steadily rises. The Federalist and
Anti-Federalists debates are carried on in modern debate over the necessity
of government growth and action.
Debate over federal action and federal taxation continues in the
modern-day United States. Federalist ideas are seen in tax increases,
especially for military expenditure. Anti-Federalist ideas are behind much
reasoning to lower or oppose taxes, with the belief that state governments
are more likely to properly spend tax dollars, and less likely to go against
the interests of their people.
Anti-Federalist ideas suppose that these federal actions are
unitarian and oppressive. Federalist ideas, however, support federal action
to lessen state and sometimes individual rights for the sake of the common
good. In the case of the creation of the draft after the Civil War, individual
rights were lessened to preserve the union, and in the case of Supreme
Court ruling on gay marriage, states rights were lessened for the sake of
expanding liberty. Anti-federalist sentiments would be against this
sacrifice of personal and states rights by a federal power.

good split whatever

more clear transition into #2