America Past; D10; The Constitution

[Beeps]. [Noise]. Son,

I do not conceive how we can exist long as a nation without having somewhere a power which will pervade the whole union in as energetic a manner as the power that the state governments extend over the several states. That was George Washington writing a letter to his son expressing his concern about the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. Of course he wasn't the only one. They were very concerned about what was going to happen to this new United States. The articles you remember were just plain too weak and too many people were unhappy. The farmers had been so unhappy that they'd actually rebelled in Massachusetts. Daniel Shays had led his rebellion which absolutely terrified the property owners that the rabble was going to get up in arms. The bankers were unhappy because the money was worthless. Westerners were unhappy because of Indian problems and the possibility that Spain would close the Mississippi River.

It seemed that there was no large group in soc- society that really supported the Articles of Confederation. So what are you going to do about them? Well some people thought the solution was to have a military dictatorship. There is some whispering and rumbling that Washington could become a military dictator and that was a possibility except one key person was very much against it and that was Washington himself. It is said that he reduced his officers to tears when they even suggested it to him. And that's one reason that Washington along with Franklin is considered to be close to indispensable because he was the type of person that would reject completely, immediately any such suggestion as that. Well some of the problems arose between states. The fact that the federal government, the national government, could not control interstate trade and some of the states were taking steps to solve these on their own. They mention that Maryland and Virginia had had a

conference at Mt. Vernon. There'd been another conference at Annapolis [clearing throat]. That was a flop. Only five states showed up. But they issued a call there for another conference, a convention to meet in Philadelphia. Now frankly I doubt if that call was legal. Because they're going to come to revise the Articles of Confederation. To revise the Articles of Confederation would take a unanimous vote. There was another little problem with the articles. It took nine votes out of 13 to pass a law. I mean gee whiz, majority rule is fine but does it have to be a two thirds majority for everything? A unanimous vote to change them. Since when does any congress any where any time agree unanimously on anything, except maybe adjournment. Anyway, they issued this call without asking the Confederation Congress about it. And they're going to hold a conference which we call the Constitutional Convention. Now it was called that later. They were meeting to revise the articles. Well what are some of the

basic facts about that convention before we go into what they accomplished? When did it meet? Well, it met from May, the end of May, to the middle of September in 1787. It was the summer of 1787. Where did it meet? Where else? Where do they always meet? They met in Philadelphia. Where in Philadelphia? Independence Hall. Where in Independence Hall? The assembly room. The same place the Articles Congress met. The same place the Declaration had been adopted. That's where they met. Why? We've already said that. To revise the Articles of Confederation. Who is there. Well there were 55 delegates there. Every state except Rhode Island who always kind of prided herself on being different about things. The average age was 42. That's fairly young as politicians go. Five of them are under the age of 30.

Who are some of the specific people. [Music] Well Benjamin Franklin is here. 81 years old. [Music] He had a bunch of prisoners paroled to him in Philadelphia sedan seat, hauling him about and he would sit up there. I think he enjoyed it. I can just see him humped up in there with his little fur cap being carried in. Sat him out in the hall down beside down beside his seat. He sat in the aisle here and watch the proceedings. He didn't really care about coming but he realized that if he didn't show up, well you can guess, I mean what would it look like? Here's one of the most prestigious men in America and he doesn't attend the convention? It must mean that he's against it. So he felt it was essential that he come. It would be his last major service to the new country. George Washington is here in full uniform. Again, along with Franklin, he had the most prestige of any man of the colonies. He added dignity to the occasion, prestige,

it is essential that he come so that not look like he was against it. He'll be elected chairman. He will not take much part in it. He will limit himself pretty much to [cough] running the meetings, acting as a chairman. From New York there was young Alexander Hamilton. A brilliant mind, later going to be secretary of the Treasury, eventually killed in a duel. Eloquent speaker, [rrr] at least his speeches read well. He gave one five hour speech in here. At the end of it they voted on the resolution and his motion got one vote. His own. James Madison was here, sometimes called the father of the Constitution, all five feet four inches, 100 pounds of him. Skinny Jimmy they called him. Sat over here, the the delegate from Virginia. Kept notes. You see the meeting is going to be secret. They knew [cough] that they were going to have a lot of arguments. They knew that was going to happen. And they're afraid if the people out there hear about it they might lose

what little faith they had in the government. So there was an agreement that we aren't going to go out and we're not going to talk to the press and we're going to keep it among ourselves until it's all over and then we'll let it out. It was a fairly impressive group of people. Oh and another thing about about Madison that we'll mention. He kept notes on the convention. We know a good deal about what went on in there and, since it was to be kept secret, how do we know those things? Well he wrote 'em down. He would go home at night and he would write down the speeches. If he had a good memory, then we know a lot about it. The diaries of Madison are one of the major sources about what actually happened in this convention. One historian historian has been extremely lavish in his praise of this group of men. He maintains that no comparable group of talented men could have gathered together in any nation at any other time in history. [Music] That might be debatable, but nevertheless it indicates that this was a fairly talented group that is assembled to do a very important job. And they'll do it pretty well. Even though we're

relatively young as nations go, we have the oldest written constitution in the world. They put it together in such a fashion that it can be changed, that it could last, well, over 200 years now. Well. These men agreed on certain things but they didn't agree on others. They agreed that what they're doing is important. Alright, this isn't just another committee meeting that you have to go to. This makes a difference. And they all seem to be aware of that. Two, They agreed they had to strengthen the national government. We've got to do something about those old Articles. And three, they agreed that they weren't going to give the national government all the power. They were going to have what's called a federal system of government. A federal system of government is one in which power is divided between two levels, national government with certain powers, state government with certain powers. That's a federal system - national and state. We're not going to give up all of our

rights to this this one strong national government. They agreed on that. Other things -- well, there was some disagreement. One of the major disagreements concerned how would the states be represented in Congress. Now under the Articles of Confederation each state had had one vote. Are you going to do that again? Remember that made the large states extremely unhappy. So you get the question of how are we going to represent the states in the new Congress under the Constitution. One way you could have your representation, of course, would be based on population. The states with more people got more votes. It seems fair. If you have 10,000 people you ought to have more votes than if you have a 1,000 people in the situation. That obviously appealed to the large states. Another way you could do it, of course, would be like under the Articles. Let it be equal from each state.

Everybody gets the same. But you see you already knew that wasn't going to make people very happy because it hadn't under the Articles. Now this was not just a little academic discussion. They absolutely refused to go along with each other's plans on this. The large state plan was favored by Virginia, back over in the corner. They were the largest state, they wanted the most representation, and if we don't get it we're just not going to approve it. That's it. This thing is on the rocks. The small states, well their plan is often referred to as the New Jersey plan. They sat right there cross the aisle. And they said, "Well, if you base it on population why should we even show up? Why bother? We'll just be outvoted on everything. There's simply no point. So we won't go along with it." Well this reached a real crisis. Benjamin Franklin suggested that they ought to bring a chaplain in to help them pray about it. They didn't have enough money

in their treasury to do that. So they simply had to think a little harder. Well the solution finally comes and is called the great compromise or sometimes the Connecticut Compromise because the people here from Connecticut are the ones that suggested it. And here's what they did. They said, "I will take Congress and we'll divide it into two parts. We've done that in our states, they've had a two house legislature." England had the House of Lords, House of Commons. They didn't have to invent anything here. except in practice. To do it that way, you'll have two houses. One of those houses is the Senate. This is the old Senate chamber. They met here in the United States Capitol from 1810 to 1859. In the Senate each state was allowed two votes. So little old Rhode Island was just as important in here as Virginia. Just as today Alaska and California are equal. The

small states like the idea of organizing it that way but the large states didn't. They wanted representation based on population. And in the other house, the House of Representatives, that's the way it was done. The more people you had the more votes you got. So today Alaska has one vote there, California has around 40. But both Houses have to pass every bill before it can become a law. So both the small and the large states have their input. That is what's known as the Great Compromise. Were there any other compromises concerning the legislative branch? Well, there were several. One I want to comment on, the so-called three-fifths compromise. You see the more people you have, the more members you're going to get in the House of Representatives. Well, fine. Does that mean the South can count its slaves in counting as population so that they get more votes in the house? Would that be fair?

Southerners said, "Sure, they're people, we'll count 'em." Northerners said, "You do not consider them citizens. You do not give them the rights of citizens. You do not let them vote. You can't count them just so you get more votes in the House of Representatives." The compromise, every five slaves would be counted as three when determining population, or, put another way, a slave would be considered to be three-fifths of a person. Highly insulting, obviously. No longer true because once slavery was abolished with the 13th amendment, the three-fifths compromise went out the window. So you end up with a legislative branch composed of a Senate, with two votes from each state, and a House of Representatives, where the representation was based on population. Their duty? Their duty then, their duty now, was to make laws. How about a president?

The Articles of Confederation had not provided for a president. It was decided fairly early in the Constitutional Convention that we would have some type of a chief executive. As far as that executive branch was concerned there were two questions that came up at the convention. One of those concerned how long should the president hold office, and the other dealt with who should elect him. And both of them were rather major problems. As far as to how long should a president hold office, well there were the conservatives, represented by Alexander Hamilton, who thought he really ought to be elected for life. Well, what would you have there? Essentially you'd have an elected king. Others went to the other extreme. He should be elected for one year. For one year? Today, you wouldn't know your way around the White House at the end of one year.

That would seem ridiculous. The compromise, with electing for a term of four years but he can be re-elected. In theory, he could be re-elected and re-elected until he served for life. He couldn't today, of course, we've since added the twenty-second amendment, but at the time that was a compromise. He'll serve four years and if you want to reelect him, you may keep doing that every four years. Alright, who should vote for him? That bothered them a great deal. They did not want just anybody out there running around voting for the president. They wanted the well-educated, the aristocrats. So they created the Electoral College. The Electoral College has driven government students crazy in high schools ever since trying to figure that thing out. But essentially you had a group of people, called electors, who are going to sit down and calmly pick a president. There

were no political parties to interfere with your thinking at that time. Who would choose the electors? The state legislature. So you, as an average person, are fairly far removed at that time from picking a president. You chose a state legislature; they chose electors; they chose the president. Today, of course, people vote directly for the electors. But we still have the Electoral College around. What's the executive branch? Of course it's symbolized in our minds by the White House. It consists of the president and the vice president and the president's cabinet. Well that actually wasn't in the Constitution but it became a part of the executive branch, and a myriad of agencies. Their duty? To enforce the laws. The Executive Branch is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the laws. [Music}] You have the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the third branch, the judicial, commonly called

the courts. Their purpose? To interpret the laws. Now we make things kind of awkward in the United States in that we have two court systems. The federal courts and the state courts. Most of you if you serve on a jury or visit a trial, they will be in the state courts where they're dealing with murder and robbery and things like that. We're talking here about the federal courts. The Federal District Court, the Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court. Generally they are not concerned with guilt or innocence, certainly not on the level of the Supreme Court. They're concerned with explaining what the Constitution means. The writer said one thing 200 years ago. What does that mean today? How does it apply? How should that be interpreted? That is their main job. An example: The Constitution guarantees you equal protection before the laws. What does that mean.? What does that mean to you? Well, it means what the Supreme Court says it means. And what they said it meant in say

1890 might not be what they say it means today. How about freedom of religion? You're guaranteed that. What does that mean? Does that mean you have the right to say, "I will not be inoculated against a disease because my religion doesn't believe in it." Or can the government say, "Yes, you will because it's for the public good?" Who decides that? The courts have to interpret just what is meant by freedom of religion. But the point is, the Judicial Branch. was established to explain or to interpret the Constitution. With the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, you have the powers now separated into three parts. Under the Articles there'd been only one part, Congress. But the framers of the Constitution were worried about something else. They were worried for fear one of those branches might get too much power. So they developed a system known as a system of checks and balances. I want you to know the purpose of that and

then I'll just give you a few examples. The purpose was simple. It was to keep any one branch from getting too much power. They were to check and balance the power of each other. Example: Congress passes a law. The president doesn't like it. He can veto it. Usually that will kill it. [Unintelligible talking in background] If Congress is just bound and determined to have that law, they can pass it over his veto, But it takes a two-thirds vote of each house instead of a majority vote. Does the president have any control over the Courts? Sure. He appoints the judges. Now he can't appoint just anybody. Whoever he appoints has to be approved by a vote of the Senate. But both the Senate and the president have some input as to who goes on to the courts. The president can grant pardons and reprieves to people who are convicted. That gives him power in that area. The Congress, they approve treaties; a check of the Congress against the president. Of course, they have the ultimate check and balance in that they have the power of

impeachment. If they can impeach and convict a president, they can take him out of office. The Supreme Court? Well, they can declare laws unconstitutional, or acts of presidents unconstitutional. That's their check. So no one person, no one branch, has ultimate, complete power under this system. Now occasionally you'll get one system, one branch, getting more power than the other. A chief justice, for example, might dominate the courts and the courts dominate the other two branches temporarily. A strong president might dominate Congress. If somebody said that if Roosevelt asked Congress to commit suicide, they would have done it. A weak president might be dominated by Congress. But by and large, the system's worked pretty well. It has kept any one branch from getting too much power. [Music] For the constitutional convention in here wrapped up its work and they're

going to have to take it out there now to be approved. If nine states approve it, it will go into effect. Well, they get that fairly easily. The thing is that they really wanted all thirteen states to approve it. They want unity to start this thing. Well, what were the objections to it? I mean it's worked well. We think it pretty good. What did they object to? Well, some big names objected. Patrick Henry, who had been one of the leaders of the revolution, he didn't like it. He said he smelled a rat, as he put it. John Hancock. He'd set up right up there. He'd set there as chairman of the Constitution, uh, Continental Congress. Why doesn't he support it? He claimed the federal government would have too much power. Then somebody suggested to him that he would probably be the first vice president and he

decided it wasn't too bad a document, he could go along with it. Whereupon they elected John Adams of course. So one objection, that of Patrick Henry and Hancock and some of them, was that the national government was too strong. Thomas Jefferson objected to it. He wasn't here. Thomas Jefferson was in France as an ambassador to France. But through correspondence he knew what was happening and he objected. Why? Because it didn't have a Bill of Rights. He felt that the war in the revolution had been fought for such things as freedom of religion and press and speech and protection against illegal search and seizure, and that that ought to be in the Constitution. It wasn't there. So he objected to it on that basis. But as I say it passed fairly easily. For one thing Washington was for it. Washington's prestige was so immense that Thomas Jefferson said, "There's

nothing we can say against the Constitution that makes up for the mere fact that Washington is for it." And almost everyone was sure that he would be the first president. So they had faith. People were concerned that the president would become a king. Well they, they weren't so worried because they knew that first president would be, almost certainly, would be Washington. So with his prestige it carries through Virginia and it is passed. Rhode Island again wanting to be different, uh did not approve the constitution until the new government had actually gone into operation. The Constitution provided that it would go into effect in 1789 and that's when the new government will take over. Was it an improve-was it an improvement over the articles? Well. It had a president to enforce the laws, they didn't have that. It had courts to settle disputes between states. The Articles did not have any courts to deal with that, this did have that. It could control interstate trade,

trade from one state to the other. Well, that power was very clearly given to the national government. The Articles didn't do that. It said that the national government would be superior to the state government. The Constitution was to be the supreme law of the land. The Articles of Confederation had talked about a firm league of friendship. Not that. This is the supreme law of the land. May take a civil war before some people are completely convinced of that, but at least in theory the national government was superior there. It had one type of money instead of several. The Bill of Rights were added. Jefferson had worried about it. They add them in 1791. And since then we've only changed it 18 times. That isn't very many. The Articles of Confederation had said you couldn't change it without a unanimous vote in. The Constitution said it could be changed with two-thirds vote of Congress if three-fourths of the states go along with it. That doesn't make it easy, but it makes it

possible. Now during the convention Benjamin Franklin, sitting here in the middle, said that he had been looking at the chair behind Washington, who was president of the convention, and he got to thinking about what was on the back of that chair. And he made one of the best statements concerning his hopes for the new constitution and for the new nation. "I have often in the course of these sessions looked at that sun behind the president without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting. But now, at length, I have the happiness to know that it is a rising not a setting sun."