Assignment Title: Goals of the Constitution

Teacher: Mr. Murray Assignment Title: Goals of the Constitution Subject: US History Due Date: Final due Assignment Summary: In Federalist No. 52, James Madison wrote, If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great dif>iculty lies in this: You must >irst enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself. In a coherent essay that integrates your knowledge and interpretation of the Constitution, analyze Madison s premise and assess its validity against the cases provided. Purpose: This essay will demonstrate your ability to interpret historical documents within their context, as well as your ability to craft a historical argument into a coherent essay. Writer s Role: You are a Constitutional scholar Audience: Supreme Court Form: 1.5 to 2 pages long, typed, 12-point Times New Roman or Arial Font, double spaced. FCAs must appear at the top of the paper. Direct and indirect quotations from the Constitution or other outside sources must be cited properly. (3 points) Content Objectives Grade Excellent (8-9) Good (6-7) Adequate (4-5) InsufQicient (1-2-3) Thesis Well-developed, clearly Clear and organized thesis, which Limited or partially developed Poorly developed or confusing focused thesis, which addresses assigned focus. thesis, which addresses the thesis or No thesis OR fails to addresses complexity of the question. question. address assigned focus. Grade Excellent (8-9) Good (6-7) Adequate (4-5) InsufQicient (1-2-3) Documentary Evidence Thorough and accurate use Considerable and effective use of Some use of documents with minor Poor or cursory use of documents (Prompt, Constitution, Federalist & Anti- Federalist Papers of documents (correctly cited) to support thesis documents with insigni\icant errors. errors. with considerable errors OR Almost no appropriate use of documents to support thesis. Grade Excellent (8-9) Good (6-7) Adequate (4-5) InsufQicient (1-2-3) Argumentation Thoroughly develops position with evidence and explanation; acknowledges complexity of? by fairly considering opposing views and refuting them Thoroughly develops position; super\icially or unfairly considers opposing views and refutes them Develops position; considers opposing views but does not refute them Develops position but does not consider opposing views OR Does not develop position Grade Excellent (8-9) Good (6-7) Adequate (4-5) InsufQicient (1-2-3) Writing style/ Writing presents no Contains only minor errors that do Contains some errors that do not Contains major errors or Organization obstacles to understanding; not seriously detract from the essay/ detract from overall essay/argument; numerous minor ones that detract high degree of skill and complexity argument; writing is skillful writing is competent from the essay/argument; illegible Grading Scale: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Numeric Grade 900 855 810 765 720 675 630 540 495 Letter Grade A+ A A- B B- C C- D- F

James Madison said: If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great dif>iculty lies in this: You must >irst enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself. With your partner, analyze this quote in your own words. [HINT: There are four sentences, so attack each sentence one at a time]

Anti-Federalists vs federalists thesis paragraph just remember to make it: Who What When Where why h - the hook: pick one and keep it brief (a Question, a Quote, a analogy/parable/anecdote) o - the overview: set the scene a summary of the entire issue (HINT: the Formula can help) HOW t - the thesis: answer the FRQ prompt question TEC - body paragraph (X2) - the articles from the perspective a ANTI-FEDERALIST - the articles from the perspective a FEDERALIST 1) The 1 st paragraph MUST support your thesis statement. - determine which two articles support you thesis & use proof/quotes - (optional) use only proof/quote from the other two articles that support your thesis 2) Commentary about the ideology of anti-federalists OR federalists, as statd in the constitution 3) The 2 nd paragraph MUST rebut your thesis statement. - determine which two articles rebut you thesis & use proof/quotes - (optional) use only proof/quote from the other two articles that support your thesis 4) More Commentary about the ideology of anti-federalists OR federalists, as statd in the constitution questions to consider: Does the constitution allow teachers to strike? Explain using the amendments of the Constitution. Does Michigan allow teachers to strike? Explain using the articles. Does Illinois allow teachers to strike? Explain using the articles. Is the Michigan Law constitutional? Explain using the Constitution. Is the governor of Wisconsin abusing the constitution? Explain using the the powers of each branch of government and separation of powers in the Constitution. Given the state of the Gary school system, should the governor or congress step in to solve the problem? Explain using the the powers of each branch of government and separation of powers in the Constitution. In your opinion, do you think this [any of the questions] are acceptable given what you know about the constitution? Explain referring back to the constitution and the articles. conclusion paragraph you already made it HOT, just: r - remind: mention your hook again then... e - expound: describe how your hook and thesis connect in a new way h - hit em: give your reader something new to think about then... e - explain: brie\ly tie this new point to your thesis a - a last thought: one \inal nugget to leave your reader with and... t - tie the bow: end it on a strong note and wrap it up

Anti-Federalists vs federalists Writing workshop constitution article analysis body paragraph includes: - Thesis sentence - Explicit Evidence - Commentary [analysis] = sprite2 + apparts **Essay must include: explicit evidence from the consitutiton and the articles with TEC analysis ideology ANTI-FEDERALISTS FEDERALISTS

Case-Study Thomas Paine - Common Sense (1776) There is another and greater distinction for which no truly natural or religious reason can be assigned, and that is, the distinction of men into KINGS and SUBJECTS. Male and female are the distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of heaven; but how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and distinguished like some new species In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture chronology, there were no kings; the consequence of which was there were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throw mankind into confusion. Holland without a king hath enjoyed more peace for this last century than any of the monarchial governments in Europe. Antiquity favors the same remark; for the quiet and rural lives of the \irst patriarchs hath a happy something in them, which vanishes away when we come to the history of Jewish royalty. Government by kings was \irst introduced into the world by the Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom. It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the promotion of idolatry. The Heathens paid divine honors to their deceased kings, and the christian world hath improved on the plan by doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor is crumbling into dust Monarchy is ranked in scripture as one of the sins of the jews, for which a curse in reserve is denounced against them. The history of that transaction is worth attending to For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever, and though himself might deserve some decent degree of honors of his contemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them. One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion Yet I should be glad to ask how they suppose kings came at \irst? The question admits but of three answers, viz. either by lot, by election, or by usurpation. If the \irst king was taken by lot, it establishes a precedent for the next, I which excludes hereditary succession...if the \irst king of any country was by election, that likewise establishes a precedent for the next; for to say, that the right of all future generations is taken away, by the act of the \irst electors, in their choice not only of a king, but of a family of kings for ever, hath no parallel in or out of scripture but the doctrine of original sin, which supposes the free will of all men lost in Adam...As to usurpation, no man will be so hardy as to defend it; and that William the Conqueror was an usurper is a fact not to be contradicted. The plain truth is, that the antiquity of English monarchy will not bear looking into Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and un\it of any throughout the dominions...another evil which attends hereditary succession is, that the throne is subject to be possessed by a minor at any age; all which time the regency, acting under the cover of a king, have every opportunity and inducement to betray their trust. The same national misfortune happens, when a king worn out with age and in\irmity, enters the last stage of human weakness. In both these cases the public becomes a prey to every miscreant, who can tamper successfully with the follies either of age or infancy. In short, monarchy and succession have laid (not this or that kingdom only) but the world in blood and ashes. 'Tis a form of government which the word of God bears testimony against, and blood will attend it.

Case-Study James Chalmers - Plain Truth: Remarks on Common Sense (March 1776) His [Paine s] \irst indecent attack is against the English constitution; which with all its imperfections, is, and ever will be the pride and envy of mankind. To this [published text] involuntarily [Paine] subscribes, by granting individuals to be safer in England, than in any other part of Europe. He indeed [subtle, yet harmfully] attributes this pre-eminent excellency, to the constitution of the people, rather than to our excellent constitution. To such contemptible subterfuge is [Paine] reduced. I would ask him, why did not the constitution of the people afford them superior safety, in the reign of Richard the Third, Henry the Eighth, and other tyrannic princes? Many pages might indeed be \illed with [praise] on our excellent constitution, by illustrious authors of different nations. This beautiful system our constitution is a compound of Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy. But it is often said, that the Sovereign, by honours and appointments, in\luences the Commons. The profound and elegant [David Hume, a Scottish philosopher] agitating this question, thinks, to this circumstance, we are in part indebted for our supreme felicity; since without such controul in the Crown, our Constitution would immediately degenerate into Democracy; a Government, which in the sequel... Were I asked marks of the best government, and the purpose of political society, I would reply, the [increase], preservation, and prosperity of its members, in no quarter of the Globe, are those marks so certainly to be found, as in Great Britain, and her dependencies. After [Paine] has employed several pages, to break the mounds of society by debasing Monarchs: He says, The plain truth is, that the antiquity of English Monarchy will not bear looking into. Hume treating of the original contract, has the following melancholy, but sensible observation,...there is no virtue or moral duty...if we indulge a false philosophy, in sifting and scrutinizing, by every captious rule of logic, in every light or position in which it may be placed. I will humbly attempt to describe good Kings by the following unerring rule. The best Princes are constantly [made false] by the envenomed tongues and pens of the most worthless of their subjects. I appeal to the testimony of impartial historians, and long experience. The many unmerited insults offered to our gracious Sovereign - by the unprincipled [John] Wilkes, and others down to this late [Paine] - will forever disgrace humanity. For he says, that monarchy was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the promotion of idolatry. It is the pride of Kings which throws mankind into confusion: In short, monarchy and succession, have laid not this or that kingdom only, but the world in blood and ashes. How deplorably wretched the condition of mankind, could they believe such [extreme] [villainous] jargon. Unhappily indeed, mankind in every age are susceptible of delusion; but surely [Paine] poison carries its antidote with it. Attentive to the spirit of his publication, we fancy ourselves in the barbarous \ifteenth century: in which period [Paine] would have \igured with his Common Sense ---- and blood will attend it. After his terrible [curse] against our [honored] constitution, and monarchy; let us brie\ly examine a democratical state; and see whether of not it is a government less [bloodshed]. This government is extremely plausible, and indeed \lattering to the pride of mankind. The demagogues therefore, to seduce the people into their criminal designs ever hold up democracy to them: although conscious it never did, nor ever will answer in practice. If we believe a great [Paine], There never existed, nor ever will exist a real democracy in the World. If we examine the republics of Greece and Rome, we ever \ind them in a state of war domestic or foreign. Our [Paine] therefore makes no mention of these ancient States. The excellent [Charles Montesquieu, a French philosopher] declares, that a democracy supposes the concurrence of a number of circumstances rarely united. In the \irst place, it is requisite that the state itself should be of small extent; so that the people might be easily assembled and personally known to each other. Secondly, the simplicity of their manners, should be such as to prevent a multiplicity of affairs, and perplexity in discussing them: And thirdly, there should subsist a great degree of equality between them, in point of right and authority: Lastly, there should be little or no luxury, for luxury must either be the effect of wealth, or it must make it necessary. It corrupts at once, both rich and poor: The one, by the possession, and the other, by the want of it. To this may be added continues the same author, that no government is so subject to CIVIL WARS, and INTESTINE COMMOTIONS, as that of the democratical or popular form; because, no other tends so strongly and so constantly to alter, nor requires so much vigilance, and fortitude to preserve it from alteration. It is indeed, in such a constitution, particularly, that a Citizen should always be armed with fortitude, constancy; and should every day, in the sincerity of his heart, guard against corruption, arising either from sel\ishness in himself, or in his compatriots; for if it once enters into public transactions, to root it out afterwards would be miraculous. After impotently attacking our Sovereign; and the constitution: [Paine] contradicts the voice of all mankind, by declaring, that America would have \lourished as much, and probably much more, had no European power taken any notice of her.

Case-Study Patrick Henry - Give me Liberty or Give me Death(March 23, 1775) No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and ful\ill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings. Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are \leets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we \ind which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained-- we must \ight! I repeat it, sir, we must \ight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us

hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not \ight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to \ight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come. It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the \ield! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! Case-Study Daniel Leonard - To the Inhabitants on the Province of Massachusetts Bay (March 23, 1776) IF we carry our researches further back than the emigration of our ancestors, we shall \ind many things that re\lect light upon the object we are in quest of. It is immaterial when America was \irst discovered or taken possession of by the English. In 1602 one Gosnold landed upon one of the islands, called Elizabeth-islands, which were so named in honor of Queen Elizabeth, built a fort and projected a settlement; but his men were discouraged, and the project failed. In 1606 King James granted all the continent from 34 to 45 degrees, which he divided into two colonies, viz. the southern or Virginia, to certain merchants at London; the northern or New- England, to certain merchants at Plymouth in England. In 1607 some of the patentees of the northern colony began a settlement at Sagadahoc, but the emigrants were disheartened after the trial of one winter, and that attempt failed of success. Thus this territory had not only been granted by the crown for purposes of colonization...but actual possession had been taken by the grantees, previous to the emigration of our ancestors, or any grant to them. In 1620 a patent was granted to the adventurers for the northern colony, incorporating them by the name of the council for the affairs of New-Plymouth. From this company of merchants in England, our ancestors derived their title to this territory. The tract of land called Massachusetts was purchased of this company by Sir Henry Roswell and associates: their deed bears date, March 19th, 1627 all of them are subject to, and dependent on Great-Britain; and that therefore, as over subordinate governments, the parliament has an undoubted power and lawful [Paine s]ity to make acts for the general good, that, by naming them, shall and ought to be equally binding, as upon the subjects of Great-Britain within the realm. Is there the least difference, as to the consent of the colonists, whether taxes and impositions are laid on their trade, and other property by the crown alone, or by the parliament? As it is agreed on all hands, the crown alone cannot impose them, we should be justi\iable in refusing to pay them; but we must and ought to yield obedience to an act of parliament that the King can do no wrong; and every good subject is bound to believe his King is not inclined to do any. We are blessed with a prince who has given abundant demonstrations, that, in all his actions, he studies the good of his people, and the true glory of his crown, which are inseparable. It would therefore be the highest degree of impudence and disloyalty, to imagine that the King, at the head of his parliament, could have any but the most pure and perfect intentions of justice, goodness and truth, that human nature is capable of. All this I say and believe of the King and parliament, in all their acts; even in that which so nearly affects the interests of the colonists; and that a most perfect and ready obedience is to be yielded to it while it remains in force. The power of parliament is uncontrolable but by themselves, and we must obey...if one or a number of subjects, or subordinate provinces, should take upon them so far to judge of the justice of an act of parliament, as to refuse obedience to it. If there was nothing else to restrain such a step, prudence ought to do it; for forcibly resisting the parliament and the King s laws is high-treason. Therefore let the parliament lay what burdens they please on us, we must, it is our duty to submit and patiently bear them, till they will be pleased to relieve us.

Case-Study John Adams -Novanglus No. 7 (January, 1775) The question is not, therefore, whether the [Paine s]ity of Parliament extends to the colonies in any case, for it is admitted by the Whigs that it does in that of commerce; but whether it extends in all cases We are then detained with a long account of the three simple forms of government; and are told, "that the British Constitution, consisting of king, lords, and commons, is formed upon the principles of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, in due proportion; that it includes the principal excellences, and excludes the principal defects of the other kinds of government - the most perfect system that the wisdom of ages has produced, and Englishmen glory in being subject to, and protected by it." Then we are told, "that the colonies are a part of the British Empire." But what are we to understand by this? Some of the colonies, most of them indeed were settled before the kingdom of Great Britain was brought into existence. The union of England and Scotland was made and established by Act of Parliament in the reign of Queen Anne, and it was this union and statute which erected the kingdom of Great Britain. The colonies were settled long before, in the reigns of the Jameses and Charleses. What [Paine s]ity over them had Scotland? Scotland, England, and the colonies were all under one king before that; the two crowns of England and Scotland united on the head of James I, and continued united on that of Charles I, when our \irst charter was granted. Our charter, being granted by him who was king of both nations, to our ancestors, most of whom were post nati, born after the union of the two crowns, and consequently (as was adjudged in Calvin's case) free, natural subjects of Scotland as well as England - had not the king as good a right to have governed the colonies by his Scottish as by his English parliament, and to have granted our charters under the seal of Scotland as well as that of England? But to waive this. If the English Parliament were to govern us, where did they get the right without our consent, to take the Scottish parliament into a participation of the government over us? When this was done, was the American share of the democracy of the Constitution consulted? If not, were not the Americans deprived of the bene\it of the democratical part of the Constitution? And is not the democracy as essential to the English Constitution as the monarchy or aristocracy? Should we have been more effectually deprived of the bene\it of the British or English Constitution, if one or both Houses of Parliament, or if our House and Council, had made this union with the two Houses of Parliament in Scotland, without the king? England has six millions of people, we will say; America had three. England has \ive hundred members in the House of Commons, we will say; America must have two hundred and \ifty. Is it possible she should maintain them there, or could they at such a distance know the state, the sense, or exigencies of their constituents? Ireland, too, must be incorporated, and send another hundred or two of members. The territory in the East Indies and West India Islands must send members. And after all this, every navigation act, every act of trade must be repealed. America, and the East and West Indies, and Africa too, must have equal liberty to trade with all the world, that the favored inhabitants of Great Britain have now. Will the ministry thank Massachusettensis for becoming an advocate for such a union, and incorporation of all the dominions of the King of Great Britain? Yet, without such a union, a legislature which shall be sovereign and supreme in all cases whatsoever, and coextensive with the empire, can never be established upon the general principles of the English Constitution which Massachusettensis lays down, namely, an equal mixture of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Nay, further, in order to comply with this principle, this new government, this mighty colossus which is to bestride the narrow world, must have a House of Lords, consisting of Irish, East and West Indian, African, American, as well as English and Scottish noblemen; for the nobility ought to be scattered about all the dominions, as well as the representatives of the commons. If in twenty years more America should have six millions of inhabitants, as there is a boundless territory to \ill up, she must have \ive hundred representatives. Upon these principles, if in forty years she should have twelve millions, a thousand; and if the inhabitants of the three kingdoms remain as they are, being already full of inhabitants, what will become of your supreme legislative? It will be translated, crown and all, to America. This is a sublime system for America. It will \latter those ideas of independency which the Tories impute to them, if they have any such, more than any other plan of independency that I have ever heard projected.