Keeping the Republic. Christine Barbour

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ Back to image

      A timeline illustrating the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. The Articles were ratified in 17 81 during the Revolutionary War, which ended in 17 83 with the Treaties of Paris. After the war, the United States entered a critical period of economic and political instability due to a weak central government and state-level legislative chaos. The founders began to abandon the Articles of Confederation after Shays’s Rebellion. The Constitutional Convention took place between 17 87 and 17 88, and focused on three central debates: 1) How much power should the national government have vis-à-vis the states and individuals? 2) Should representation be based on population or be equal across states? And 3) If representation is based on population, who should be counted? The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists settled the first debate by preserving both state and national sovereignty under the premise of federalism, which provided a flexible balance of power between the levels of government. Also, the creation of a Bill of Rights protected individual rights. The second debate was settled with the Great Compromise, which created two legislative chambers, one based on population and one on equality across all states. The third debate was settled with the Three-Fifths Compromise, which established that representation in the House be based on population, counting all “free Persons” and “three fifths of all other Persons.” The Constitution was ratified in 17 88, George Washington was sworn into office in 17 89, and the Bill of Rights was ratified in 17 91.

      A table summarizes the Articles of Confederation, the Virginia Plan, the New Jersey Plan, and the Constitution.

      The Articles of Confederation:

      State sovereignty

      State law is supreme

      Unicameral legislature; equal votes for all states

      Two-thirds vote to pass important laws

      No congressional power to levy taxes, regulate commerce

      No executive branch; laws executed by congressional committee

      No national judiciary

      All states required to pass amendments

      The Virginia Plan:

      Popular sovereignty

      National law is supreme

      Bicameral legislature; representation in both houses based on population

      Majority vote to pass laws

      Congressional power to regulate commerce and tax

      No restriction on strong single executive

      National judiciary

      Popular ratification of amendments

      The New Jersey Plan:

      State sovereignty

      State law is supreme

      Unicameral legislature; one vote per state

      Extraordinary majority to pass laws

      Congressional power to regulate commerce and tax

      Multiple executive

      No national judiciary

      All states required to pass amendments

      The Constitution:

      People are sovereign

      National law is supreme

      Bicameral legislature; equal votes in Senate; representation by population in House

      Simple majority to pass laws in Congress; presidential veto

      Congressional power to regulate commerce and tax

      Strong executive

      Federal court system

      Amendment process is complex

      Back to Figure

      A constitutional amendment can be proposed two ways. One, by a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress, and two, by a national convention called by Congress at the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures. The second method has never been used. A constitutional amendment can be approved two ways. One, by the legislatures in three-fourths of the states accepting the amendment, or two, with ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states. The second method has been used only once, to pass the 18th Amendment.

      3 Federalism

      Jorge Royan / Alamy Stock Photo

      In Your Own Words

      After you’ve read this chapter, you will be able to

       3.1 Identify the ways in which federalism divides power between national and state governments.

       3.2 Demonstrate how the flexibility built into the Constitution has allowed it to change with the times.

       3.3 Describe the ways in which the national government can influence the states.

       3.4 Discuss whether federalism fosters or limits citizen participation in government.

      What’s at Stake . . . When a State Takes Marijuana Laws Into Its Own Hands?

      If you are reading this in Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, or the District of Columbia, or in one of the twenty-nine plus states that has legalized some form of marijuana for medical use, be careful—very careful—how you exercise your rights. Due to the crazy patchwork nature of America’s marijuana laws, what is legal in your home state might get you jail or prison time and a hefty fine if you take it on the road. You can thank the founding fathers’ invention of federalism for this, although it’s doubtful this is what they had in mind when they designed it.

      Of course, everyone knows that smoking marijuana is against the law in the United States. Among other things, the U.S. Federal Controlled Substances Act says so. Under that law, passed in 1970, marijuana is a “schedule I drug,” equivalent, in legal terms, to heroin and LSD. But most people also know that, although the U.S. government considers marijuana a drug for which there is “no currently accepted medical use,” most of the states beg to differ, and nine say, “Who cares? It’s just plain fun” (although Vermont and D.C. won’t let you buy it).

      So if you live in a state with legal medical marijuana and you have a prescription, or if you stop in at the local pot shop in one of the seven that allow commercial sales, you are good, right?

      Well, sort of. Maybe. It depends.

      Consider СКАЧАТЬ