Keeping the Republic. Christine BarbourЧитать онлайн книгу.
of representation, which reconciled northern and southern factions at the Constitutional Convention
The issue of slavery was divisive enough for the early Americans that the most politically safe approach was not to mention it explicitly at all and thus to avoid having to endorse or condemn it. Implicitly, of course, the silence had the effect of letting slavery continue. Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, in similarly vague language, allows that
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
Even more damning, Article IV, Section 2, obliquely provides for the return of runaway slaves:
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
The word slavery did not appear in the Constitution until it was expressly outlawed in the Thirteenth Amendment, passed in December 1865, nearly eighty years after the writing of the Constitution.
In Your Own Words
Identify the competing narratives, goals, and compromises that shaped the Constitution.
The Constitution: Three branches—legislative, executive, and judicial—separate and checked
The document produced as a result of these compromises was a political innovation. All governments must have the power to do three things: (1) legislate, or make the laws; (2) administer, or execute the laws; and (3) adjudicate, or interpret the laws. Because of their fear of concentrated power, however, the founders did not give all the power to one institution, but rather provided for separate branches of government to handle it, and then ensured that each branch would have the ability to check the others. In this section we review briefly the U.S. Constitution and the principles that support it. While we are focused on the rules as written in the Constitution, we also need to be aware of the importance of the commitment to play by those rules. In Chapter 1 we discussed the power of norms—the unspoken understandings about how to behave that underlie the rules of law. One hugely important norm, the one that makes the rules meaningful, is the commitment not to cheat by breaking, bending, or skirting the rules, and the obligation to report anyone who does break them. Another important norm is to accept the results of the rules, even if it means you lose. If we tolerate the breaking of norms, then the bad behavior become “normal” and the rules become meaningless. What makes rules work is the norm that most of us agree to follow them and penalize anyone who doesn’t.
How would American politics be different today if we had retained the Articles of Confederation instead of adopting the Constitution?
The Legislative Branch
Legislative power is lawmaking power. The body of government that makes laws is called the legislature. The U.S. Congress is a bicameral legislature, meaning that there are two chambers—the House of Representatives and the Senate. Article I, by far the lengthiest article of the Constitution, sets out the framework of the legislative branch of government. Since the founders expected the legislature to be the most important part of the new government, they spent the most time specifying its composition, the qualifications for membership, its powers, and its limitations. The best-known part of Article I is the famous Section 8, which spells out the specific powers of Congress. This list is followed by the provision that Congress can do anything “necessary and proper” to carry out its duties. The Supreme Court has interpreted this clause so broadly that there are few effective restrictions on what Congress can do.
legislature the body of government that makes laws
bicameral legislature a legislature with two chambers
THE RULES The House of Representatives, where representation is based on population, was intended to be truly representative of all the people—the “voice of the common man,” as it were. To be elected to the House, a candidate need be only twenty-five years old and a citizen for seven years. Since House terms last two years, members run for reelection often and can be ousted fairly easily, according to public whim. The founders intended this office to be accessible to and easily influenced by citizens, and to reflect frequent changes in public opinion.
The Senate is another matter. Candidates have to be at least thirty years old and citizens for nine years—older, wiser, and, the founders hoped, more stable than the representatives in the House. Because senatorial terms last for six years, senators are not so easily swayed by changes in public sentiment. In addition, senators were originally elected by members of the state legislatures, not directly by the people. (This was changed by constitutional amendment in 1913.) Election by state legislators, themselves a “refinement” of the general public, would ensure that senators were a higher caliber of citizen: older and wiser but also more in tune with “the commercial and monied interest,” as Massachusetts delegate Elbridge Gerry put it at the Constitutional Convention.20 The Senate would thus be a more aristocratic body—that is, it would look more like the British House of Lords, where members are admitted on the basis of their birth or achievement, not by election.
THE NORMS The Constitution created two bodies that have to agree on a law in the exact same form for it to pass. But it does not also spell out the norms—the assumptions underlying those procedures. For instance, the founders assumed that legislating meant compromise. If they hadn’t wanted to force compromise, a unicameral legislature (a one-chambered legislature) would have been an easier way to go. They rejected that. Given that the authors of the Constitution themselves had to compromise with those who preferred the Articles of Confederation, we can infer that compromise is an important democratic norm. The founders also set up the Senate to be the older and more stable chamber. That means the founders expected more from senators, that they behave with more dignity than the more unruly House. Senators were expected to act like the adults in the room. Finally, the members of Congress were to be elected, so they intended that the results of fair elections would be recognized by all parties. This implies the norm of good sportsmanship, another way of saying that one occasionally has to be a good loser. When one side loses, it doesn’t take its marbles and go home. It doesn’t call the other side a cheater or say the win is illegitimate (unless it is). Instead, it accepts the loss knowing it will have another chance, another day.
The Executive Branch
The executive is the part of government that “executes” the laws, or sees that they are carried out. Although technically executives serve in an administrative role, many end up with some decision-making or legislative power as well. National executives are the leaders of their countries, and they participate, with varying amounts of power, in making laws and policies. That role can range from the U.S. president—who, though not a part of the legislature itself, can propose, encourage, and veto legislation—to European prime ministers, who are part of the legislature and may have, as in the British case, the power to dissolve the entire legislature and call a new election.
executive the branch of government responsible for putting laws into effect
The fact that the Articles of Confederation provided for no executive power at all was a testimony to the founders’ conviction that such a power threatened their liberty. The chaos that resulted under the Articles, however, made it clear to founders like Alexander Hamilton that a stronger government was called for, not only a stronger legislature but a stronger executive as well. The constitutional debates reveal that many of the founders were haunted by the idea that they might inadvertently reestablish the same tyrannical power over themselves that they had only recently escaped with the Revolution.