Constructing the Constitution - AP Government and Politics

The conflict between Federalists and Antifederalists was the major thread of late eighteenth century American politics. A major sticking point was the need for a Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Students should recall that Federalists like Alexander Hamilton did not see a need for a Bill of Rights to be added, while Antifederalists James Madison spearheaded the amendments.

Debates between the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists can be considered the first political party debates in America. Anti-Federalists disliked the creation of the constitution because they feared it was creating a too powerful central government. The Federalists favored the constitution due to issues with the Articles of Confederation and its lack of a strong central government. A compromise was reached with the formation of the Bill of Rights which was designed to protect civil liberties of all citizens.

The 4th amendment is more commonly known for its protection from unreasonable search and seizure, it is part of the Bill of Rights, which was designed for the protection of individual rights.

The center of the debate between the Anti-Federalists and the Federalist was the power that the central government would have. Anti-Federalists argued for the protection of states and individual rights. Anti-Federalists such as Mason were began to support the Constitution when the bill of rights was added to protect states and individual rights.

Fairly easy question as long as you know your amendments. The answer is the 10th amendment, as it reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In somewhat plainer English, this means that any governmental power that is neither (1) given to the federal government, nor (2) forbidden to the states is given to the states or the “people” (citizens). It is for this very reason that the 10th amendment is commonly referred to as the “states’ rights” amendment.

The First Amendment concerns five different liberties that are fairly similar, including the right of the people “to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The Amendment does not mandate that the government need to address or address the “grievances,” but this ensures that people can still formally show their displeasure to the government.

The constitution as originally drafted, did not have any safeguard for individual liberties. Many objected to this, so as a condition of ratification, it was promised that a Bill of Rights would be drafted.

Surprisingly, the right to freedom of speech –one of the most famous individual freedoms– was not part of the initial Constitution. Freedom of speech and others of the most well-known rights (such as freedom of the press, the right to bear arms, and freedom of religion), as contained in the Bill of Rights, were all later additions to the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists were some of the most vociferous advocates of the Bill of Rights and many states refused to ratify the Constitution at all unless such personal freedoms were given explicit written protection. The ten Amendments that together comprise the Bill of Rights were therefore added to the Constitution in 1791, in order to allay these fears.

It is indeed true that originally, many Congressmen and federal judges had doubts as to exactly how far beyond the national government’s scope the Bill of Rights could legally reach. In fact, in 1833 the Supreme Court even ruled that the Bill of Rights only imposed limitations on the federal government, leaving the states and local administrations exempt. However, the Court quite clearly found this stance to be deficient, as did other sectors of government, and so in a further case (which proceeded in 1925), the Supreme Court first established the so-called incorporation doctrine. Citing the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court defined the incorporation doctrine as the principle by which the Bill of Rights could be applied beyond the national government, to the conduct of state and local governments as well. Especially relevant for the doctrine’s justification is the Due Process Clause, contained in the Fourteenth Amendment, which prevents either state or federal governments from infringing on any individual’s life, liberty, or property rights without due process of the law (meaning that special legal permission must be obtained, usually under severe circumstances).

The Fifth Amendment says that no person shall "be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb", thus defining double jeopardy as being tried for the same crime. The Fifth Amendment provides people the right to remain silent instead of prohibiting it. Although the Bill of Rights does prohibit the use of cruel and unusual punishment, it's prohibition is under the Eighth Amendment. The Bill of Rights guarantees a jury of your peers, not prohibits it.

Shays’ Rebellion took place in 1786 and 1787 in the years between American independence and the adoption of the Constitution. The rebellion was lead in part by Daniel Shays, and the rebels were dissatisfied with the state of government and tried to overthrow the government in Massachusetts. The rebellion was important for demonstrating to the Founding Fathers the limitations of the Articles of Confederation and was one of the primary motivations behind drawing up a stronger national constitution and abolishing the Articles of Confederation.

The Establishment Clause appears in the Constitution as part of the First Amendment. It states that the Federal government will make no laws regarding the establishment of an official state religion.

The Federalist Papers were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, in 1787 and 1788. Their purpose was to try to persuade the general public to support the ratification of the Constitution. If you did not know this, it is helpful to remember that the key is in the name—Federalist. The Federalists supported Constitutional ratification, whereas the Anti-Federalists opposed it.

The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions argued that the states could deem a Federal law unconstitutional and then, having done so, declare the law null and void. They were immediately controversial with many politicians, including George Washington, stating that the principle was a recipe for disunion (something he would be proved at least partially right about). The nullification issue would continue throughout the first half of the nineteenth century, contributing directly to the outbreak of Civil War.

The French and Indian war was fought as part of the larger Seven Years War between the British and French Empires. It resulted in an overwhelming victory for the British Empire, but may have proved the final straw that ended up costing the British Empire its American colonies. Although it is true that the British quartered troops in colonial homes, this question asks how the French and Indian War primarily contributed to the deteriorating relationship. The main reason was that the British government felt that the American colonies should bear the majority of the financial burden for protecting colonial lands, and thus raised taxes for this purpose. This helped create the revolutionary cry of "no taxation without representation."

Federalist No. 10 is an article, written by James Madison as part of the collection of essays arguing in favor of ratifying the Constitution, collectively called The Federalist Papers. In Federalist No. 10, Madison warns against the rise of political factions, advising common citizens and politicians on how to guard against the rise of factions. As part of his support for the Constitution, Madison notes that a larger republic would be less likely to be dominated by factionalism than would a smaller republic: (so, the states would have more trouble guarding against factionalism alone than they would as a collective national government).

Federalist No. 51 is an essay written by James Madison as part of the larger collection of essays called The Federalist Papers. In this essay, Madison argues why a separation of powers is necessary in a Republican government to provide protection against the tyranny of any one part of the government.

Shays’ Rebellion is generally considered to be the primary turning point that finally demonstrated the inefficacy of the Articles of Confederation. Under the Article's the inability of the United States Government to fund a response to the rebellion was cause for great concern among the majority of the Constitutional Framers. Many historians consider that the timing of Shays’ Rebellion was crucial for ensuring that the government created by the Constitution would be both stronger and more centralized than that of the Articles of Confederation.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution states that the United States Constitution is the supreme and ultimate law of the country and that no other law may be made which supersedes it. This might seem irrelevant to us now, but it is important to note that when the Constitutional Framers were drawing up the Constitution, there was no guarantee it would be universally or permanently respected.

All of these answer choices were problems that the Federal government faced under the Articles of Confederation. The important thing to remember about the Articles of Confederation is that the Federal government had almost no power to do just about anything we contemporarily associate with a national government. It was almost completely beholden to the states, and it did not take long before the early political figures of America realized that such a system could not function in a large democratic society, like the United States.