We the People - James Madison Legacy Foundation
January 25 - Monday
●Hearings
●General Information with regard to the program and grant participation
January 26 - Tuesday
●Google Classroom will need to sign up for
●Scholarly presentation by Dr. Steve Belko and Dr. David Alvis
Session I - “A New Order for the Ages”
Anti-Federalist - Belko
○British Constitution vs. English Constitution + Rise of Colonial Assemblies
○Their focus is on Constitutional Law and Constitutional History
○1607 - The Revolution was really a Constitutional conflict - it began.
■There were 2 types of Constitution - British Const and English Const
■More and more Colonial Assemblies gained lots of power
○English Foundations - Negotiated Authority
■Center, Peripheries, Local control
■Rights of Englishmen - Inherited and Transported no matter where they go - life, liberty, property
■Colonial Charters - recognition of a colony and its rights
■Self-Government/Representative Government
○Colonial Constitutional Development - what are the themes
■Stage 1 - representation, no taxation, rights of Englishmen, representation etc.
■Representative government via popularly elected assemblies
■written charters confirmed by Royal authority - decentralized authority
■Guarantees of the Rights of Englishmen
■Restoration - wanted to restructure govt - systematic control - a series of events that put England against the colonies - this is a building series of events
●Navigation Acts - not enforced - smuggling
●Lords of Trade -
●Dominion of New England
●Glorious Revolution - further lessens the ability to gain control - only causes local authority to get stronger
●Supremacy - Parliamentary - has authority and supremacy over Legislative authority in the colonies - legislative bodies are NOT equal in England
●Navigation Acts
●Report of 1721 - Colonial assumptions vs. British Perspective - equals vs Parent/Child relationship
●Internal vs. External authority - Salutary Neglect - Walpole
●French and Indian War
●Crown + Parliament - based on theory only vs. Colonies - based on years of practice and precedent -Federalism is necessary but local control only makes sense
■There were always attempts for create a federal idea - it was how the British Empire worked from the beginning up until the Revolution. Philadelphia was not the first attempt.
■Limitation - via consent and Rule of Law
Federalist - Dr. Alvis - Lincoln’s Fragment on the Union
●How do you explain the relationship of the principles of American Politics (Declaration) to the institutions of government in American Politics (Constitution)?
●Significance of Lincoln’s Fragment?
●Myths - there is value in the myths - In a way, the part of the study of the past there are historical facts, but also myths that help us to understand who we are and what our history means.
○Redefining the “Revolution” - was it really revolutionary? They were fighting for rights as Englishmen - not very revolutionary….especially when you compare it to other Revolutions - French Revolution, Bolshevik Revolution, etc.
■Declaration of Independence
●The King gets the blame but historically the arguments were against Parliament. Why?
●Inconsistencies - you have to almost edit the text - all men, all white men, all white men with property, etc.
●Should we rename the Revolution to something more mundane like the War for Independence….
■Like a child growing up - Albany Plan - moderate proposal for a confederation - always told NO
■Americans change views
●Otis - No Taxation without Representation
●Delaney - Internal vs. External Taxes - these things don’t agree
●Bland - Sovereign in our own lands
■England in the Wake of Glorious Revolution
●Feudal Order
○Hereditary monarchy
○Landed Aristocracy
○Anglican Church
○House of Commons
○Religious Toleration
●Deposition of James II
○Tories - divine right of kings - and Whigs - pro-parliamentary - didn’t agree but both didn’t like the king
○John Locke and Radical Whig - emerging middle class - cities - argued that govt is founded on the consent of the governed - we proved that when we got rid of James II. If we don’t like a ruler then you can get rid of them.
■This can lead to an unstable monarchy - get rid of hereditary monarchy
■Colonies - and other parts of England - are watching - they might see this and might start pushing the argument of consent of the governed
■You would also have to get rid of the hereditary class of parliament - House of Lords
■House of Commons - based on charters given by King - not based on population - this would need to go too - this doesn’t fit with the idea of the consent of the governed
●The Crown and Parliament can pass any law that does not violate the laws of God - do not question - Declaratory Act 1766
○The Americans refuse to not ask questions
○They are well read - influenced by Enlightenment
○Otis - No Taxation without representation - you are essentially stealing our property - that makes us a slave.
■We had Colonial Agents (Lobbyists) - but they were not elected
■England could have given us a couple of representatives and simply outvoted them in every election
■Couldn’t really do this because to say yes would create disorder that would cause the Empire to fall down - unequal representation in England and elsewhere
○Delaney - Internal vs. External Taxes - we need England to regulate trade in the Caribbean, but we don’t need them for internal governance - they can’t plunder us to pay for their debts.
○Declaratory Act 1766
○Townshend Revenue - 1767-1770 - British Claim it is an external tax
○Bland - principle of natural justice - British shouldn’t tax us because they are too far away - we are sovereign in our own lands...but we are still Englishmen….
■So how does this lead to the King being the bad guy - Jefferson claims he should Veto any laws passed by Parliament that are violations and he doesn’t do it.
■Consistent argument by the colonists - consent of the governed - and Britain simply cannot accept this.
■Side note - voting and property rights - those with the property were able to vote - justification for women not voting
Break
Session II - A Frame of Silver - Republicanism and Union
Federalist - Alvis
●How is the constitution designed so that it complements our principles?
○Lincoln and his Frame of Silver
○What really makes the Am Rev Revolutionary is this idea that the government is based on the consent of the governed - arguments between America and England
○The first trial we have of this is the Articles
■Problems - (James Madison’s writing on its deficiencies) - this is reminiscent of the Rotten Boroughs of England - grossly unbalanced “districts” where small populations could outvote large populations
●regulating interstate trade (keeping navigable waterways open),
●with no central government each state could impose taxes for imports,
●no power to collect taxes,
○states wanted to keep money close to home - more loyalty to the state than to the central government
○How do you assess property?
○How do you divide up the taxes between the states?
●No executive, only a leader of the continental congress and temporary appointments for executive and judiciary
●Representation - one vote regardless of size - and 9/13 states for a vote, and 13/13 to amend the Articles
●No ability to raise a national army - must rely on the state militias - no substantial body of troops to rely on
■Madison - the only way to deal with these issues is to make sure you have a way to deal with factions and control of the majority
●Federalist 10 - big vs. small
○How you want to think about government in light of human nature
○Factions - how do you have a democracy (majority rule) and still have individual rights.
○How do you deal with human nature without getting rid of human things
○How does the constitution deal with human nature - how can we make factions less intense - expand the factions and make them compete and then one cannot overshadow another
●Federalist 51 - separation of power
Anti-Federalist - Articles of Confederation - Belko
●Articles of Confederation -
○Successes - it secured our independence, Treaty of Paris (1783) - land from Great Lakes to Gulf of Mexico, Ordinances - system of land surveyance - Northwest ordinance to add states to the union, etc.
○Point of interest - Federalists vs. Anti-federalists - Elites vs middle class
■Who is getting something out of this? Articles was more beneficial to the middle class. They were thrown out because the Federalists weren't making money...the Federalists won…
■Put things into perspective - A New World Government - House and Senate - Executive, Judiciary - draft of the new “Constitution” - all he did was take the Constitution and apply it to the world.
●You have to get us out of the mindset of now and then - try to get students to think about how the people of the time would really feel about the “Constitution”
○Anti-federalists - one theme from them = consolidation - feared central government would get so big that they would consolidate all power at the central level and the states would lose power.
■Brutus No. 1
■Feared “Necessary and Proper” Clause -
■Taxation - will be the tool they use to go after the power….
■Representation
●Must have confidence, respect, and affection of the people for any central government to be successful….is that working for use today? Not really
■Undemocratic
●Claimed the Constitution to be undemocratic - it is distant, removed, misrepresents to population -
Session III - The Judiciary and Judicial Review
Anti-Federalist - Belko
●No Check on the Judiciary - ultimate symbol of power/tyranny
●Types of Judicial Review
○Not afraid of the National Judiciary declaring congressional laws unconstitutional
○Very afraid of National Judicial overturning state laws and declaring state laws unconstitutional
●Expand the Power of National Government via Construction -
○beholden to no one - they don't’ represent us - consolidation and centralization
●Anti-federalists - really didn’t have anything against a national executive - he executes the laws
○Jackson upsets this - Imperial Presidency - Jacksonian Democracy -
○Imperial Presidency - anti-federalists predicted this - there would be so much power in one individual that they are in essence a monarchy
Federalist - Alvis
●Article III
○Judicial Power and the Convention Debates
○Appointment of judges
○Inferior Tribunals
○Jurisdiction of the Courts
●Hamilton - Fed 78 - Lack of Faith
●Must defend why you would give someone lifetime tenure -
○unique role of the judiciary in republican government
○Written constitution - how do you make sure the rule of the game are enforced - judges...elected officials would be biased to advance their own power
○If all problems come from Majority Rule (Fed 10 ) then how do you find someone who do not respond to the majority? Thus lifetime appointments - there is no other choice if you want someone to defend the constitution
○Hamilton does not believe the fears of Judicial Review by the Anti-Federalists are ungrounded -
■Judiciary is the least dangerous...is this true?
■What happens if someone does not choose to enforce their decisions?
●The President has the army
●The Congress has the purse
●What does the Judiciary have?
■The biggest threat to limited Government is the people themselves - human nature - they always want more -
●in order to limit our desires and ambitions we must have something in place to do so
●Legislature is responsible for the expanded role of federal power - not the courts
■If you look at it , what the majority wants is not necessarily what the people want -
●Majority is a temporary group of people who wins a vote at one time
●The “people” is much bigger than this - the power of the people is superior to both legislative and judicial power (pg 49 Fed 78)
●You must have judges who will enforce the will of the people rather than the will of the majority
■How do you get good judges? Elected vs Appointed
●How do you get people who are qualified for the job when you know you can’t pay them.
●You must make it a lifetime appointment or you will only get unqualified people who couldn’t make it as lawyers
Q & A - Debrief
●Could the Articles have gotten us to the place we are today?
○Belko - I don’t deal with ifs or buts….we simply don’t know
■it’s about ideological perspective - depends on the perceptive
■Role of Consolidation - there is nothing wrong with having an overseeing body if it’s really representative of the people - make sure everyone has their say
○Alvis - Belkos argument makes sense but it’s wrong….
■Would we be as great a nation? No. Name an existing Confederacy….there isn’t one - they all doe for the same reasons - the autonomy of the sovereign parts cannot work together and survive - not a sustainable model.
●Federalists - new argument - you can be big and still be a republic….
○Belko response - he does not believe we live in a republic or a democracy. He does not trust centralization in any form - local, state, or federal
General Comments
●We must make sure to keep things into perspective
●What is the context of the time and how do we keep this in mind when we discuss the Federalists and Antifederalists with our students
●The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states until John Marshall - individual states had a Bill of Rights
●What does protecting the majority mean? - Belko sees it in terms of economics - wealthy vs. middle class
●both groups believe in protecting individual rights - they simply disagree on how to do it
The Missouri Plan
●Nov 5, 2015 - 75th anniversary nonpartisan court plan - has been copied by over 36 other states
●Info on the history of the MO Plan - website explain it all
●Eligible for schools
●Every Missourian every 2 years votes for nonpartisan judges
○Get to test drive Judges …. we get to vote to retain or not retain judges.
February 15 - Monday
●Announcements
●Meeting with Mentors about implementation of the We The People Program
○Round table rotations to learn how each mentor has made the program work for them.
■Trish (Jefferson High) - pre-reading and questions as the chapter opener. Can’t get through the entire Level 3 book in one year - not with including current events and government. 6 teams - one for each unit - in each class. A great opportunity for assessment and community involvement. Show me Constitution is a great way to do the questions/hearings on a smaller scale and still cover the material. It takes a lot of outside research to answer the questions and she has a cheat sheet to help guide them. Uses Street Law to help guide them as well.
■Ken (Westminster) - Students who have difficulty reading, there are options online. You can blend Level 2 and 3 to fit the needs of your students. You can infuse the material into existing units with a traditional text or you could use the We the People book as a main text stand alone. There is a lot of flexibility and it’s not intimidating to the students. Students enjoy the structure and approach. It is important to do some form of assessment - working together, researching, articulating the information, etc. It allows all students the opportunity to succeed. Only uses the text to get the information initially - only add other research and materials as you feel comfortable.
■Crystal (Pier City by Joplin - 200 students in High School)- We the People is a supplement to McGruders - would use strictly We the People if it was an option. Uses all Levels for students. At the end of the year the students are put into teams of 4 and they have to pick a question from the book - spend a week to prepare their presentation, spend a week practicing in class, after the EOC community members are invited to the hearing. Differentiation is very easy for this approach - assigns questions to certain students based on ability.
■Don (Arcadia Valley - small rural school) - uses Level 2 - use the book sto structure the course and supplement with other things. 1st semester - We The People - foundations and political parties - 100 points for the test and 100 points for the hearing. Begin preparing for hearings after Thanksgiving. Uses community members to judge the hearings. The hearings are not so much about testing constitutional knowledge as it is teaching skills. Spend a lot of time practicing the prepared statement and getting them ready for the question/answer part of the hearings. 2nd semester is the other government curriculum. Bill of Rights - uses a lot of court cases to teach.
■Marcus (Columbia)
●Break
●Millie - General Info
○ -
○Lesson Plans -
○Teaching the MO Constitution - 1 day intro workshop for 60 teachers. Russ S. This might be a great opportunity to learn more .
●
●Charlie (Charles) Hinderliter - The Bill of Rights: The Debate, Incorporation, the Role of the 14th Amendment
○Been involved in We the People since 1996 in some capacity
○Legacy of the program - impacting how people operate as citizens - educated and informed voters, use the knowledge gained to make informed decisions.\, etc.
○Origin of the Bill of Rights
■General Thoughts
●We draw a lot from Britain - structure, philosophy, etc - adapting old laws to new principles
●impose more modern ideas on older documents - this is what we do not - apply the ideas of the BOR to the states.
●Constitutionalism is a core piece - people in a state of nature (Locke) who band together to build a constitution for the good of all.
●Founding Fathers - they were human - they were politicians. Take this into account when you teach this
■Convention (Unit 2)
●Mason and Gary - they proposed a BOR - voted down (perhaps because they didn’t view is as important). This will become one of the biggest areas of disagreement
■Debates - Fed/Anti-Feds (Unit 2)
●Not political parties - not that organized. Vote Yes or vote No on the Constitution. They are not homogeneous groups -
●Political fight - AF - Phili Convention done is secret...however, it was just how things were done - biggest argument was the lack of a Bill of Rights