The constitutional convention method of amendment, where change is initiated by the states, has never actually been used, although states have frequently tried to initiate such a movement. In fact, an effort to create a balanced budget amendment in this way is currently in the works. Twenty-seven of the necessary thirty-four states (all Republican-led) have passed resolutions calling on Congress to hold a constitutional convention to pass a balanced budget amendment. Several other efforts are right behind it that would try to put in extra protections for religious freedom (and perhaps defining citizenship as beginning at conception) or limitations on government action. Opponents argue that once a convention is convened, it might be hard to contain the urge to make multiple changes to the Constitution, although three-quarter of the states would still need to approve the amendments.22
In Your Own Words
Explain the system of separation of powers and checks and balances.
Ratification: Selling the Constitution to Americans
For the Constitution to become the law of the land, it had to undergo ratification, that is, it had to be voted on and approved by state conventions in at least nine states. As it happens, the Constitution was eventually ratified by all thirteen states, but not until some major political battles had been fought.
ratification the process through which a proposal is formally approved and adopted by vote
Federalists Versus Anti-Federalists
So strongly partisan were the supporters and opponents of the Constitution that, if the battle were taking place today, Twitter feeds would be on fire and we would probably find the two sides sniping at each other on cable TV programs like The Sean Hannity Show and Hardball With Chris Matthews, and Samantha Bee would be busy mocking both groups. It was a fierce, lively battle to control the narrative of what the new republic would be like, but instead of producing viral videos with the lifespan of a fruit fly and high television ratings, it yielded some of the finest writings for and against the American system. Those in favor of ratification called themselves Federalists. The Federalists, like Delegate A in our earlier hypothetical constitution-building scenario, were mostly men with a considerable economic stake in the new nation. Having fared poorly under the Articles, they were certain that if America were to grow as an economic and world power, it needed to be the kind of country people with property would want to invest in. Security and order were key values, as was popular control. The Federalists thought people like themselves should be in charge of the government, although some of them did not object to an expanded suffrage if government had enough built-in protections. Mostly they were convinced that a good government could be designed if the underlying principles of human behavior were known. If people were ambitious and tended toward corruption, then government should make use of those characteristics to produce good outcomes.
The Anti-Federalists told a different story. They rejected the notion that ambition and corruption were inevitable parts of human nature. If government could be kept small and local, the stakes not too large and tempting, and popular scrutiny truly vigilant, then Americans could live happy and contented lives without getting involved in the seamier side of politics. America did not need sprawling urban centers of commerce and trade; nor did it need to be a world power. If it did not stray from its rural roots and values, it could permanently avoid the creeping corruption that the Anti-Federalists believed threatened the American polity. The reason the Anti-Federalists found the Articles of Confederation more attractive than the Constitution was that the Articles did not call for a strong central government that, distant from the voters’ eyes, could become a hotbed of political intrigue. Instead, the Articles vested power in the state governments, which could be more easily watched and controlled.
Writing under various aliases as well as their own names, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists fired arguments back and forth in pamphlets and newspaper editorials aimed at persuading undecided Americans to come out for or against the Constitution. Because the channels of communication were limited, the competing ideas were concentrated into two streams. The Federalists were far more aggressive and organized in their “media blitz,” hitting New York newspapers with a series of eloquent editorials, known collectively as The Federalist Papers, published under the pen name Publius but really written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. These essays were bound and distributed in other states where the ratification struggle was close. The Federalist Papers is one of the main texts on early American politics today. In response, the Anti-Federalists published essays under names such as Cato, Brutus, and the Federal Farmer.23
The Federalist Papers a series of essays written in support of the Constitution to build support for its ratification
The Federalist Papers
Eighty-five essays were written by Publius. In a contemporary introduction to the essays, compiled as a book, one scholar calls them, along with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, part of “the sacred writings of American political history.”24 Putting them on a par with holy things is probably a mistake. Far from being divinely inspired, The Federalist Papers are quintessentially the work of human beings. They are clever, well thought out, and logical, but they are also tricky and persuasive examples of the “hard sell.” Their archaic language makes The Federalist Papers generally difficult reading for contemporary students. However, the arguments in support of the Constitution are laid out so beautifully that it is worthwhile to take the trouble to read them. It would be a good idea to turn to them now and read them carefully.
In Federalist No. 10, Madison tries to convince Americans that a large country is no more likely to succumb to the effects of special interests than is a small one (preferred by the Anti-Federalists). He explains that the greatest danger to a republic comes from factions, what we might call interest groups. Factions are groups of people motivated by a common interest, but one different from the interest of the country as a whole. Farmers, for instance, have an interest in keeping food prices high, even though that would make most Americans worse off. Businesspeople prefer high import duties on foreign goods, even though they make both foreign and domestic goods more expensive for the rest of us. Factions are not a particular problem when they constitute a minority of the population because they are offset by majority rule. They do become problematic, however, when they are a majority. Factions usually have economic roots, the most basic being a difference between the “haves” and “have nots” in society. One of the majority factions that worried Madison was the mass of propertyless people whose behavior was so threatening to property holders under the Articles of Confederation.
factions groups of citizens united by some common passion or interest and opposed to the rights of other citizens or to the interests of the whole community
To control the causes of factions would be to infringe on individual liberty. But Madison believed that the effects of factions are easily managed in a large republic. First of all, representation will dilute the effects of factions, and it is in this essay that Madison makes his famous distinction between “pure democracy” and a “republic.” In addition, if the territory is sufficiently large, factions will be neutralized because there will be so many of them that no one is likely to become a majority. Furthermore, it will be difficult for people who share common interests to find one another if some live in South Carolina, for instance, and others live in Maine. (Clearly, Madison never anticipated social media or even the telegraph.) We discuss Madison’s argument about factions again when we take up the topic of interest groups in Chapter 11. In the meantime, notice how Madison relies on mechanical elements of politics (size and representation) to remedy a flaw in human nature (the tendency to form divisive