You are on page 1of 12

Taylor Smith

HIST 592
Constitutional Principles
7/9/2015

Constitutional Principles Reflection

The seminar I attended focused on the principles of the United States Constitution.

Rather than sifting through the specific operations of the branches of government and how they

were institutionally designed at the Constitutional Convention, the professors included a rich

series of readings and discussions that presented the theories behind republicanism, as well as the

evolving contentions. This tension creates a controversy in American history that students are

rarely exposed to and minimally provided the opportunity to analyze. There are a host of reasons

for the shallow teaching of Constitutional principlescomplexity of the philosophies, archaic

language of the text, and state standardsbut this particular seminar demonstrated how to

organize these principles through the initial debates of the Federalists, and how the tension is

continuously stretched or loosened through the context of particular time periods. Therefore, the

following narrative discusses the content that was learned, what it means for my students, and

how I can use it to further strengthen students understanding of Constitutional principles and

historical thinking skills.

Conventionally, students are taught about the founding era as a triumph over an

oppressive regime; where this victory led to a free government of this people. Little emphasis is

ever placed on how these individuals sought to conduct a successful experiment of

republicanism, and disagreed over the scope and limits of the Federal government. It is during

this founding era where fundamental questions arose over how to ensure liberty and prevent

tyranny. Thus the Founders believed that they formed a republican government that, if preserved

1
properly, would be a leading light for the world that doubted this political theory. Ultimately, the

seminar over Constitutional Principles enhanced my understanding of the Founders theories, one

being the delegated powers theory, the formation of a republican government, contentions over

what is necessary to effectuate the enumerated powers, and the scope and limits of the Judicial

Branch. The narrative and analysis provided by Professor George, Professor Franck, and

Professor Holloway through lectures, discussions, and selected readings conveyed an

understanding that the Founders facilitated the republican experiment for the purpose of

preserving liberty, but that they had little agreement over how the Constitution defined specific

powers. Therefore, the knowledge gained from this seminar will allow me to better shape

students understandings over the passions and characteristics of each branch, how and why they

were formed, and how the republican experimentalthough solidified by Lincolnpresently

examines and controls variables that hold potential for bringing about its demise.

The first challenge presented to the foundersas discussed in the first lecture and set of

readingsconsidered how they would design a regime that was distinct from the former. They

knew that with the failures of the Articles of Confederation that they needed to find a republican

form of government that was plausible and viewed as desirable, in order to preserve liberty. With

that, Professor George deepened my understanding of the intentions behind the United States

Constitutional Principles that were developed by the designed framework. The discussion of

Federalists 1 and 10 presents why, in the words of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, the

republican form of government was necessary, as it limited factionalization and presented a form

of republicanism that was different that previous designs. With this, the use of Federalist 1 and

10 within the classroom would provide students with a deep understanding of the reasons behind

2
our Constitutional Principles, as they adequately demonstrate how the Founders desired a

republican form of government that would successfully preserve liberty and prevent tyranny.

Professor George further explained the intentions behind the delegated power theory in

regards to Founders desire to shift general jurisdiction from the central government to the states.

This meant that they designed a set of enumerated power for the central government, as they are

outlined in Articles I-III. Therefore, this necessitates the need to guide students towards

understanding that this shift of general jurisdiction, as well as the enumerated powers, was the

method by which the Founders hoped to preserve liberty and prevent tyranny. In other words,

when analyzing the delegated powers theory, students would further understand that the states,

whom are most accountable to the people, are to uphold health, safety, and morals.

Complexity ensues, however, as students are faced with the lines of separation between

enumerated powers and the powers of the states, as the states powers are not clearly defined;

rather, it is expressed that states are permitted unless explicitly forbidden. Therefore, the use of

the court case McCulloch v. Maryland is illustrative of how the lines of divisions between the

enumerated powers of the federal government and the reserved powers for the states are not

sharp. I would use my understanding of the reasoning behind the charter of the First National

Bank and the implications of the necessary and proper clause to further students understanding

of these blurred divisions. The takeaway from the first session and set of readings is that the

Founders worked to protect liberty and prevent tyranny by dividing and limiting the power of the

government. Discussions surrounding this principle require that students understand the

reasoning and concerns with the Bill of Rights, the contentions over the commerce power, and

determining how to rule upon abuses of power.

3
Professor Franck further expanded upon the ideas of federalism through the separation of

powers of the Legislative and Executive Branches by simply presenting the question, why are

they there? Although my students can quickly identify the enumerated powers of each branch,

they find difficulty in analyzing why the powers are separated in the way that they are, and how

this separation of powers impacts the operations and debates of the United States government.

The Federalists use Federalist essays 47- 51 to embark on a narrative mark of the institutional

structure of the new Constitution. These essays present the structural purpose of the separation of

powers. When learning about how the Federalists intended to separate the powers, their rationale,

and the institutional structure that is presented in the Constitution, great importance lies in

allowing students to analyze the impacts of the Federalists explanations, and the purpose for the

separations of powers. For example, Professor Franck explained that, as liberty is the order of the

Constitution, the separation of powers within the branches was animated by the impulse to limit

the passions of members of the government. He further explained that the presentation of these

separations informs the public, thus corresponding with the theory of the rule of law.

The separation of legislating, effectuating, and judging the laws presents students with

the notion of establishing laws so that public knows how they are governed. However, it is

necessary for students to understand that the powers are not absolutely separated; rather they are

blended, for the purpose of preserving liberty. Reason being, James Madison, as presented in

Federalist 47, believed that placing the sole law-making authority, without a check, upon one

branch would lead to legislative tyranny. This particular idea is demonstrated with the Presidents

power to veto, as a veto is a legislative duty that is entrusted to the Executive Branch. This

particular power of the President, as well as the scope of checks and balances, presents students

4
with the Founders desires to create an equilibrium of powers where and overreach by any

branch would cause a reaction in order to maintain the balance.

Along with this particular lecture, an essay by Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr,Americas

Constitutional Soul supplemented my understanding of the Constitutional principles of limited

government, the separation of powers, and checks and balances. Mansfields argument presents

the case that the Federalists saw the separation of powers, limited government, and checks and

balances as a solution to the failures of previous republican forms of government. Therefore, it is

integral piece of sustaining the success of the republican experiment. This success, as presented

by Mansfield, relies on an energetic executive and limiting the ambitions of individual

legislators. For example, the theory behind the separation of power is what led to our bi-cameral

legislature. Students typically understand the functions of the bi-cameral legislature, but in order

for them to fully analyze the process, they must understand the reasoning behind this particular

structure.

Therefore, this seminar enhanced the ability to convey to students the fragmented and

diverse characteristics of the House of Representatives, as well as the how the Senate is viewed

as more elite and having a national outlook due to their larger constituencies. These particular

distinctions allow students to further analyze the structures of the bi-cameral legislature, as the

House of Representatives is closer to the people, making them more vulnerable to ambition,

whereas the Senate holds relative stability as they are distanced from the populous. Therefore,

my knowledge of the principles of limited government, the separation of powers, and checks and

balances will allow me to effectively design instruction where students analyze the purpose

behind this design as a means to achieve a successful republican form of government.

5
The remainder of the seminar focused on how prominent leaders approached reading the

Constitution, as well as debates of the scope and limits of the Judiciary. Both of these discussions

present contentions that are prevalent in our contemporary understandings of the principles of the

Constitution. The continuity of these arguments, including those during the founding era, present

to students the notion that, when deciding the constitutionality of laws, working from the

Founders intentions is far too simplistic. Reason being, the Founders themselves were conflicted

over the same ideas regarding how to read the enumerations and implied powers of the

Constitution, as well as the scope and limits of the judiciary. These particular conflicts present a

continuity of Constitutional interpretation throughout time, regardless of the changes that drove

the need for interpretation. The lecture presented by Professor Holloway greatly demonstrated

this point through letters written by Alexander Hamilton and his arch nemesis, Thomas Jefferson.

Therefore, in order to fully understand the difficulty of turning to the Founders for original

intent, the context of these individuals is imperative. In other words, one cannot fully grasp this

difficulty if they do not understand the stark differences between Hamilton and Jefferson, and

how their divisions bring about differences in how to preserve the Constitution. The use of these

letters, as well as the description of their dynamic personalities, allows students to grapple with

the complexity of understanding the Constitution during its formative years. Ultimately, these

letters are illustrative of how both Hamilton and Jefferson saw one another as subversive to the

efforts of the preserving liberty through the Constitution.

The series of letters cover each individuals view on the charter of a National Bank.

Where Hamilton saw the bank as necessarya means to an endJefferson believed that the

bank was a subversion of the rights of the states. Thus, not only do these letters present the

difficulty with turning to the Founders for intent, they further exemplify the different visions of

6
limited government. For example, Hamilton viewed the bank as necessary for energizing the

national government, while providing a means for effectuating the enumerated purse powers,

even if this included the management of national debt. Jefferson, with his strong confederal

views, believed that the bank moved beyond the limits of the Constitution, especially since the

mention of a bank was purposely left out during the Convention. Ultimately, these disputes, and

the disdain that both individuals held for one another, present students with legitimate

complexity that continues into the government of the contemporary United States. With the

implementation of the Affordable Care Act, as well as other controversial legislation, the

diversity of how to approach the reading of the Constitution exemplifies the need for students to

be able to analyze the intent of those involved in the legislative process, as well as their

individual ambitions.

Lastly, with the differences in approaches to reading the Constitution, this seminar most

significantly influenced my understanding of the scope and limits to the Constitution, and how

they have been defined over time. When looking for the source of authority, as well as

supremacy, students typically engage with idea of judicial review as presented in Marbury v.

Madison. However, this text is extremely complex, and the implementation of judicial review is

rarely invoked until 1857 with the decisions presented in Dred Scott v Sanford. Prior to this

revelation, it was my understanding that Marbury v. Madison claimed judicial review, and

therefore judicial supremacy, and from there the Supreme Court was the final arbiter of the

constitutionality of laws. However, this seminar, and the use of court cases during the

antebellum, progressive, civil rights, and contemporary eras demonstrated the pendulum in

which the understanding and interpretation of judicial supremacy gravitates within,

7
acknowledging that the scope and limits of the Supreme Court are defined within the contexts of

their particular time periods.

Professor George concluded that the deliberations over judicial supremacy, as well as the

principles of limited government, separation of powers, and checks and balances, with the

Lincolnian view of the Courts scope and limits. In response to the Dred Scott Decision, Lincoln

warned of the potential for subjecting the citizenry to an eminent tribunal1 if the Supreme

Court was look upon as the final authority for determining the Constitutionality of governmental

affairs. This presents the importance of the principle of popular sovereignty; that the only way to

maintain our republican government is through the demands of the citizenry and the exercise of

enumerated powers to create and effectuate laws. However, in the contemporary United States

the population is socialized to believe that the Supreme Court holds the final decision of

constitutionality, but this becomes highly complex as the agreement with this judicial supremacy

often depends on the moral vantage point. For example, Lincoln may have refused to uphold the

Dred Scott Decision, as he believed that slavery was morally wrong; whereas, Eisenhower

carried out the decision made with Brown v. Board due to its unanimity. Therefore, the

complexity of judicial supremacy, its foundation, and the contentions surrounding various court

cases provides students with the opportunity to explore the context for these decisions, while

discovering the means for exercising their civic efficacy to ensure that decisions of morality do

not have to come before the court. Therefore, designing instruction with inquiry-based learning,

historical thinking skills, and realms through which students can design solutions to

contemporary issues, is necessary for making learning relevant.

The most important aspect of understanding the debates, creation, continuity, and change of the

Constitutional principles is held through the use of historical thinking skills. Students, like

8
historians, will miss the entirety and complexity of the debates and theories if the source

informationincluding biases, point of view, and experiences of the individual and contexts

are not explored while corroborating evidence. For example, as presented by Professor George,

when drawing conclusions about the reason for the design for the republican form of

government, students must work to understand who individuals like James Madison and

Alexander Hamilton are, while considering their arguments in light of the previous experiences

under British rule, as well as the failure of the Articles of Confederation.

The exploration of the individual as well as the context of his or her beliefs allows for an

in-depth understanding of Alexander Hamiltons nationalistic outlook due to his involvement in

the Revolutionary War; Thomas Jeffersons alignment to states rights which are presumably

credited to his work as a statesman during the Revolution; Abrahams views on the Dred Scott

decision in light of the deep sectional divides present in Antebellum America; and how the

decisions of particular Chief Justices can be analyzed against a backdrop of their times, or with

an understanding of the president whom appointed them to the Judiciary. Overall, the

implementation of historical thinking skills is necessary for students to grasp the complex

understandings and rationale for American jurisprudence. That being said, after coming to a

better understanding of principles of the Constitution, and the context of their formation and

interpretation, I will further develop instruction that allows students to analyze debates, theories,

and actions of our government in light of how the principles of the Constitution are being

interpreted in lieu of a particular time period.

As showcased in the lesson plan that I designed, students would be presented with a

series of primary source documents that, essentially, lead them towards analyzing the continuity

of the debate over individual liberties. The essential historical question When there is a threat

9
to national security, should our individual liberties be protected, or does the government have the

power to restrict them poses student with this problem of determining if and when threats to

national security warrant a limit on individual liberties. Fitting within the curriculum of a U.S.

History or American Government course, this lesson, along with the chosen primary sources

the Bill of Rights; the Alien and Sedition Act; the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions; sections of

the PATRIOT Act; and remarks about the PATRIOT Act from the ACLUreinforces the

understandings of the principle of individual liberty indicated in the Bill of Rights, power of the

President, enumerated powers, and public opinion and how it shapes policy. When employing

historical thinking skills, students draw authentic conclusions about conditions of the past, and

how they are related to contemporary policy debates.

As opposed to working through the unique structures and enumerations of the branches

of government the seminar over Constitutional Principles presented a rich set of readings and

discussions over theories behind republicanism, as well as the contentions that continuously

evolved. A similar analysis of these principles within the appropriate scope of the grade-levels

will allow students to walk away with a rich understanding for the political and legal processes

of the United States government. Importance lies in exposing students to the presented

complexities, rather than a simplified rote memorization of the operations and structures of our

government. In other words, while implementing historical thinking skills, students must explore

why our Founders placed emphasis on these particular principles, where each branch derives

their particular authority, and how the citizenry possesses the power to hold their government

accountable.

10
Bibliography

11
1 Abraham Lincoln. Lincolns First Inaugural Address, March 04, 1861.

You might also like