PLSC001:

Learning Objectives and Key Terms

Learning Objectives

The readings and questions in the lesson will help you to

• the distinction between politics and politcal power in the American political system


• the meaning of democracy


• the American form of democracy


• the Declaration of Independence


• the Constitution of the United States

 

Key Terms

alienable rights	The Federalist Papers
inalienable rights	James Madison
authority	majority rights
Articles of Confederation	majority rule
Bill of Rights	North-South Compromise
constitutional democracy	politics
democracy	power
direct democracy	ratification
ex post facto law	representative democracy
Federalists	republic
government	Roger Sherman
Great (Connecticut) Compromise

Overview

This lesson focuses on the meaning of the term democracy, the foundation of the American political system, and the Constitution of the United States.

Chapter 2 in the Lowi text establishes the framework for the study of politics and the development of the American Constitution. The reading illuminates the events surrounding the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the development and ratification of the Constitution. Thousands of amendments to the Constitution have been proposed since 1789. Only 27 amendments have received the necessary two-thirds vote in each house of Congress and been ratified by the necessary three-fourths of the state legislatures.

Three commentaries below supplement the reading. In the first commentary, the notion of politics and power is expanded beyond the concepts covered in the Introduction to highlight the work of a few key scholars in political science. The second commentary summarizes major concepts concerning the meaning of democracy and then outlines how to read the Declaration of Independence. The third commentary deals with American constitutional democracy.

Commentary 1: Politics and Power

In the introduction, we briefly discussed the terms politics and power that are embedded in the lexicon of political science. In this commentary, the two terms are explored further, and a third term, powertics, is added. First, the notion of politics and power is explored within the context of the political system. Then, drawing on organizational behavior theory, the human dimension of the actors in the political system is examined. From this examination, the notion of powertics in the decision-making process of the political system is set forth. Powertics is a term that connotes the dynamics of the interaction of political actors, both governmental and nongovernmental, in the political decision system. We will use this framework to observe the dynamics of the American political system throughout the course.

Politics

Textbooks refer most often to Harold Lasswell’s (1958) “who gets what, when, how” and David Easton’s (1971) “authoritative allocation of values” when defining the term politics.¹ The field of politics involves decision making on political issues. This involves national and international political parties and interest groups, elites, influence, conflict and bargaining, and social will. The output of political decision making encompasses policies, treaties, conventions, laws, and implementation of programs. With this basic understanding of politics, we will review several classical theorists along with the contemporary understanding of politics in the literature. The review illuminates the phenomenon of politics as a framework within which to examine the notion of power in the next section.

In 1934, Lasswell suggested that, “less formally expressed, politics is the study of who gets what, when, and how,” a most-often-quoted description of politics ([1934] 1950, 3). The “what” of politics, in his view, deals with outcomes which he refers to as “ ‘wants,’ ‘drives,’ ‘wishes,’ ‘predispositions,’ or ‘demands’ of the individual concerned” (201). He asserts that the “how” of politics is related to the strategy of politics which he defines as: “the management of value assets in order to influence outcomes” (204). He suggests that “we think of politics in terms of participants (with identifications, demands, expectations; with control over base values) interacting in arenas (situations in which decision outcomes are expected), employing strategies to maximize value indulgences over deprivations by influencing decision outcomes and hence effects” (208). This is the basic context of the notion of powertics as set forth in this commentary.

Professor Herman Finer describes politics as follows:

The first [politics] comprises the origin, development, and maturing of social will, so that popular loyalties to a desire are marshaled in such a way as to establish a law or convention socially accepted or simply acquiesced in. And this involves simultaneously the stimulation of social readiness to make the direct and indirect sacrifices of time, money, economic habits and to establish the rewards and self-restraints which are necessary to support and nourish the will thus engaged. The result is a reservoir of social will and power. (1949, 7)

British theorist Bernard Crick suggests that politics is related to pluralism in a democratic society. In his view, the notion of politics is a phenomenon in society that “arises from accepting the fact of the simultaneous existence of different groups, hence different interests and different traditions within a territory ruled” (1964, 18).

Beyond the concentration on the decision process of public policy expressed above, many scholars in the discipline of political science view the decision system as a component of public policy focused on a substantive issue such as pollution. We need to understand both the substantive issues of a specific policy as well as the decision system to transform the public policy issue from a demand to an output aimed at achieving the “public good.” The next section deals with political power in the decision system.

¹Although this commentary focuses on the decision-making aspect of politics, Thomas Spragens reminds us that there are other dimensions to the term. He suggests that beyond the struggle for power, which he relates to "the sociology of power,"

Political Power

Political power is the capability to influence political decisions. Power is derived from personal and organizational sources and resources of the actors and is subject to the perceptions of the power positions as viewed by the competing forces seeking a political decision.

German sociologist Max Weber suggests that the notion of power related to politics means “striving to share power or striving to influence the distribution of power, either among states or among groups within the state” (1946, 78). He contends that those active in politics attain power for one of two motives: “either as a means in serving other aims, ideal or egoistic, or as ‘power for power’s sake,’ that is, in order to enjoy the prestige-feeling that power gives” (78). David Truman concludes from Weber’s views that “in the governmental activity of interest groups both motives are frequently at work, but the former is perhaps more often dominant” (1971, 264). Truman contends that whichever of the power motives defined by Weber is operative at any point of time, “power of any kind cannot be reached by a political interest group, or its leaders, without access to one or more key points of decision in the government” (271). He suggests that the key decision points “may be explicitly established by the formal legal framework of the government, or they may lie in the gaps and interstices of the formal structure, protected by custom or by semi-obscurity” (271).

In a nineteenth-century letter to Mandell Creighton concerning the review of Creighton’s third and fourth volumes of the History of the Papacy during the Reformation, Lord Acton warned the institutions of liberty of the need to limit political power:

I cannot accept your canon [Creighton’s] that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely [highlight added]. (1948, 364)

Finer counters Acton’s connotation of power with the following observations and counterpoint:

Against the corruption that results from the exercise of power is to be weighed its benefits to the statesman or thinker or priest or citizen (who may be all three) who wields it. Power heightens sensitiveness; it stimulates the imagination of purposes and expedients; it generates invention; it increases compassion when it places men where they confront the sorrows which government exists to assuage and the trials that must be visited upon some in order that others may have a more abundant life; and it develops fortitude and humility. Power compels men to think, to choose, to endeavor towards the conquest of pain and the discovery of truth. Is this catalogue not at least as tenable as Acton’s sweeping anathema? (1949, 18)

The views of Weber, Truman, Acton, and Finer suggest that power is a human phenomenon, that power interacts at key points in the decision process, that power may have a corrupting dimension and thus must be limited, and that the positive nature of power contributes to the progress of society.

Authority

Robert MacIver suggests that power and authority of government are often indistinguishable, with authority being often defined as power—“the power to command obedience” (1947, 82). He expands the distinction between power and authority as follows:

By authority, we mean the established right, within any social order, to determine policies, to pronounce judgments on relevant issues, and to settle controversies, or, more broadly, to act as leader or guide to other men. When we speak of an authority we mean a person or body of persons possessed of this right. The accent is primarily on right, not power. Power alone has no legitimacy, no mandate, no office. Even the most ruthless tyrant gets nowhere unless he can clothe himself with authority. (83)

Robert Dahl articulated the basic notion of political power. He argues that “power terms in modern social science refer to subsets of relations among social units such that the behavior of one or more units (the response units, R) depend in some circumstances on the behavior of other units (the controlling units, C)” (1968, 407). Dahl contends that power is a behavioral phenomenon in which the causal relation is the closest equivalent to the power relation. He argues that “for the assertion ‘C has power over R,’ one can substitute the assertion, ‘C’s behavior causes R’s behavior’ ” (410). Elaborating, Dahl suggests that “If one can define the causal relation, one can define influence, power, or authority, or vice versa” (410).

Nelson Polsby argues that this power relationship can be examined by looking at “who participates, who gains and loses, and who prevails in decision-making” (1963, 55). John Gaventa adds that the key to understanding this decisional power, which he labels as a “one-dimensional approach to the study of power,” is behavior—the act of doing and participating in the decision process (1980, 5). Polsby observes that people participate in the political decision process on issues that they care about and that the claims of even small minorities will be recognized and acted upon in a highly fragmented political system (1963, 118). The next section examines the behavioral aspects of power.

Behavioral Theory of Power

In an organizational sense, Wagner and Hollenbeck define politics as “activities in which individuals or groups acquire power and use it to advance their own interests” (1992, 471). In their view, “politics is power in action” (471). Robbins adds:

When people get together, power will be exerted. People want to carve out a niche from which to exert influence, to earn rewards, and to advance their careers. When employees convert their power into action, they are engaged in politics. Those with good political skills have the ability to use their bases of power effectively. (1992, 165)

Power is imbedded in leadership. Leaders compel people, organizations, coalitions, and nations to respond to their demands. Robbins draws a distinction between the two terms. He contends that “leaders use power as a means of attaining group goals” (1992, 156). Leaders, in his view, “achieve goals, and power is a means for facilitating their achievement” (156).

Power in a political system can be viewed as the capability of actor “A” (political leader, interest group, or individual) to influence actor “B” (political leader, interest group, or individual) times the will of “A” to influence “B” as perceived by “B.” “A” is only powerful if “B” thinks so. “B” responds to the demands of “A” only to the extent that they perceive the power of “A” relative to their own power.

John R. P. French, Jr., and Bertram Raven identified five categories for the sources of individual power: (1) expertise (knowledge, skill, talent of the leader); (2) referent (personality, appearance, charisma, reputation, and so on); (3) legitimate (authority of the position); (4) reward (ability to pass out favors, benefits, and so on); and (5) coercive (ability to compel compliance) (1959, 150-65). The first two sources come from the individual and are known as personal powers. The other three sources are often called organizational powers (Wagner and Hollenbeck 1992, 465).

Stephen Robbins adds that sources of power “tell us where the power holder gets his or her power bases...sources refer to how you come to control the bases of power” (1992, 156). He labels the position you hold, your personal characteristics, your expertise, and the opportunity you have to receive and obstruct information as the four sources of power (157-58).

The consideration of human behavior complicates the study of political power. The human actors in the political decision system have personal and organizational powers that are bounded by their own knowledge, skills, and values to make rational decisions. The next section examines the phenomenon of powertics that focuses on the dynamics of human interactions in the political decision system.

Powertics

As defined at the beginning of the commentary, powertics involves the interactions of governmental and nongovernmental actors that take place in both formal and informal networks that are operative in the political decision process. These networks are labeled “powertic networks” and are comprised of formal and informal relationships among the actors including nation-states, coalitions, interest groups, political parties, and individuals. These networks are comprised of five types of actors:

1. governmental actors elected as the representatives of the people;


2. self-appointed totalitarian governments and individuals;


3. appointed governmental actors (bureaucrats—appointed heads of agencies);


4. supporting bureaucracies (civil servants); and


5. nongovernmental actors (economic and non-economic interest groups) who press their demands on the decision process of the political system.

Both related and unrelated issues are operative in these networks. The political decisions that result from the interactions in the networks impact on both domestic and international policies. The term “powerticking” describes the dynamics of proponents and opponents of a pending political decision attempting to out-power the other side—that is, gather enough support (votes) to control the decision.

Professors Lowi and Ginsberg illuminate the context of powertics within the political system. They narrow the term “politics” “to refer only to conflicts and struggles over the leadership, structure, and policies of governments” (2000, 14-15). They contend that “the goal of politics...is to have a share or a say in the composition of the government’s leadership, how the government is organized, or what its politics are going to be” (15). They conclude that having a say in politics is related to power and influence (15).

Powertics is a behavioral phenomenon that complicates understanding because of the uniqueness of each of the human actors who brings to the decision interaction a unique set of values in addition to knowledge, skill, and referent powers. For governmental actors, organizational power comes from the position to which they are elected or appointed. For nongovernmental actors, power comes from the interests they represent and the resources they have that allow them to press their demands on the political system. The powerless find themselves unrepresented or underrepresented in the powertics phenomenon.

Jerome Mileur captures the essence of powertics in the origin of the American political system:

The Framers, in their passion for liberty, wrote a Constitution that splintered power and, in doing so, institutionalized politics to secure freedom. It has worked. The division of power meant that nobody has it and everybody had to deal with somebody to get what they want. The study of power in political science has been rich in describing this dealing—the bargaining, trading, and compromise—but it has been impoverished in its theorizing about power. (1987, 3)

Mileur suggests that those who framed the Constitution set forth the best notion of power. He contends that the framers linked power to structure: “Power inherited in the office, not the man—in the structure of politics, not the players” (1987, 3). This view is dramatically reinforced when a new president is about to be inaugurated. The outgoing president arrives at the ceremony as the most powerful man in the nation, and possibly the world. After a simple swearing in of the new president, the now ex-president’s power is largely diminished as he retires from the stage of power in a manner William Shakespeare captured in Macbeth over four hundred years ago: “Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets upon the stage and then is heard no more” (1969, 1133).

Graham Allison used three conceptual models to look at decision making during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. He explored the area that this commentary labels powertics. He contends, “Men share power. Men differ about what must be done. The differences matter” (1971, 145). He suggests that what matters in decision making is “the power and skill of the proponents and opponents of the action in question” and not the merits of the issue or the “routines of the organization” (145). He articulated the difficulty in observing decision making. He concludes that we need “more satisfactory accounts of each player’s position, more careful specification of action-channels, etc.” (275). His work supports the need for understanding the phenomenon of powertics in a specific decision action that takes into account the varying skills and perceptions of the actors involved, a difficult research task.

Politics and Power Summary

The review of the terms politics, power, and powertics enables one to draw distinctions among the terms. Politics is the stage on which the participants interact. Politics establishes the process—the way that the public conducts its business. Politics involves decision making on political demands. Politics involves conflicts that result when competing demands press their positions. Politics is also the process wherein conflicts are normally resolved in a relatively peaceable manner short of war, or by war or threat of war when necessary.

Power deals with the governmental and nongovernmental actors who seek to influence political decisions. Power has both positive and negative connotations. Power is a relative term subject to the perceptions of the actors. The human actors on the political stage are limited by their personal and organizational powers. Political power derives from coalitions that achieve balance on a specific issue at any given point of time. The changing nature of coalitions requires that the political system be constantly re-balanced as coalitions change.

Powertics is the interaction of governmental and nongovernmental actors on the political stage during the process of decision making. Powertics occurs in both formal and informal interactions that take place during the decision process. The product of powertics is the output of the decision process that is observable. The formal interactions in the decision process are measurable and usually recorded for history. The informal interactions, however, are unrecorded and very difficult to observe. Even when observed, they are difficult to understand because of the varying perceptions of the participating actors on what took place in any given interaction.

Examining the American political system is a study of politics, power, and powertics in the early twenty-first century. The shifting coalitions of actors and how they play accounts for the outcomes that we can observe, measure, and record. Understanding the dynamics of these interactions among the powerful actors (powertics) is the object of the research project performed in this course (Lesson 13).

Commentary 2: Democracy and the Declaration of Independence

Democracy

Webster’s dictionary defines democracy as “a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.” ² With this basic definition, two types of democracy emerge: direct democracy and indirect or representative democracy.

• Direct democracy: The classic definition in which the supreme power of the land is exercised by the people. Cities in ancient Greece were once ruled directly by the citizens who voted on all issues of government.


• Representative (indirect) democracy: The form of government in which supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them indirectly by a system of representative delegates.

Some town meetings in New England carry on the practice of direct democracy today. The rapid advance in technology in the late twentieth century could enable the people to play a more active part in democracy by voting on key issues such as a balanced budget amendment, national health care, or welfare reform. Such direct voting would be via touch-tone telephone, e-mail, Web site, or other emerging technologies. This evolution could one day move the United States towards a direct democracy where the citizens vote on key issues such as tax cuts. In the event this evolves, the people would regain, to some extent, the current power delegated by the people to Congress.

Seventeenth-century English philosopher John Locke (Two Treatises of Government, 1689) and Adam Smith (The Wealth of Nations, 1776) both believed that the key to democracy was preserving the right to property (which in their day meant life, liberty, and estate). Eighteenth-century French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau countered in the Social Contract that property is the first inequality of a society that leads one to the notion of strictly doing for one’s self. He contends that the attitude of self needs to shift towards the social nature of man.³ These opposing views are still argued today.

²For other meanings of democracy, see Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (New York: Random House, 1989), 384.
³See Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On the origin of Inequality, On political Economy, the Social Contract, trans. G. D. H. Cole. In Great Books of the Western World, ed. R.M. Hutchins (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1952).

Democracy, continued

Henry Mayo takes a functional approach to democracy. He suggests that the purpose of democracy is to perform the functions of a political system. He set forth three main functions of a democratic government:

• The maintenance of a free economy: This view of democratic capitalism (also known as liberal democracy) was set forth by Thomas Paine and Adam Smith in 1776. The opposing view is called democratic socialism.


• The preservation of individual rights: Mayo notes that there will be conflicts between freedom from governmental interference and protection of rights.


• Development of a personality similar to an individual in terms of human dignity, self interest, and moral responsibility: Mayo defined eight characteristics of this personality:


1. desire to be self-governing;
2. have a free probing rational attitude;
3. behave as a confident political animal;
4. respect the claims of others on the political system;
5. promote rather than repress opinions and emotions;
6. be willing to compromise;
7. place a high value on peace and order; and
8. be a middle-of-the-roader between the extremes of optimism and pessimism (Mayo 1960, 265).

Concluding Thoughts on Democracy

Democracy is hard to establish and build, but it is easily lost to a totalitarian state in a coup or other takeover that could occur overnight. American democracy has been struggling for over two hundred years and all its goals have not been fulfilled. Emerging democracies, such as Russia, have a long struggle ahead over several generations, to establish a strong democracy. Democracy is inefficient by virtue of the many competing and contradicting voices that must be heard on any given issue. Nevertheless, freedom and liberty are better achieved and protected in a democracy than in any form of totalitarian government. The complex nature of politics and power in the American system is often described as “messy,” a requisite of democracy or, in business terms, the added cost in time and money for doing business in a democracy.

The Declaration of Independence

It can be argued that the Declaration of Independence was either the product of a true revolution or the product of a series of evolutionary events in the thirteen colonies. Regardless of the point of view, it is regarded as the document that signaled the end of British colonial rule in the colonies and the beginning of democracy in the United States of America.

As you read the Declaration, you will see that Thomas Jefferson, who drafted the Declaration, followed the basic format for legal arguments used in the eighteenth century. Jefferson broke the Declaration into five distinct sections.

1. The first paragraph is a general statement of intent to separate from England and set forth the basic rights of citizens.


2. The second paragraph states the philosophical justification for separation. In this section, Jefferson used seventeenth- century English radical theorists such as John Locke (“Second Treatise of Government”) and Algernon Sidney to establish the theoretical basis for the right of citizens to overthrow their government. Jefferson set out to construct a legal argument that justified the separation from the English Crown to their fellow citizens in England, King George III, the other nations of the world, and—last, but not least—the colonial citizens who were all citizens of England.

Key to the Locke theory that Jefferson used in the second paragraph was the understanding of the terms property, alienable rights, inalienable rights, usurpation, and tyranny as used at that time.

• Property: As used in the eighteenth century, property included life, liberty, and estate. Today it is only related to estate.


• Alienable right: This is a right which you have that you can give up to another. An example is a car. You have an alienable right to own a car. You also have the right to sell the car to another. Certain of your alienable rights may be given up for the public good, as when we pay taxes.


• Inalienable right: These rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are rights that all humans have from birth as described in natural law theory. These rights cannot be given up to others or taken by others. This term was spelled unalienable in the printer’s version of the handwritten draft probably due to a typing error. Thomas Jefferson wrote inalienable in his draft.


• Usurpation: This is the taking away of alienable rights. For example, if you had a car and someone stole it, they would be guilty of usurpation of your alienable right.


• Tyranny: As used, this meant the taking away of inalienable rights, that is, taking away rights which no man (or king) has a right to take away.


3. The third and longest part details the specific charges against King George III. Jefferson had to prove that King George III was a tyrant in order to justify the breaking away of the colonies from England.


4. The fourth part (second to last paragraph) apologizes to the citizens of England for having to separate from them because of the actions of their rulers.


5. The fifth part (last paragraph) restates the resolution introduced in the Second Continental Congress by Richard Henry Lee of Virginia on May 15, 1776.

Commentary 3: American Constitutional Democracy

A constitutional democracy is a government based on written law. A constitutional system keeps the power of the government in check through fragmentation, decentralization of power, and appropriate checks and balances. The United States moved to a constitutional democracy after the Declaration of Independence in 1776 which separated the American colonies from control by England.

The Articles of Confederation, which became effective in 1781, formed the first constitution for the newly formed United States. During the time the Declaration of Independence was being drafted in 1776, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia introduced a resolution in the Second Continental Congress calling for the formation of a government for the United States. Congress began work on the formation of a formal government structure in 1776. Concerns about defending the fledgling United States against the superior military power of England caused this work to be placed on the “back burner” in favor of raising and supporting the Army and Navy to fight the war. The states were also busy developing and ratifying their own constitutions. Several times during this period, the Congress had to evacuate Philadelphia to escape from the British Army.

In 1778, Congress sent the Articles of Confederation to the states with a three-year limit for ratification. In 1781, the Articles were ratified and the first constitution went into effect. The power in the first constitution was clearly placed in the states. The states retained their sovereignty (no higher authority could intervene). The national government consisted of a Congress and a weak executive. The national Congress was beholden to the states for revenue because the national government could not impose taxes.

The end of the war with England in 1783 brought new attention to the inadequacies of the national government. While consensus could be reached among the states on fighting the war, gaining consensus on other issues was very difficult. By the mid-1780s, problems were mounting from inter-state disputes, such as Virginia and Pennsylvania coming close to war over border disputes south of Pittsburgh; rampant inflation of state-issued paper currency; and pressures from foreign nations for a stronger national government that they could deal with. The overriding fear of many intellectuals was that too much power placed in the hands of the people (direct democracy) could be as destructive to a republic as the tyranny of King George III.

The Convention opened in Philadelphia on May 14, 1787, but only a few delegates were on hand. These few had to wait for eleven days until enough delegates arrived to constitute a quorum. Seventy-four delegates were appointed by state legislatures. Only 55 showed up during the Convention with 30 to 40 delegates present at most sessions.

It should be noted that the delegates to the Convention were sent by their legislatures to draft proposals for amending the Articles of Confederation. Under the Articles of Confederation, any change to that document had to be approved by the thirteen states, a very difficult task to achieve. Rhode Island’s refusal to send delegates to the Convention made any change to the Articles virtually impossible. During the Convention, the attending delegates voted to set aside the Articles and draft a new constitution even though that was beyond the scope of the delegates’ authority. Although a few delegates walked out and returned to their states, a quorum remained, and work on the Constitution proceeded.

Debates were intense on many issues. Little consensus existed on most issues. Bargaining, conflict, and compromise were key to keeping the Convention moving towards a final document. Many key issues were resolved by only one vote. Once voted, the majority view was accepted and work proceeded on the next issue.

One thing you should remember when you hear the Founding Fathers quoted (usually on the floor of Congress) is that they did not have a consensus on many issues. Instead, a simple majority carried many key issues. Some issues such as slavery were set aside for another day or another generation, and other issues such as states’ rights are still debated.

Ratification and Amendments

Once the Constitutional Convention completed its work, the states had to ratify the Constitution. Nine states were required for the Constitution to become effective. Rather than allow the state legislatures to ratify the Constitution, Article VII called for ratification by state conventions called to consider ratification. This was seen as a move to keep the Constitution out of the hands of the people-controlled state legislatures where the chance of ratification was diminished.

By this time, the forces for the Constitution were labeled “Federalists” while the forces opposing the Constitution were labeled “Anti-Federalists.” Other terms used at the time for the two sides were “Rats” and “Anti-Rats.” The Federalists were well organized while the Anti-Federalists had no central organization and were split on many issues. The dilemma for the Anti-Federalists was that they could neither accept nor reject the Constitution, since they were strongly committed to both their state and the United States. They had strong commitments to the following:

• the great American republic and the small states;


• civic virtue and commerce; and


• private gain and public good.

During the ratification period, Federalists Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison published a series of papers under the pen name Publius. These papers illuminated the arguments in support of the Constitution. Hamilton wrote two-thirds of the 175,000 words contained in the eighty-five pamphlets. Federalist Paper No. 10 by James Madison dealt with the control of factions under the Constitution. Federalist Paper No. 51 by Madison dealt with the checks and balances on power under the Constitution. Both of these papers are in the Lowi text’s Appendix.

Anti-Federalists had their own publications seeking public support. These included the Centinel essays published in Philadelphia, The Federal Farmer published by George Bryon, and Brutus by Robert Yates. Lesser-known publications included A [Maryland] Farmer, The Impartial Examiner, the speeches of Melancton Smith in New York, and the speeches of Patrick Henry in Virginia. With a more cohesive organization, it may have been possible for the Anti-Federalists to defeat the Constitution, since the vote in some of the states was very close. The points that the Anti-Federalists argued in 1788 are still relevant today. The main achievement of the Anti-Federalists was the agreement on the part of the Federalists to amend the Constitution with a Bill of Rights.

After the ninth state ratified, the Government of the United States of America was formed and George Washington was elected as the nation’s first president. The first Congress approved the first twelve amendments to the Constitution and sent them to the states. Ten of the twelve amendments were quickly ratified and became known as the Bill of Rights. One of the other two amendments, dealing with Congressional pay raises, did not get the required three-fourths of the states to ratify until 1992 as the 27th Amendment after a “prolonged” 203-year ratification process. The other amendment, dealing with the apportionment of the House of Representatives, was never ratified.

Amendments sent to the states today normally require ratification by thirty-eight states within a seven-year period, although this period can be extended. For example, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was given three additional years after getting thirty-four states to ratify within the seven-year period. The forces supporting ERA were unable to get ratification by four more states in the extra three-year period. The amendment effort failed—the fate of over 3,000 other proposed amendments, most of which fail in Congress, such as recent attempts to mandate the balance of the budget each year and to protect the flag.