1
American Politics and
Founding Principles
Rypson/iStock Editorial/Thinkstock
Learning Objectives
By the end of this chapter, you should be able to
• Define and compare the political philosophies of liberalism and republicanism.
• Outline the core American values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
• Analyze the role political philosophy and competing ideologies played in developing foundational documents such as the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
• Define politics, and analyze what constitutes American politics.
• Explain why the term “American values” means different things to different people.
• Analyze the relationship between competing interpretations of core values and competing political ideologies, and describe how they shape American politics.
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_01_c01_001-022.indd 1
3/24/16 2:32 PM
In March 2010, Congress passed, and the president signed, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, or ACA), a sweeping reform of the nation’s health care system. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “The Affordable Care Act increases
access to care, makes health insurance more affordable, strengthens Medicare, and ensures
that Americans have more rights and protections—and more security that health insurance
coverage will be available when it is needed” (2015).
The plan requires employers to provide insurance to their employees or
face a fine. It also requires individuals to purchase health insurance, with
those unable to pay for it receiving
government assistance to do so. Individuals with plans valued at more than
$18,000 for family coverage pay a fee to
help pay the cost of assistance. Individuals whose incomes exceed $200,000
and families whose incomes exceed
$250,000 pay additional fees, which
many criticize as being akin to a tax.
Debates over the proposed law were
intense and divided along ideological
Is the government’s role in the health care debate a
lines. Liberal (left-leaning) supporters
government intrusion, or does it promote the genmaintain that a wealthy industrialized
eral welfare of the population?
nation such as the United States owes
its citizens some measure of universal health care. They argue that individuals lacking insurance, either because their employers do not provide it or because they cannot afford it, should
not be denied basic health care. Other industrialized nations, including Canada and Mexico,
provide universal health care to citizens and non-citizens alike. Universal health care supporters generally believe that a just society does not allow its citizens to starve, nor does it
allow its citizens to go bankrupt because they get sick. The liberal view thus holds that health
care reform furthers the core American values of liberty and individual independence by providing greater security.
© JIM LO SCALZO/epa/Corbis
Conservative (right-leaning) opponents, however, view the legislation as a government takeover of the nation’s health care industry and an example of encroachment upon the liberties
of its citizens. Opponents are concerned that tax increases and greater regulation of health
care limits opportunities for individuals and businesses to choose from among health care
options such as the benefits that employers choose to extend to employees. Moreover, conservative opponents argue that the law is unconstitutional because it effectively requires individuals to purchase something in the private marketplace.
Both sides have taken opposite positions even though their arguments are grounded in the
same American values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This case thus illustrates
how American politics is based in competing interpretations of the same core principles.
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_01_c01_001-022.indd 2
3/24/16 2:32 PM
The Classical Roots of American Government: Liberalism and Republicanism
Section 1.1
1.1 The Classical Roots of American Government:
Liberalism and Republicanism
The United States of America’s core principles—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—
are explored in depth in the next section. To understand where those ideas came from, we
first need to explore certain political philosophies that originated in the ancient world and
then saw renewed appreciation in 17th- and 18th-century Europe. The two most notable philosophies that influenced the Framers of the United States’ key founding documents were
liberalism and republicanism (which differ from today’s liberals and Republicans, as we shall
soon see). Contemporary American politics in many respects represents a combination of
these two philosophical traditions.
Liberalism and the Basis for Limited Government
The political philosophy of liberalism
emphasizes individual liberty, or free
will, and equal rights. Classical liberalism focuses on both political and economic freedom and is derived from the
17th-century English philosopher John
Locke (1632–1700). Classical liberalism
was a response to the idea, common in
continental Europe during the Middle
Ages (500–1500), that the authority of
both kings and the Church was absolute,
based on divine right. In other words,
absolute authority came from God. Similarly, the average person’s place in society
was also determined by God. Therefore,
individuals did not get to decide for themselves what constituted a good life, and
the notion that they were entitled to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was
unthinkable. Moreover, political authority could not be challenged because doing
so would be like defying God’s will.
World History Archive/SuperStock
English philosopher John Locke outlined the
position that became known as “classical liberalism.” Classical liberalism emphasized the value
of individuals in the political system and rejected
divine authority in favor of popular sovereignty.
John Locke rejected this argument and
argued that individuals are the true basis
of legitimate government, a concept
known as popular sovereignty. Popular
sovereignty is the idea that the authority
of the government comes from the people. Locke’s view that all people are entitled to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness relates to popular sovereignty in that the people elect
leaders to support and enhance natural rights. Locke’s ideas about natural rights are found in
the U.S. Declaration of Independence.
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_01_c01_001-022.indd 3
3/24/16 2:32 PM
The Classical Roots of American Government: Liberalism and Republicanism
Section 1.1
Under a system of popular sovereignty, “the people” held political authority and leaders could
not govern without their consent. Furthermore, many have concluded that Locke advocated
limited government. This meant that the function of government was only to protect individual rights. This also meant that the role of public policy would be limited, because too
much state power would threaten individual liberty.
Republicanism and the Basis for Representative Democracy
Although Americans often claim that their government is a democracy, this is not technically
the case. Democracy refers to rule by the people. Rather, the American system is more accurately described as an indirect or representative democracy, which means that individual
citizens elect representatives to speak and make decisions for them. Elected legislatures make
policy; in a representative democracy, those policies will reflect the public will. The Framers
set the government up this way because they were concerned that direct democracy, which
would involve all citizens debating and voting on issues, would lead to mob rule.
The concept of representative democracy has its roots in republicanism, which is a political
philosophy that stresses popular sovereignty. Republicanism held that the government was
a commonwealth, which was defined as a civil society of men and literally meant “for the
common good.” In fact, the concept of republican government comes from the Latin phrase
res publica, which means “public matter.”
Partnership of Citizens
Republicanism rests on the belief that individuals are free and equal and have a public responsibility and a personal stake in promoting a better society. In a classical republican society,
the public interest is known and understood by all because the community is small and made
up of members who share a common culture and background. Further, individuals share the
concept of citizenship, or the idea of belonging to a political community. Citizenship in the
republican mindset required the pursuit of virtue. In fact, the attainment of virtue was the
central goal of the political community.
The public good could not revolve around the desires of one ruler because that would be the
basis for a despotic government, such as the USSR (commonly known as the Soviet Union)
under Joseph Stalin between 1929 and 1953 and Haiti under Francois Duvalier between 1957
and 1971, in which the leaders seek to serve only their interests and potentially fall to corruption. Rather, in republicanism, each individual values the common good more highly than his
or her own individual good, and this forms the basis of virtue.
However, women, children, and minorities were not generally included in this partnership
of citizens. Classical republics, dating back to ancient Rome, limited citizenship to free men.
The American republic in the beginning would recognize both free white men and women
as citizens, although citizenship rights differed between men and women. The early American republic restricted voting, running for office, and serving on juries to white men who
owned property. Only property owners, the thinking went, had a stake in society and could be
trusted to promote the public good.
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_01_c01_001-022.indd 4
3/24/16 2:32 PM
The Classical Roots of American Government: Liberalism and Republicanism
Section 1.1
Separation of Powers
The ancient political philosophers, particularly Aristotle, believed that a successful republic
could best be achieved through a mixed constitution (also called a mixed government). A
mixed constitution system divides power among a monarch, a legislature, and the aristocracy.
Politically, this approach entailed the separation of powers into distinct branches of government. This system also allowed the branches to influence decisions made in other branches
so that one branch could prevent another from tyrannizing the majority. Separation of powers creates the opportunity for checks and balances. The tendency toward abuse of power,
such as with despotism and corruption, would be limited because of the checks placed on
power across the branches of government.
But it was not enough to have checks and balances among different branches of government;
there also had to be checks and balances within the legislative branch—the branch of government that represents the people and passes laws. Republicanism specifically called for a
bicameral legislature (“bi” means two, while “camera” means chamber), which was the division of the legislative body into two chambers.
Key Influences on the Framers’ Ideas About Government
Many of the ideas put forth in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, including the references
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, were originally included in John Locke’s Second
Treatise of Government, which was published in 1690. The expression that Locke used was
“life, liberty, and the preservation of property.” “Happiness” was Thomas Jefferson’s (1743–1826) substitution for
Locke’s “property,” in part because he
wanted to downplay the emphasis on private property.
The Social Contract
Also put forth in Locke’s Second Treatise
was the idea that the individual existed
in a state of nature. In the hypothetical
state of nature, there is no human law or
government, while individuals are born
with unalienable or natural rights that
are derived from nature or from God.
All individuals are equal, especially with
their capacity to decide for themselves
what type of life they would like to live
(this is the concept of human agency,
which is the notion that individuals have
the capacity to make their own choices).
The state of nature can be dangerous
because, without laws and government,
violent behavior may continue. For example, persons thinking about stealing their
SuperStock/SuperStock
Signed on July 4, 1776, the U.S. Declaration of
Independence stated the nation’s core values and
declared its separation from Great Britain. Many
of the ideas presented were originally included in
John Locke’s Second Treatise.
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_01_c01_001-022.indd 5
3/24/16 2:32 PM
The Classical Roots of American Government: Liberalism and Republicanism
Section 1.1
neighbor’s property might reconsider if they know that they might be arrested or jailed if
they are caught and prosecuted. Locke observed that individuals come together in a social
contract and form a government to protect themselves and their rights in order to offset concerns associated with a state of nature.
The idea of a state of nature as a dangerous place, and the remedy of a social contract, was
expressed even earlier, in a 17th-century work called Leviathan, by another English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes (1617–1700). Hobbes (1651/1962) argued that life in a state of nature,
where predatory and survival instincts dominated human behavior, was “nasty, brutish, and
short.” While individuals might enjoy liberty to do as they pleased, they were not free from
the threat of harm from others, which included the possibility of an untimely death. The remedy for this was to surrender liberty to a monarch with absolute authority who would provide protection in exchange for loyalty to the monarch. Locke ultimately sought to use this
argument to justify the political structure known as a constitutional monarchy—a government where the monarch has to share power with a legislative body such as a parliament or
congress.
Because government was created through a social contract, its legitimacy stemmed from popular sovereignty. The central thrust of Locke’s Second Treatise can be briefly summed up as
the idea that a community of equal individuals has the right to resist authority that has ceased
to be legitimate.
The Importance of Property
For Locke, individuals surrender their liberties in exchange for political freedom, or the freedom to do what they want within certain, defined limits set by government. Individuals surrender only enough of their liberty so that the government can protect the most fundamental
Stock Montage/SuperStock
Pantheon/SuperStock
In Leviathan, English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (left) argued that life in the state of nature
was “nasty, brutish, and short” and that people should surrender their liberty to a monarch
who would protect them. The image on the right is an illustration that appeared in the first
edition of Leviathan.
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_01_c01_001-022.indd 6
3/24/16 2:32 PM
Core American Values: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
Section 1.2
rights to property, which includes land but also all physical possessions. In Locke’s time, property was viewed as an extension of the individual because the property’s value was derived
from the labor that the individual put into it. Limiting property rights would be taken as limiting personal freedoms. If the government violated individuals’ property rights, the people
would be within their rights to rise up and dissolve or overthrow the government because it
had failed to protect their fundamental right to property. Locke’s use of the term “property”
defended against the arbitrary exercise of power by any part of government.
The Rule of Law Versus the Rule of Man
The Framers of the Constitution believed that the arbitrary exercise of power—usually by the
rule of man—could be checked through the rule of law. This was an important distinction:
Men will act in an arbitrary manner when pursuing their passions. Under the rule of law, the
passions of men are checked because the law establishes what people may or may not do.
The distinction between the rule of man and the rule of law is important. Greek philosopher
Aristotle (362 BC–322 BC) argued that the “law should govern.” This principle suggests that
the law limits the behavior of individual citizens whether or not they are part of the government. The rule of law suggests that government officials are limited by the law as much as
those whom they govern are. Putting lawmakers above the law invites the abuse of power.
1.2 Core American Values: Life, Liberty,
and the Pursuit of Happiness
The U.S. Declaration of Independence, written primarily by Thomas Jefferson and signed on
July 4, 1776, is one of the nation’s foundational documents. A short statement intended to
separate the American colonies from Great Britain, the Declaration establishes the nation’s
core values. It is also a statement of classical liberal philosophy. American core values can be
found in the following section:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect
their Safety and Happiness.
Jefferson echoes Locke when he says that individuals are created equal with rights that were
granted to them by their Creator (“unalienable”). Rights given by the individuals’ Creator can
be taken away only by their Creator and not by government. Among these unalienable rights
are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The right to life means that people control their
bodies and that they have the right to life by virtue of their existence. The right to liberty
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_01_c01_001-022.indd 7
3/24/16 2:32 PM
Core American Values: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
Section 1.2
refers to people’s freedom to make decisions about how they want to live their lives. In short,
people are free to pursue their self-interests. People’s right to pursue happiness refers to
their ability to make choices that will be satisfying to them, whether it be pursuing property
or some other passion.
Hobbes and Locke shared the view that individuals and lawmakers should be guided by reason, an idea that greatly influenced the Framers. Governments based on reason are based in
law and not arbitrary opinions.
The Influence of Locke on Jefferson
As individuals born with unalienable rights, American colonists came together to create a
government whose legitimacy was derived from their consent. By stating that a just government was based on the consent of the governed, Jefferson challenged the idea that the king’s
authority was derived from God. In fact, Jefferson argued that because the king’s authority
was not based on popular sovereignty, it lacked legitimacy. The colonists were therefore
within their rights to reject the king’s authority. The American Revolution essentially dissolved a government that, as Jefferson argued in the Declaration, had ceased to be
legitimate.
Employing Lockean language of the
right of the people to overthrow a government that fails to fulfill its obligations, Jefferson listed the British Crown’s
abuses of power. These abuses included
the king’s refusal to abide by laws, taxing the people without them having representation in government, quartering
troops in people’s homes, maintaining
standing armies without the consent
of the colonial congress, making judges
dependent on the king’s will, denying
colonists trial by jury, taking colonists
back to England for trial before hostile
juries, and other abuses.
The Importance of
Republicanism in Shaping
the American System
of Government
Republicanism in the American colonies
was a specific response to the corrupt
British political system. It was so corrupt,
Courtesy of the Diplomatic Reception Rooms,
U.S. Department of State
Thomas Jefferson was heavily influenced by John
Locke’s Second Treatise of Government in writing
the Declaration of Independence. Like Locke, he
rejected the notion that divine authority was the
basis of legitimate political authority.
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_01_c01_001-022.indd 8
3/24/16 2:32 PM
Core American Values: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
Section 1.2
reports historian Gordon Wood, that 18th-century Americans did not believe it would be possible to reform or renew the British Constitution. Americans created their own commonwealths, which they believed would embody virtue because power was divided between the
two houses of the legislature and an executive whose power would not be granted through
heredity. By dividing power, it was assumed that virtue would balance the natural tendency
toward corruption.
Power was further divided within the legislature by adopting the bicameral division of the
two houses. The lower chamber, the House of Representatives, represents the people. It was
seen as more susceptible to corruption because the people were assumed to be driven by
their irrational passions rather than reason. The upper chamber, or Senate, represents the
elite and was thought to be driven by reason. The legislative chamber most susceptible to
corruption would be checked by the Senate.
Individuals who owned property were thought to be more skilled and talented than others
because they were responsible for upholding the economy and the common good. Yet their
representatives were regularly exposed to the temptations of power and corruption. Representatives, therefore, needed to stand for frequent elections, which would help hold them
accountable to the people. The U.S. Constitution reflects this view in that members of the U.S.
House of Representatives serve for 2-year terms, while senators serve for 6-year terms.
In considering the construction of the U.S. Constitution, it is apparent that the Framers were
very much influenced by both classical liberal and republican ideologies. The notion that
a constitutional system—a system that follows a written set of rules that outline the core
ideas about government and the structure of government institutions—would protect liberty
was certainly a classical liberal value. That this value could best be protected through the
separation of powers was a republican idea. The Constitution Preamble suggests that the
United States is liberal (“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, . . . secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”), while the Constitution
mandates that the new nation be republican. For example, Article IV, Section 4 states, “The
United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican Form of Government.”
In practical terms, this means that every state will have separation of powers and checks and
balances. All states except Nebraska have a bicameral legislature. Nebraska has a unicameral
legislature.
The U.S. Constitution: Institutionalizing American Values
The Declaration of Independence puts forth many core American values. However, these values must be established, which is where the U.S. Constitution comes into play. Even though it
does not mention “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,” the Constitution creates institutions that reflect and uphold those values. The principal institutions outlined in the Constitution, which have also become values unto themselves, are the separate branches of government. The Constitution creates three branches: the bicameral legislature, which passes laws;
the executive, which implements and administers laws; and the judiciary, which determines
the constitutionality of those laws.
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_01_c01_001-022.indd 9
3/24/16 2:32 PM
What Is the Nature of U.S. Politics?
Section 1.3
The Framers assumed that power was to be measured and contained, and they believed it
needed to be divided among these separate institutions. This separation of powers ensures
that no one branch of government has enough power to infringe upon citizens’ liberties.
The separation of powers is the key theme of American constitutional government, and it
results in government by consensus, whereby there is general agreement among the actors
involved in governing. Separation of powers also effectively reflects the principle of rule of
law. Additionally, as will be seen in later chapters, government may struggle with achieving
consensus that protects the rights and liberties of its citizens by protecting them from arbitrary use of government power.
1.3 What Is the Nature of U.S. Politics?
Politics functions within government, although they are not the same. There are some who
argue that politics is “decisions made in an environment of conflict,” while others, including
political scientist Harold Lasswell (1936), suggest that politics is “who gets what, when, and
how.” These definitions are related in that they both involve conflict and share the notion that
government decisions affect who is impacted, and how.
The notion that politics encompasses “who gets what, when, and how” captures the connection between politics and power. Who gets what says something about who has power. When
one gets what one wants says something about how important that individual or group is,
and just how much power the person or group has. How the power is obtained speaks to the
strength of the individual or groups involved. In a political system where scarce resources are
to be distributed, various groups will compete to determine who gets what, how much they
get, and under what circumstances they get it. This usually means that if one group derives
benefits, others bear costs. Public policies are those laws that government makes within the
context of a political process.
The casual observer need only look at the opposing views that routinely occur in policymaking arenas including city councils, state legislatures, and the U.S. Congress to see this in
action. In the case of health care reform, those who were previously uninsured will be insured
because higher-income persons will pay an additional tax. Patients, taxpayers, and insurance
companies are each affected differently.
Some argue that those involved in the conflict are considered actors while those who sit on
the sidelines and observe are spectators. Considering the roles of actors and spectators in the
political process means that politics becomes a mobilization of bias where actors attempt to
show spectators why they should care about and become actively involved with the conflict.
This way, the actors build a base of support for their cause and achieve victory if they are able
to mobilize enough people to join them. Efforts to reform immigration policy are an example
of the mobilization of bias. Groups seeking to open U.S. borders to more immigrants have
brought non-immigrant groups to their side by showing how immigration divides families.
Some who advocate stricter border patrol suggest that less restrictive immigration controls
increase unemployment in various economic sectors such as agriculture and blue-collar labor.
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_01_c01_001-022.indd 10
3/24/16 2:32 PM
What Is the Nature of U.S. Politics?
Section 1.3
Another example may be found in the teaching of creationism such as was explored in S elman
et al. v. Cobb County School District et al. (2005). A small-town school board may respond
to the wishes of the majority seeking to have creationism taught in schools. Creationism is
a literal reading of the Bible that states that the world was created in 6 days. Creationism
opposes evolution, the idea that all organisms, including humans and animals, change over
time as a result of natural selection and other factors. The minority that wanted evolution
taught sought to shape the conflict by arguing that this school board decision was an example
of government violating the constitutional concept of separation of church and state. Evolution supporters hoped that those who live in large cities would become involved in an effort
to preserve this fundamental value, while those seeking to teach creationism argued that this
was a local matter with which outsiders should not be involved. The side that proved to be
more persuasive would succeed in getting what it wants, when it wants it, and how it wants it.
A key factor in this understanding of politics is that resolution is achieved through peaceful
means. It is when conflict becomes violent that politics can be said to have failed.
How Is American Politics Characterized by Regulation, Distribution,
and Redistribution?
American politics certainly involves the related notions of who gets what, when, and how in a
decision-making environment. Political scientist Theodore Lowi (1964) identified three types
of activities characteristic of American politics: regulation, distribution, and redistribution.
Regulation involves restricting the activities, or limiting the rights, of some for the benefit—
usually the protection—of others. In other words, one group will bear a cost so that another
group can enjoy a benefit. In this vein, regulation is considered to be zero sum, because for
every winner, there is a loser. As an example, the government seeks to regulate air pollution
by requiring power plants to include scrubbers in their emissions stacks. The power plants
incur a cost because they have to spend money that they otherwise would not while those
who live near the plants derive the benefit of cleaner air even though they did not pay any
more for the cleaner air than did others who live further away.
By contrast, distribution involves the political system providing benefits to whatever group
makes a request. The costs of distribution are not borne by any clearly identifiable group, but
instead are passed on to everyone. Consider the following scenario: Congress passes a budget
in which farmers receive millions of dollars from the federal government, banks receive millions more, and a variety of other groups receive something. Because the payouts all ultimately
come from tax dollars, all taxpaying citizens cover the cost. This is considered distributive.
Redistribution involves taking from one group in society—usually in the form of a tax—and
giving to others—usually in the form of a program. An example of this might be a tax on individuals with annual incomes above a certain level, such as $1 million, to pay for a health care
program that benefits the poor. As with regulation, with redistribution it is clear who benefits
and who bears the cost.
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_01_c01_001-022.indd 11
3/24/16 2:32 PM
What Is the Nature of U.S. Politics?
Section 1.3
How Is American Politics Rooted in Core American Values?
We can look further into what lies beneath these ideas. Politics over who gets what, when, and
how, or regulation, distribution, and redistribution, is really the public and practical expression of disagreements about the meaning of core values. For instance, some argue that regulating pollution may deprive manufacturers of their liberties or property rights while others
argue that regulating pollution preserves the public’s right to breathe clean air and maintain
health. As we will see, each conception of liberty has some validity, and it is different constructions of these and other concepts that shape the conflict around which American politics
is made.
Yugofuchiwaki/iStock/Thinkstock
Though the concept of liberty is foundational to the
American government, it means different things to
different people.
If you were to stop average Americans on the street and ask what America stands for, most would probably
answer with some combination of liberty; democracy; the right to pursue
individual economic interest; the right
to free speech, peaceable assembly,
and religious practice; and a constitutional government. Americans do not
all agree on exactly what those concepts mean, but each likely believes
strongly in his or her own interpretations. As a result, the way these concepts are interpreted in society is a
matter of politics.
The concepts surrounding what America stands for are all rooted in the values of life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Consider that
an American’s right to “life” often means that he or she has a right to physical protection.
More than that, it means that the state may not take a citizen’s life without due process of
law. This type of liberty is known as negative liberty. Negative liberty means that limitations are placed on state action, as the government is required to protect liberty by ensuring
that it cannot be infringed upon. Freedom to travel is a negative liberty. But, as passage of the
health care law illustrates, the right to “life” could also mean that the state has an obligation to
ensure that people live long and healthy lives. Therefore, it is not enough to limit the actions of
the government so that a person can live; the state must actually provide people with health
care services. This type of liberty is known as positive liberty. Positive liberty means that
the state takes active steps to guarantee that citizens’ liberties will have meaning. An example
of positive liberty is the right to counsel, as found in the Sixth Amendment and reinforced in
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). Many claim that conservatives favor negative liberty while liberals favor positive liberty.
As a further example, imagine that you are looking for a job. Negative liberty, in this scenario,
means that the state cannot stop you from taking a job that is offered in the marketplace. But
positive liberty means that the government must provide you with a job if you are unable to
find one on your own. Both views are captured in the Declaration of Independence and in the
promotion of the general welfare that appears in the Constitution’s preamble and elsewhere
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_01_c01_001-022.indd 12
3/24/16 2:32 PM
Contemporary American Politics
Section 1.4
in the U.S. Constitution. Although American politics is characterized by various definitions of
politics, it also revolves around competing interpretations of core values that ask what “life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” really mean.
1.4 Contemporary American Politics
Listening to talk radio these days, one could easily get the impression that American politics is driven by two ideological extremes: the liberal left, which wants an all-encompassing
government controlling people’s lives, and the conservative right, which wants to limit government in favor of individual liberty and free markets. Liberals and progressives generally
respond to these claims by arguing that government can be a force for bringing about a fair
and equitable society. They do not seek to infringe upon individual liberty; rather, they seek
to ensure a level playing field so that those with limited incomes also enjoy the full fruits of
liberty. Whereas the right sees only government as a threat to individual liberty, the left sees
private interests, including big corporations, as posing a similar threat. On both sides of the
political spectrum, the loudest voices fail to accurately capture the range of issues and opinions that their opponents care about.
While the preamble to the U.S. Constitution states that the government’s purpose is to promote the “general welfare,” the meaning of that phrase is not clear. It was perhaps inevitable,
then, that rooted in today’s American politics is a contest among different groups, driven by
different ideologies, to define the concept of “general welfare” for all people. The fight over
the 2010 health care law outlined at the beginning of this chapter illustrates the politics that
can surround the interpretation and application of core American values.
How Does Contemporary Liberalism Compare
With Classical Liberalism?
Classical liberalism stressed limited government in an era when society was largely agricultural and people mostly worked on farms and in small towns rather than in offices and factories in big cities. This meant that one person’s private activity likely did not affect another’s.
Modern liberalism, however, is usually associated with big government and large social
programs; it stresses a more expansive role for government precisely because society is no
longer as simple as it once was. In particular, the modern, complex economy produces market
failures that have as much capacity to deprive individuals of their life, liberty, and pursuit of
happiness as does government itself.
Further, modern liberalism understands corporate power to be as threatening to individual
liberty as state power. Therefore, the state needs to regulate private affairs to (1) protect
individuals from harm caused by others and (2) maintain a framework in which individuals
can freely choose for themselves the lives they would like to live. This may involve both distribution and redistribution of resources. Again, this is all a matter of interpretation. Different
groups seeking to obtain power will interpret these matters in a way that best furthers their
objectives.
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_01_c01_001-022.indd 13
3/24/16 2:32 PM
Contemporary American Politics
Section 1.4
One might ask how liberal political philosophy changed over time. Understanding the distinction between classical and modern liberalism is critical to understanding the nature of
contemporary American politics (see Table 1.1 for a comparison). Both versions of liberalism
stress the ability of individuals to decide how they want to live their lives. American liberalism promotes citizens’ freedom to pursue their self-interest in the marketplace, and to a large
extent the American public interest is based on every individual following her or his private
interests.
Table 1.1: Classical liberalism versus modern liberalism
Classical
Modern
Common thread
Human agency
Human agency
People all have the individual capacity
to make choices.
Limited government
Active government because complex
society requires it
The notion of limited government
depends on the context of changing
individual needs.
Individual liberty
Pursuit of self-interest
Private property as a
natural right
Individual
responsibility
Restraints on some individual liberty
for protection of community
Pursuit of self-interest so long as it
does not cause harm to others
Property as defined by positive law
Individual behavior affected by larger
forces beyond one’s control
Liberty remains important within the
context of the public interest.
The definition of harm is a question of
the complexity of society.
Property is important for creating
zones of protection around national
interests.
Individual behavior is a function of
social environment. Therefore, there
is a presumption in favor of individual
responsibility so long as there are no
other forces affecting it.
The Harm Principle
Classical liberalism, even as Locke conceived it, allowed for government regulation if it was
to protect the public interest. In the 19th century, English philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806–
1873) put forth the “harm principle” as the basis for governmental interference with individual liberty: A person cannot pursue his or her own interests to the point where it causes harm
to an individual or the general community. Mill believed that the sole role of government was
the preservation of liberty. In his classic work On Liberty (1859/1956), he stated that
the sole end for which mankind are warranted individually or collectively, in
interfering with the liberty of action or any of their number is self protection.
That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any
member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to
others.
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_01_c01_001-022.indd 14
3/24/16 2:32 PM
Contemporary American Politics
Section 1.4
This principle has been used to define
the appropriate use of the state’s regulatory power. The standard interpretation
has been that government may regulate
individual liberty to protect the health,
welfare, and morals of the community. In
19th-century America, harm meant only
physical harm. Consider that in Locke’s
time, when most of the economy was
agrarian (based on farming), someone
farming a plot of land was not likely to
cause harm to his neighbor on the adjacent plot of land. In Mill’s time, which
occurred during a period of industrialization when more of the economy was based
on manufacturing, a group of people could
be harmed in the town downstream from
a polluting factory because the manufacturing waste products might be disposed
Photos.com/ThinkStock
of in that stream and run through several
towns. By the 1930s, when the country English philosopher John Stuart Mill argued that
was in the throes of the Great Depression, persons have liberty to pursue their own interharm could be caused by the market forc- ests but not to the point that it causes harm to
ing the layoff of millions of workers. More another individual or community.
recently, the United States experienced a
recession between 2007 and 2009. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, some states
experienced unemployment rates that exceeded 10% during that time while the national
unemployment rate exceeded that of most industrialized countries. Job openings declined
by 44%. As unemployment increases and job openings decline, individuals have less money
to spend in the marketplace, which causes a ripple effect throughout other economic sectors.
The evolution of liberalism from its classical conception to its modern-day version involved a
shift in how people interpreted the words “harm” and “public health and welfare.” Arguably,
the core values that informed the creation of the American republic are very much the same,
and sorting out what those values mean and how they apply to current circumstances is ultimately what makes American politics distinctive.
Marriage of Liberalism and Republicanism
An ongoing debate throughout American history has been whether the nation is liberal or
republican. That is, are the country’s values more in line with classical liberalism or with classical republicanism? In fact, the American constitutional system is a marriage of both. The
influence of the two is evident in the nature of contemporary American political discourse.
Each contemporary political ideology on some level represents a belief system. Individuals
express their passions in ideological debate. Consider that the American political system is
composed of 50 states and one national government. Each state is a republic (representative
government) unto itself. Each state has its own distinctive political culture—its own beliefs
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_01_c01_001-022.indd 15
3/24/16 2:32 PM
Contemporary American Politics
Section 1.4
and value system. For example, the political culture of Texas differs from the political cultures
of either New York or California.
The key difference between liberalism and republicanism is that liberalism is more tolerant
of diversity and is thus more heterogeneous (made up of dissimilar parts) while republicanism prefers small governance units and assumes more homogeneity (a makeup of similar
parts). Take, for instance, the difference between a large city like New York or Los Angeles
and a small town somewhere in New England. In the city, there is great diversity of people
and beliefs. One of the best ways to maintain unity is to have a tolerant, liberal framework.
But tolerance often comes about by rejecting moral absolutes. In the larger liberal framework
with its great diversity, the public interest that emerges is generally based on consensus and
represents a compromise position of multiple interests. In the small New England town, there
is probably very little diversity, as there is a shared culture with shared beliefs. Because there
is greater homogeneity in the small town, there is greater agreement regarding the public
interest.
The Constitution encourages states to retain their respective cultural uniqueness as expressions of their own sovereignty. Each state may define the public interest differently. At the
same time, each state is represented in the national government within the federal system
where power is shared between the national and the state governments. Thus, the Constitution is effectively a liberal framework open to diversity across states. Consequently, national
decision making often reflects the public interest as an achieved consensus among the states.
It is in this vein that the American Constitution is a marriage between liberalism and republicanism. Still, conflict and tension do exist, and it is around that conflict and tension that
American politics revolves.
What Does Liberalism Mean in Practice?
Returning to the Declaration of Independence, the premise that individuals are born with
unalienable rights means that on a political level all individuals are equal before the law. This
means that the state cannot show favoritism toward one citizen over another. In practical
terms, liberalism as a political philosophy rests on this conception of equality. Life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness correspond to the liberalism belief that each person can choose what
a “good life” means and then choose a path that makes this conception a reality. The state is
prohibited from choosing one person’s good over another, as this violates liberal equality. The
liberal state, in essence, places limits on government action so that the individual will be free
to pursue his or her own happiness.
The modern United States is very different from colonial America and consequently requires
government action from time to time. Colonial Americans idealized economic independence.
In the modern United States, most people work for others and have little control over their
own destinies. Had the farmer in an earlier period decided to plant a crop that perhaps was
not profitable, the impact would most likely have been felt only by that farmer and his family.
But if the management of an automobile factory in a Midwestern city opts to move manufacturing from that factory to a factory somewhere in Central America, thousands of people in
the United States might lose their jobs. Because more Americans are likely to be hurt by forces
outside of their direct control in the modern United States, government may have to act to
protect their interests. This action is justified on the grounds that it is essential to the
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_01_c01_001-022.indd 16
3/24/16 2:32 PM
Contemporary American Politics
Section 1.4
maintenance of the United States’ core values of liberty, equality, individualism, democracy,
and rule of law. It should also be remembered that because the republican tradition stresses
the public good as taking precedence over individual interests, the state has a right to take
action to ensure the public good. In the instance described here, the automobiles manufactured in the Central American country may cost less because workers may be paid less than
they would be paid to do the same work in the United States. Using the argument that it is
protecting the United States’ core values, the government may tax, or impose a tariff on, the
imported cars to make the price of the automobiles more competitive with those of U.S.-made
cars.
Political battles often arise over competing interpretations of how best to serve the
public good. People do not all agree on what
their core values mean even if they agree
on the same values. The political process in
the United States is essentially a liberal one
because it is open to a multitude of interests, each lobbying for a position based on
competing ideological commitments. At the
same time, the American political process is
republican because it has established intermediaries in the form of interest groups and
political parties that these competing ideologies have to go through. The modern conservative seeks to conserve the traditions of the
past. If liberalism traditionally meant limited government, then conservatives seek to
maintain that tradition.
The Importance of
Constitutional Debates
Associated Press/Tony Dejak
Health care reform in the United States would
allow people who were previously uninsured
to derive benefit. That some will have to pay
an additional tax to bear additional costs is a
classic example of politics as “who gets what,
when, and how” to connect politics and power.
Many of the tensions in modern American
politics—including the tensions between
conservatives and liberals—are, at their
core, disagreements about the meaning of
liberalism. This tension is contained in the
wording of the U.S. Constitution, which may be unclear on some points. For example, while
Congress has the power to declare war, it is the president who is the commander in chief.
What is the president allowed to do to protect the nation if Congress fails to declare war?
Understanding constitutional ambiguities, as we will see later, is also essential to understanding the nature of American politics.
The Constitution establishes the parameters for who gets what, when, and how. But constitutionality is also important because when the U.S. Supreme Court determines a matter to
be constitutional, it effectively validates the ideological position that fought for that issue.
On many issues of policy, the Constitution does not give specific guidance, and ultimately the
answer gets hashed out in the Supreme Court.
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_01_c01_001-022.indd 17
3/24/16 2:32 PM
Contemporary American Politics
Section 1.4
The Role of Government Today
Until the 1930s, the federal government’s primary duties were to deliver the mail, provide
for the national defense, and maintain foreign policy. Public assistance, if there was any, was
the province of the states, and so, too, was education. But as Table 1.2 suggests, the role of the
federal government is now quite extensive. It regulates any number of activities and provides
considerable services. Average Americans purchase stamps in a federal post office, send their
children to public schools, and obtain local permits to expand their homes. Government—
whether it be national, state, or local—is a larger presence in citizens’ lives than was supposed by the language of the Declaration of Independence.
Table 1.2: Selected functions of the federal government
Department name
Year
created
State
1789
Treasury
1789
Defense
1791
Interior
1849
Commerce
1903
Justice
Agriculture
1789
1862
Labor
1913
Housing and Urban
Development
1965
Health and Human
Services
1953
Transportation
1966
Education
1979
Energy
Veterans Affairs
Homeland Security
1977
1988
2003
Website and notes
www.state.gov
Originally named Department of Foreign Affairs in July 1789
Renamed Department of State in September 1789
www.treasury.gov
www.justice.gov
Originally named the Office of Attorney General
Named the Department of Justice in 1870
www.defense.gov
Originally named the Department of War
Named the Department of the Army in 1947
Named the Department of Defense in 1949
www.doi.gov
www.usda.gov
www.commerce.gov
Originally named the Department of Labor and Commerce
Renamed Department of Commerce when the Department of Labor was
created in 1913
www.dol.gov
www.hhs.gov
Originally named the Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Renamed the Department of Health and Human Services when a separate
Department of Education was created in 1979
www.hud.gov
www.transportation.gov
www.energy.gov
www.ed.gov
www.va.gov
www.dhs.gov
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_01_c01_001-022.indd 18
3/24/16 2:32 PM
Summary and Resources
Summary and Resources
Chapter Summary
The key points established in this chapter will guide our understanding throughout the
remainder of the book. Politics is defined as who gets what, when, and how in an environment
of conflict. A political universe is typically composed of various groups or interests, with each
seeking government attention. When a group is able to beat out others to get what it wants,
it can say that it truly has power. The same applies to the competing definitions of a nation’s
core values because how they are defined will affect a particular group’s interests.
American politics revolves around the core values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
articulated in the Declaration of Independence. It also revolves around what it means to promote the general welfare, as stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. These core ideas,
to which we may add equality, constitutionalism, rule of law, and the pursuit of self-interest
in a free marketplace, are very much rooted in two distinct, but not mutually exclusive, political ideologies: liberalism and republicanism. Over time, both have shaped the way Americans
interpret their core values and principles.
Think about the example that opened this chapter. Taxpayers earning more than $250,000
who will pay higher taxes to cover health care have expressed their opposition in terms of
liberty. High-income taxpayers contend that the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act infringes on that liberty. They want lower taxes and express their concerns
with language that exhibits the core beliefs found in the Declaration of Independence. Their
interpretation of those core beliefs shape who gets what, when, and how. Others will argue
that if health care offers greater security to the larger public, it gives their liberty more meaning, especially if it frees low-income Americans from bankruptcy. They will further argue that
those with more should pay for those with less because the system organized around liberty
enabled the wealthy to acquire what they have. Their broader argument will be that health
care is a matter of “the general welfare.”
If politics is understood in terms of coalition building and the building of those coalitions
through the concept of the mobilization of bias, it is the appeal to ideology that becomes the
vehicle for that mobilization. American politics is distinctive because various groups in the
American political arena mobilize bias through specific appeals to core American values contained in the nation’s founding documents.
Key Ideas to Remember
•
•
•
•
The Framers of the Constitution were influenced by many ideas in 16th- and 17th-
century political thought. The most important of these were the political philosophies of liberalism and republicanism.
Politics is defined as who gets what, when, and how in an environment of conflict.
American politics specifically revolves around core values of liberty, equality, individualism, and democracy, which have different meanings to different people.
Core American values can be found in the Declaration of Independence in the phrase
“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” These ideas are the basis of a liberal
political philosophy that underlies American political culture and politics.
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_01_c01_001-022.indd 19
3/24/16 2:32 PM
Summary and Resources
•
•
•
The Framers sought to create a republican form of government that would protect
Americans’ basic liberties to pursue their own self-interests and believed that if government left people alone, the overall public interest would be served.
To protect individual liberty, the Framers of the Constitution believed that power
should be divided up through a separation of powers, which was very similar to the
British mixed constitution.
The U.S. Constitution talks about promoting the general welfare but does not specify
what those words mean; therefore, American politics ends up being a question of
who gets to define what it means and how a particular definition furthers a particular set of interests.
Questions to Consider
1. What are the core values of Americans?
2. What is the basis for those beliefs?
3. What is the difference between classical liberalism and republicanism, and why is
each important to American identity?
4. Is the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act consistent with
American values or contrary to them? Explain your answer.
5. In light of John Stuart Mill’s “harm principle”—a person cannot pursue his or her
own interests to the point where it causes harm to others—what is the government’s
role in regulating guns?
Key Terms
bicameral legislature A legislature divided
into two chambers: an upper house and a
lower house.
checks and balances When one branch of
government influences the actions of other
branches.
citizenship The idea that one belongs to a
political community.
classical liberalism Liberalism of the 17th
century, based on the writings of John Locke
and focused on both political and economic
freedom.
commonwealth A civil society where the
ultimate goal is to serve the common good.
constitutional When an action or law is
in agreement with the written constitution,
a written set of rules that outline the core
ideas about government and the structure of
government institutions.
democracy Rule by the people.
distribution The granting of public goods
to every individual.
executive The person or branch of government that implements and administers laws
passed by a legislative body.
government by consensus When there
is general agreement among the actors in
government and decision making.
human agency The idea that all people
have the capacity to think for themselves
and determine how best to live their lives.
judiciary The branch of government that
uses the courts to determine whether acts of
the government are constitutional.
legislative The branch of government that
represents the people and passes laws.
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_01_c01_001-022.indd 20
3/24/16 2:32 PM
Summary and Resources
liberalism The political philosophy that
emphasizes individual liberty and equal
rights.
limited government The concept of small
government that is limited in its function
and only protects individual rights.
mixed constitution A constitution that
combines democracy, aristocracy, and
monarchy.
mobilization of bias Getting people who
are not part of a cause to support it.
modern liberalism A current version of
liberalism that stresses more active government because society is more complex than
it was during the 17th century.
natural rights Rights that people are born
with.
negative liberty A type of liberty, or freedom, that is based on limiting what government can do.
political freedom The idea that in a political community the individual can do what he
or she wants within certain limits.
popular sovereignty The idea that the
people are the basis of legitimate authority
and power.
positive liberty A type of liberty, or freedom, that is guaranteed by the government
actively providing power and resources.
redistribution When government takes
from one group to give to another.
regulation When government restricts the
rights of one group for the benefit of others
or all the people.
representative democracy When the people pick representatives to govern on their
behalf; also known as indirect democracy.
republicanism A political philosophy that
stresses personal independence for the sake
of the community’s public interest.
rule of law When government officials are
restrained by reason and law.
rule of man When government officials
govern on the basis of irrational passion and
do so arbitrarily.
separation of powers The division of
power into distinct branches of government.
social contract The idea that individuals
come together to form a government for the
sake of protection.
state of nature A term used in political
philosophy to describe the hypothetical
condition of humanity before the creation of
governing states.
unalienable rights See natural rights.
Further Reading
Hartz, L. (1955). The liberal tradition in America: An interpretation of American political thought since the revolution. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Hobbes, T. (1962). Leviathan. M. Oakshott (Ed.). New York, NY and London: Collier Books.
Huntington, S. P. (1983). American politics: The promise of disharmony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Huntington, S. P. (2005). Who are we: The challenges to America’s national identity. New York, NY: Simon &
Schuster.
Lasswell, H. (1936). Politics—Who gets what, when, how. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_01_c01_001-022.indd 21
3/24/16 2:32 PM
Summary and Resources
Lipset, S. M. (1996). American exceptionalism: A double-edged sword. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co.
Locke, J. (1988). Two treatises of government. P. Laslett (Ed.). Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lowi, T. J. (1964). American business, public policy, case-studies, and political theory. World Politics, 16(4),
677–715.
Lowi, T. J. (1979). The end of liberalism: The second republic of the United States. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co.
Mill, J. S. (1956). On liberty. C. V. Shields (Ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill Co.
Pangle, T. L. (1988). The spirit of modern republicanism: The moral vision of the American founders and the philosophy of Locke. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Pocock, J. G. A. (2003). The Machiavellian moment: Florentine political thought and the Atlantic republican tradition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Schattschneider, E. E. (1975). The semisovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. Boston, MA:
Cengage Learning.
Wood, G. S. (1972). The creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co.
Wood, G. S. (1993). The radicalism of the American Revolution. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_01_c01_001-022.indd 22
3/24/16 2:32 PM
2
The U.S. Constitution
Roel Smart/iStock/Thinkstock
Learning Objectives
By the end of this chapter, you should be able to
• Describe early forms of American government, and explain how they formed the basis for the
U.S. Constitution.
• Explain the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, and describe how these weaknesses
helped lead to the Constitutional Convention.
• Describe the Constitutional Convention, and analyze the various proposals presented.
• Analyze separation of powers and checks and balances.
• Describe the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists over the inclusion of a bill of
rights in the U.S. Constitution.
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 23
3/24/16 1:39 PM
On October 1, 2013, the U.S. government shut down. This meant that “non-essential” government services—parks and museums, certain regulatory agencies, and other services—were
suspended while federal employees who performed non-essential services were instructed
not to work. These services did not resume until October 17, 2013.
What normally causes a government shutdown is a failure between the president and Congress to agree on a budget. While the Constitution does not require a budget, the government
cannot function without one. The budget is a legislative process like any other—majorities
within each house of Congress must pass the same budget while the president must sign
it for it to take effect. If no agreement is made, then the government cannot operate and is
effectively shut down, normally in early October because Congress’s budget designations for
a given fiscal year expire on September 30.
Because Congress has the “power of the purse,” many believe that the budget originates in
Congress. However, for many years now the practice has been that the president collects budget estimates and requests from all the agencies and departments in the executive branch,
puts them together, and then submits a budget proposal to Congress. Following much debate
and many modifications, Congress then passes a budget, appropriating, or designating, what
funds can be spent for a specific purpose. The budget then goes back to the president for his
or her signature. In essence, when the president presents the proposed budget to Congress,
the president signals to Congress that if the proposed budget is passed as presented it will not
be vetoed and government will continue to function without interruption.
In 2013, the U.S. House of Representatives, dominated by Republicans, disagreed with the
U.S. Senate, composed of a majority of Democrats, on an appropriations continuing resolution
that would have kept the government running. House Republicans wanted to delay or defund
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) (discussed in Chapter 1) in exchange
for supporting a budget resolution. The Democratic-led Senate refused and passed several
resolutions that would maintain current funding levels and spending cuts. Even if the Senate
had agreed to House demands, President Barack Obama had threatened to veto any budget
that delayed the PPACA. The Constitution requires that the president must either accept the
budget as it is or reject the budget because the president may not veto any part of the budget.
The president may not accept some parts of the budget and reject others. These fundamental
disagreements caused the government to shut down until a budget resolution was passed.
Certainly, both sides pointed fingers blaming the other for the government shutdown—
Republicans blamed Democrats, the House blamed the Senate, the Senate blamed the House,
and the House blamed the president. In some respects, this was for good reason: The U.S. Constitution provides that both houses of Congress and the president cannot operate without the
cooperation of the others. The Framers intended Congress to have the “power of the purse,”
or control of the nation’s finances. The president can propose a budget, but he or she cannot
spend public monies unless Congress has appropriated them. However, the appropriation of
money cannot be final until the president signs it into law. If no agreement is made, then the
government cannot operate and is effectively shut down.
Why did the Framers not make it easier for the government to maintain operations? Because
they wanted to incorporate a system of checks and balances, as well as a system of separation of powers. If each branch could act on its own without the agreement of the others, each
might have sufficient power to limit individual liberties. By dividing power, it would be much
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 24
3/24/16 1:39 PM
Early American Government
Section 2.1
more difficult for government to act on much of anything, thus preserving individual liberties. Checks and balances, as we will see, are the cornerstone of the American constitutional
system.
As the 2013 shutdown illustrates, there are two ways to look at checks and balances. One is to
say that the system is a prescription for endless gridlock—in essence, a political stalemate—
and ineffective government. Another is to view it as a prescription for government by consensus, because everybody needs to work together to get things done.
In this chapter, we look at the U.S. Constitution, the process by which it was formed, and the
rights and restrictions that it provides to the states and to the American people. As one of the
nation’s foundational documents, the Constitution establishes the framework for the federal
government. It also functions as a contract between the national government and the states
that created it.
2.1 Early American Government
The U.S. Constitution is actually modeled on the earlier governments found in the colonies.
Specifically, it has roots in the early American settlements of the 1600s. American government as it is known today began as something small and private and evolved into a larger
self-government.
The First English Settlements
The first English settlements in colonial America began as private companies composed of individuals seeking
economic gain. The first successful
English settlement began in Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607, after King
James I granted a charter to the Virginia
Company to establish a settlement in
the Chesapeake region. The Virginia
Company in turn encouraged people
to settle the new colony by offering to
pay their travel expenses. In exchange,
the settlers were expected to send the
© Bettmann/Corbis
company a share of their profits. (The Colonists arrive in Jamestown, Virginia. King James I
settlers hoped to find gold, but in the granted a charter to the Virginia Company, which
colony’s early years they primarily col- offered to pay potential settlers’ traveling expenses
lected lumber, tar, pitch, and iron for to the New World.
export back to England.) By granting
the charter, the king gave the company authority over the colony, and by sending profit shares
back to the company, the settlers effectively paid taxes. Because the company was based in
England, the settlers had no more voice in their government than if the king himself retained
absolute rule.
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 25
3/24/16 1:39 PM
Early American Government
Section 2.1
In the years following the initial Jamestown settlement, more settlers came to the New World,
and by 1619 there were 11 settlements in Virginia. The Virginia Company, however, wanted
the colony to grow even faster. To induce more people to come, the company gave propertyowning male settlers the right to vote and elect their own assembly, known as the House of
Burgesses. This was the beginning of American self-government.
Colonial Assemblies
A striking feature of American colonial development was the lack of control by the British
government. All but one of the colonies had originally been companies of shareholders or
proprietorships whose authority was based in charters granted by the Crown. While the
company that received the charter was able to pick a governor for the colony, the principal
governing institutions were actually the assemblies elected by the colonists. The assemblies
wielded considerable power, including the right to raise troops, to levy taxes, and to pass
laws. The one colony that did not develop along these lines was Georgia. Georgia was the last
colony founded. Its purpose was to serve as a place for debtors recently released from prison
to go to get a fresh start. Georgia was also established to serve as a buffer between Florida and
South Carolina to guard against Spanish expansion from Florida. The name of this last colony
was selected to honor King George II, who granted the charter for establishing the colony.
The colonies never thought of themselves as subservient to the Crown.
Rather, they viewed themselves as
commonwealths, with the assemblies
being the locus of rightful power and
authority. In Plymouth, Massachusetts, for instance, the Pilgrims established a system of self-government
based on the Mayflower Compact, an
agreement they made on their way to
America in 1620. Under the Mayflower
Compact, the settlers agreed to abide
SuperStock/SuperStock
by the decisions of the majority and
The Mayflower Compact was a governing document
conduct their affairs without outside
written by the Pilgrims as they traveled to America.
interference, especially from the British. The physical distance between America and England left the colonial assemblies with a
great deal of autonomy.
Injustice, Rebellion, and the Continental Congress
Beginning around 1700, the colonies found themselves absorbed into the larger conflicts
plaguing Europe. From 1689 through 1763, a series of wars was fought on the European continent and had much to do with French expansionist ambitions. But a component of those
wars was fought in the colonies by British troops. Conflicts extended into the colonies as part
of the larger fight between colonial factions for more power and spheres of control.
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 26
3/24/16 1:39 PM
Early American Government
Section 2.1
During the late 1700s, the British Crown attempted to impose its authority and restrict the
liberties of the colonists mostly by imposing new taxes to help pay for the wars. But some
of the restrictions were limitations on colonial trade as the British government sought to
protect industry at home. The British Parliament, for instance, passed the Wool Act in 1699,
which not only increased taxes but also increased control over colonial trade and production.
American colonies were prohibited from exporting wool to markets outside the colonies. The
Crown also limited imports of wools and linens from other areas in the British Empire.
Most colonists saw themselves as good English subjects who were entitled to the same rights
as their countrymen anywhere else in the world. In England itself, the English people (but not
the colonists) were represented in the House of Commons, part of the British Parliament. In
the same vein, the colonists saw the colonial assemblies as their own representative bodies. It
was one thing for the assemblies to pass laws affecting them. But it was quite another for the
British Parliament to impose laws on people who were not represented in that body.
The rallying cry for the American Revolution was “No taxation without representation,” and
one of the first taxes that would pave the way for war was the Sugar Act of 1764, which drew
colonists’ anger more because of its economic impact than because of its political significance. The tax hit the colonies during a depression, which many attributed to the tax itself.
The Stamp Act of 1765 represented an attempt by the British government to force the colonies to shoulder some of the expense of providing defense during the French and Indian War.
Colonists had to pay a tax on all printed materials, including books, newspapers, magazines,
and legal documents, all of which were required to bear an embossed stamp.
Following the Stamp Act, Parliament passed the Townshend Acts of 1767, which were even
harsher. Named after Charles Townshend, chancellor of the British Exchequer (the British
Treasury), these acts imposed new taxes on glass, lead, paper, paint, and tea. The Townshend
Acts were further reinforcement of Britain’s absolute power to enact any laws to govern the
colonies. The colonists protested these and other taxes with boycotts and other forms of protest, including violence. Many violent protests centered on Boston, and they prompted the
British to send in troops to pacify the city.
Ultimately, most of these taxes were repealed, except for the tax on tea. Still, the protests continued, culminating in the Boston Tea Party of 1773. Because officials refused to return three
shiploads of tea to Britain, a group of colonists boarded English ships in Boston and dumped
hundreds of chests of tea into Boston Harbor to protest the tax. This became known as the
Boston Tea Party.
In response to the Boston Tea Party, Parliament passed a series of laws that colonists called
the Intolerable Acts. The purposes of these acts included closing the port of Boston until all
of the damage caused by the Tea Party was repaid, putting Massachusetts under military rule
with more troops arriving in that colony, making it illegal for royal officials to be brought to
trial in the colonies (and instead holding their trials in England), ending colonial government
in Massachusetts and allowing the royal governor to appoint the colonial legislature, and giving land claimed by Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Virginia to Canada.
Meanwhile, by 1774, the colonies had established the first continental legislative body, or
Continental Congress. The British responded by sending even more troops. The Congress
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 27
3/24/16 1:39 PM
Why a New Constitution?
Section 2.2
met briefly in Philadelphia in 1774 and consisted of 56 delegates from all 13 colonies. Most of
the delegates were not ready to separate from the British; rather, they wanted both the king
and Parliament to treat the colonies more fairly. Early the following year, however, skirmishes
between armed colonists and British troops turned deadly. By the time the second Continental Congress met in May of 1775, the American Revolutionary War had begun. Although there
were still those who wanted to work something out with Britain, there was now a growing
movement for independence.
Independence and Confederation
The colonies declared their independence on July 4, 1776, with the signing of the Declaration
of Independence. The Declaration was nothing more than a statement announcing separation—it did not form a government. Actual independence came only through military victory, which required, at a minimum, that the newly independent states remain united. The
Continental Congress raised an army and placed it under the command of George Washington (1732–1799). The following year, the Congress drafted the Articles of Confederation to
unite the states. The Articles were the first U.S. constitution. Born from a revolutionary spirit
suspicious of strong central government, in which authority would be concentrated in a
single entity, the Articles of Confederation created a “firm league of friendship” (a phrase from
Article III of the Articles) among the states.
The Articles invested the greatest power in the individual states and left the new national
government weak and powerless. The revolution was a rebellion against strong centralized
power; therefore, it was inevitable that the colonists would not form a government with
strong central authority. But the Articles proved inadequate to maintain unity, and, shortly
after the War of Independence was over, the confederation began to unravel.
2.2 Why a New Constitution?
The Articles had three fatal flaws. First and foremost, they failed to give the national government the power of the purse, meaning that they granted the government neither the power
to levy taxes directly on the people nor the power to force the states to pay their share of
expenses. The national government could not even tax to pay its war debts. Second, any
amendments to the Articles required the unanimous approval of the state legislatures. And
third, they did not provide for a chief executive to carry out essential tasks and deal with
crises.
The main problem with the Articles of Confederation was the absence of strong central
authority. This meant that the United States would have no common defense if it were
attacked. An individual state could easily be overrun by a foreign government. The absence of
central authority was a problem for another reason as well. The new government could not
regulate commerce, and that threatened the development of a national economy.
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 28
3/24/16 1:39 PM
Why a New Constitution?
Section 2.2
The Constitutional Convention, where
delegates would meet to revise the Articles and eventually draft the U.S. Constitution, was actually preceded by the
Annapolis Convention. A small group of
delegates met at Annapolis, Maryland, in
September 1786 to address another one
of the failings of the Articles: the lack of
authority to impose uniform commercial
regulations among the states. This meeting had been called into session by the
Continental Congress but was not really
a proper convention. Only 12 delegates
from five of the 13 states showed up,
which meant that the delegates had no
authority to do anything and their decisions would not represent the will of all
of the states.
Those who did show up had some
strong views about what needed to be
done. James Madison (1751–1836) and
Edmund Randolph (1753–1813), both
Associated Press
of Virginia, and Alexander Hamilton
The
Articles
of
Confederation,
shown
here,
were
(1755–1804) of New York, all of whom
adopted
by
the
Continental
Congress
in
1777.
would attend the Constitutional Convention, were convinced that the new nation However, wariness of central authority resulted
needed much stronger central authority. in a weak, unworkable national government,
Hamilton wrote to the Continental Con- and many agreed the Articles would need to be
gress on behalf of Madison, Randolph, revised.
and himself, requesting that the states
appoint commissioners to meet in Philadelphia to consider these matters. Those in Annapolis, especially Madison and Hamilton, wanted to overhaul the Articles and create a whole new
government.
Some of the Framers were also concerned that a fragmented confederation would make it
more difficult, if not impossible, to create a national economy. Without a central authority regulating interstate commerce, each state was free to establish its own tariffs. These applied
equally to the other states, just as they did to other nations. A national economy would require
uniform standards and a central authority empowered to enforce them.
In the early 20th century, historian Charles Beard (1913) argued that the Constitution was
more about serving the economic interests of the Framers than the lofty philosophical and
ethical principles found in the Declaration of Independence. As far as Beard was concerned,
the Framers sought to promote commerce and protect their property from radical state legislatures. It is certainly true that those who participated in the Constitutional Convention
were wealthy men who were concerned about the absence of national regulatory authority
on matters of commerce.
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 29
3/24/16 1:39 PM
The Constitutional Convention
Section 2.3
Others, such as Alexander Hamilton, stressed the public interest of what they called a “commercial republic,” the view that the nation’s public interest was in part defined by free trade
and commercial activity, and that this interest could be served by individuals freely pursuing
their economic self-interests unfettered by government. By crafting a document that established the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce while establishing that laws
coming from Congress would be the supreme laws of the land, the Framers could create a
national government with real power. These views represented Hamilton’s views about government regulation of the economy.
2.3 The Constitutional Convention
The Constitutional Convention convened in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787 at the
direction of the Continental Congress, although the deliberations were kept secret. Delegates were charged only with revising the Articles, but it was out of this convention that the
U.S. Constitution would emerge.
Who Came to the Convention?
Many of those attending the Convention had already achieved great prominence. Several were
older and wealthy, while others were relatively young. Because the convention debates were
held in secret, only a few people recorded the proceedings. One of these persons was James
Madison, who is commonly regarded as the father of the U.S. Constitution. Madison developed, among other provisions, the constitutional system of checks and balances. He, along
with Hamilton, pushed for strong national authority.
Most of the other convention delegates came with
a strong sense of duty to represent their respective states. Although there was general agreement
that the Articles were unworkable, disagreements
arose over how to replace them. Madison, for
instance, wanted to overturn equal representation
of the states. Others argued the need for a strong
executive. Delegates from slave states wanted
their slaves to be counted in the population so that
their states would enjoy greater representation in
the as-yet-undeveloped national legislature.
In addition to a strong central government, delegates to the Constitutional Convention wanted
a system that employed checks and balances. The
delegates did not trust the masses to govern themselves yet believed that a legitimate government
could exist only if it rested on popular sovereignty.
The delegates wanted a government that would
be close to the people while at the same time free
to make decisions on behalf of the nation without
The White House Historical Association
Like Hamilton, James Madison believed
in a strong central government. He
helped formulate the Virginia Plan.
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 30
3/24/16 1:39 PM
The Constitutional Convention
Section 2.3
securing public approval for those decisions. To the extent that they sought to establish a
democracy, it was to be a representative democracy consistent with republican principles.
They outlined these goals in large part due to their experiences with the British government.
At the same time, the delegates wanted to create a durable system of government that would
withstand the test of time. They could achieve this goal if they created a general and broad
document that avoided specifics. In this way, the Constitution could be applied to future circumstances. The Preamble of the Constitution declares the basic goals of government, while
the seven articles of the Constitution that follow the Preamble establish general rules by
which government institutions would operate, but the Framers purposely avoided establishing procedures for governing.
Initial Constitutional Proposals
Most of the Framers wanted to create a republican government, but different factions still had
different ideas of what they wanted to accomplish, as well as how everyone’s interests should
be represented. For example, the delegates confronted the contentious issue of how both the
large and small population states would be represented in the legislature. Under the Articles,
each state was represented in the legislature by one vote, which put all states, regardless of
population, on equal footing. Should the new constitution continue providing equal representation for each state regardless of size or population, or would representation be proportionate to population, with larger states having more votes than less populous ones?
Democratic principles required that larger states have greater representation. But that was
a more difficult issue than it appeared. Many large states, such as Virginia, were also slave
states. Would the slave population in those states contribute to the population numbers that
determined their representation? Slaves were not considered citizens, and to have them
included would, at least in the minds of the small states, give the large states an unfair advantage. There was also the issue of state sovereignty, or self-determination. For each state to
have one vote, as they did under the Articles of Confederation, was for each state to be equal
in its sovereignty. This meant that each state had equal power to participate in national decisions. Would state sovereignty be similarly respected in the new national government? Small
states believed that if they lost their equality in the legislature that their residents would also
lose their political voice, or sovereignty, in the national government. If the large states gained
power in the new government (and if this new power was enhanced by counting slaves among
the state populations), the small states would be overshadowed by the large states and residents of the small states would lose their sovereignty in the proposed system.
Related to this question was the issue of the chief executive and how powerful that executive
would be. A powerful national chief executive could also threaten state sovereignty because
the chief executive would govern the nation despite state-level differences. For some, the idea
of a chief executive evoked images of a king with centralized power and authority who could
call on national troops to force his will on the states, something not provided for in the Articles. But the absence of the legislature during a time of crisis meant that no one could act.
In the previous chapter, we defined politics as who gets what, when, and how, and the Constitution would determine exactly that. As lofty as the principles and values of the Framers
may have been, each delegate to the Constitutional Convention was also concerned with the
interests and relative positions of his state.
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 31
3/24/16 1:39 PM
The Constitutional Convention
Section 2.3
Virginia Plan
During the convention, James Madison joined with two of Virginia’s other delegates, George
Washington and Governor Edmund Randolph, to introduce a system that provided for a
strong central government. The proposal came to be known as the Virginia Plan, which
was drafted by Madison and presented to the convention by Edmund Randolph. (Because
Randolph presented it, it also came to be known as the Randolph Plan.) Under the plan, the
people would select the House of Representatives as a practical expression of democracy. Its
members would be close to the people and would stand for regular elections. Because the
number of representatives each state had in the House was to be determined by its population, the plan favored large states such as Virginia. The legislature’s upper chamber, the Senate, would be selected by the House of Representatives, and the legislature as a whole would
choose the president.
The Virginia Plan did not specify terms of office, but it did seek to limit the executive and
members of the House to one term. Moreover, it called for an independent judiciary. The plan
included other checks and balances. It allowed for legislative acts to be vetoed by a council
composed of the executive and selected members of the judicial branch. Their veto could, in
turn, be overridden by an unspecified legislative majority.
Large states supported the Virginia Plan because it would grant them greater representation.
The smaller states were generally opposed because they were afraid that they would lose
substantial power in the national government. Among the provisions that worried many of
the states was one that would have empowered the national government to use military force
against those states that might otherwise refuse to comply with national authority.
The New Jersey Plan
Those opposed to the Virginia Plan favored an
alternative that arose from the New Jersey delegation. One member of that delegation, William Paterson (1745–1806), intended to block any nationalist plan to overhaul the Articles of Confederation.
He launched an assault on the Virginia Plan. He
was particularly concerned about proportional
representation—the idea that large states would
have more representatives than the small ones. He
believed that the large states would dominate the
small states and that Virginia specifically intended
to undermine the other states’ sovereign powers.
© Bettmann/Corbis
William Paterson was the main architect
of the New Jersey Plan. The plan called
for a federal government, with powers divided between national and state
governments.
As a counterproposal, he, along with David Brearley of New Jersey, Roger Sherman of Connecticut,
Luther Martin of Maryland, and John Lansing of
New York, offered what came to be known as the
New Jersey Plan. Whereas the Virginia Plan called
for a supreme national government, the New Jersey Plan called for one that would be distinctly
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 32
3/24/16 1:39 PM
The Constitutional Convention
Section 2.3
federal, with carefully listed powers divided between national and state governments. This
meant that a federal government would be the combination of the states and the national government, whose power and authority would, in effect, be shared. Under this proposal, there
would be a single-chamber national legislature in which each state, regardless of size, would
have one vote.
Paterson’s intention was to protect the power of smaller states. While the plan would grant
the new government the power to levy taxes on imports and to regulate trade and commerce,
the representation of individual states would be no different from how it had been under
the Articles of Confederation. Under the New Jersey Plan, the “federal executive” would be
elected by the individual states represented in Congress. Again, this was consistent with the
executive committee system under the Articles. Nationalists such as Madison thought that
the proposal represented a backward step. For a full month, the Convention was deadlocked
between large-state nationalists and small-state defenders.
Connecticut Plan and the Great Compromise
As a compromise, Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut proposed the Connecticut Plan (also known as the Great Compromise), which, like the Virginia Plan, would
create a bicameral legislature. This plan was designed to please both nationalists and states’
rights proponents. As with the Virginia Plan, representation in the House of Representatives
would be based on population, with each member representing a district of a specified number of persons. Larger states would have more representatives than smaller states would. To
foster closeness between representatives and the people, House members would serve for
2 years and then stand for reelection. The Connecticut Plan also indicated that all bills for
raising taxes had to originate in the House of Representatives. To ensure that each state would
get the number of representatives to which it was entitled, a census of all inhabitants of the
United States was to be taken every 10 years.
The Senate was designed to be similar to the body
proposed by the New Jersey Plan. The Senate would
specifically represent the states. In recognition of
their equal sovereignty, each state would have two
seats, regardless of population. Contrary to the Virginia Plan, which envisioned the House selecting
senators, the Connecticut Plan allowed for members
to be directly chosen by their respective state legislatures (a practice that would be replaced by the 17th
Amendment, ratified in 1913, which provided for
the popular election of U.S. senators). Senators
would serve for terms of 6 years. A 6-year term
would suggest that senators would not have to
worry about reelection soon after taking office, so
they would have greater opportunity to think about
the larger public interest. Senate terms would also
be staggered so that one third of the Senate would
be up for election every 2 years. Elections would
Universal Images Group/Getty Images
The Connecticut Compromise, painted
by Bradley Stevens, depicts Roger
Sherman, left, and Oliver Ellsworth
drafting the Connecticut Plan, which
called for senators to be appointed by
their respective legislatures.
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 33
3/24/16 1:39 PM
The Constitutional Convention
Section 2.3
take place in even-numbered years. Because only a portion of the Senate could potentially be
replaced, there would be stability and continuity. Figure 2.1 compares the Virginia Plan, the
New Jersey Plan, and the Great Compromise.
Figure 2.1: Comparing the plans
The Great Compromise included elements of both the Virginia and the New Jersey Plans.
Adapted from http://chogger.com/fhMeb/great-compromise
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
fin82797_02_c02_023-052.indd 34
3/24/16 1:39 PM
The Constitutional Convention
Section 2.3
The Electoral College
Madison initially wanted the executive to be chosen by the legislative body. He believed that,
because the executive implements legislative actions, the executive should be responsive to
it. Further, the concept of a president was that of somebody who presided over legislative
hearings. Opponents claimed that this proposal was inconsistent with republican principles
of separation of powers. The Framers were also not ready to allow the people to directly elect
the president because they were not convinced that the people could make rational, dispassionate decisions. Meanwhile, the states wanted a say in selecting the president even though
the Framers believed that the states would have too much power if they chose the president.
As a compromise, the Framers created the Electoral College as the body responsible for electing the president. The U.S. Constitution does not outline how electors are chosen, nor does
it state what role, if any, the popular vote will play in determining how electors vote when
selecting the president. Almost all states require the candidate who wins the popular vote in
the state to earn all of that state’s Electoral College votes (the “winner-take-all” system, which
is in place in 48 states), while other states (Nebraska and Maine) use a district system for allocating Electoral College votes based on the popular vote. The number of members of Congress
representing any s...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment