The Bill of Rights (Constitutional Amendments.

1-10)
Description: The Bill of Rights is the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. It spells out Americans’
rights in relation to their government. It guarantees civil rights and liberties to the individual—like
freedom of speech, press, and religion. It sets rules for due process of law and reserves all powers not
delegated to the Federal Government to the people or the States. And it specifies that “the enumeration
in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people.”
1. The First Amendment provides several rights protections: to express ideas through speech and the
press, to assemble or gather with a group to protest or for other reasons, and to ask the government to
fix problems. It also protects the right to religious beliefs and practices. It prevents the government from
creating or favoring a religion.
2. The Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms.
3. The Third Amendment prevents government from forcing homeowners to allow soldiers to use their
homes. Before the Revolutionary War, laws gave British soldiers the right to take over private homes.
4. The Fourth Amendment bars the government from unreasonable search and seizure of an individual
or their private property.
5. The Fifth Amendment provides several protections for people accused of crimes. It states that serious
criminal charges must be started by a grand jury. A person cannot be tried twice for the same offense
(double jeopardy) or have property taken away without just compensation. People have the right
against self-incrimination and cannot be imprisoned without due process of law (fair procedures and
trials.)
6. The Sixth Amendment provides additional protections to people accused of crimes, such as the right
to a speedy and public trial, trial by an impartial jury in criminal cases, and to be informed of criminal
charges. Witnesses must face the accused, and the accused is allowed his or her own witnesses and to
be represented by a lawyer.
7. The Seventh Amendment extends the right to a jury trial in Federal civil cases.
8. The Eighth Amendment bars excessive bail and fines and cruel and unusual punishment.
9. The Ninth Amendment states that listing specific rights in the Constitution does not mean that people
do not have other rights that have not been spelled out.
10. The Tenth Amendment says that the Federal Government only has those powers delegated in the
Constitution. If it isn’t listed, it belongs to the states or to the people.
Federalist No. 10 (James Madison – 1787) Controlling Factions
Many Antifederalists believed that the Constitution would lead to a large, consolidated nation and
abolish the republican governments in the states, which in turn would lead to violations of the rights of
citizens. Madison turned that argument on its head by pointing out that in republican governments, in
which the majority must rule, an all-powerful majority often sacrifices the natural rights of the minority
to their own selfish interests. Tyranny was just as possible in republican governments as under
monarchies; and smaller republics — that is, republics the size of the American states — were especially
prone to the danger of majority faction. Some remedy for this “mortal disease” must be found, Madison
argued, if we are to have a republic in which the natural rights of all, including the minority, are
protected.
The “violence of faction” is the “mortal disease” of popular governments.
1. What is a faction? “A number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole,
who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights
of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”
Causes of factions in human nature
Most common/durable source of factions = unequal distribution of property
Possible solutions to the problems of factions:
1. Eliminate the causes of factions
 Remove all liberty, thus preventing people from binding together into groups (this cure is worse
than the disease)
 Make sure everyone has the same interests, passions, etc. (impractical)
2. Control the effects of factions (ONLY REAL SOLUTION)
 If a minority faction, majority rule (“republican principle”)
 If a majority faction, controlling is more difficult (majority rule empowers it)
 Must be prevented from oppressing others
 Type of government is key
 Direct democracy provides NO help; Republican (representative) government is best system
Benefits of a large republic for controlling effects of factions:
1. System of elected representatives
 Views of the public are refined by elected reps (filtering/slowing effect)
 Large number of citizens elect each rep
 High probability of finding a highly qualified/fit person
 More difficult for unworthy candidates to deceive large group of voters
2. Larger potential for size and population in a republic (vs. a direct democracy)
Factions may develop and spread in a state or region, but unlikely to spread throughout whole country
 Brutus I (1787)
Antifederalists (those who opposed immediate ratification) contributed to the public debate by
questioning whether the proposed Constitution would lead to the security or destruction of the rights
Americans then enjoyed under their state constitutions.
One of the most eloquent Antifederalists, writing under the pseudonym Brutus, voiced a concern shared
by many Americans: Could a widely dispersed and diverse people be united under one government
without sacrificing the blessings of liberty and self-government?

Brutus’ powerful arguments prompted Federalists to articulate a more thorough explanation of what
the Constitution meant and why it should be ratified. Taken together, the Federalist and Antifederalist
debates over the Constitution provide Americans with a deeply insightful conversation about politics,
human nature, and the difficulties of establishing good government.

Brutus considered whether or not the thirteen states should be reduced to one republic as the
Federalists proposed. After examining various clauses in the Constitution, he determined that this would
essentially create a federal government that will “possess absolute and uncontrollable power…” Brutus
pointed to the Necessary and Proper Clause (3.8.18) and the Supremacy Clause (6.2.0) as sources of
immense power conferred upon the federal government by the Constitution. According to Brutus, the
two clauses essentially render the various State governments powerless. He believed that the
Constitution and laws of every state would be nullified and declared void if they were or shall be
inconsistent with the Constitution. Brutus argued that under the Necessary and Proper Clause, Congress
would be able to repeal state fundraising laws. If Congress believed that a state law may prevent the
collection of a federal tax that is necessary and proper to provide for the general welfare of the United
States, then Congress would have the authority to repeal the law under the necessary and proper
clause. Furthermore, because all laws made in pursuance of the Constitution are the supreme law of the
land, the states would have no recourse. Therefore, the government is complete, and no longer a
confederation of smaller republics. According to Brutus, there was no limit upon the legislative power to
lay taxes, duties, imposts, and excises. Although this authority was technically limited to raising money
to pay debts and provide for the general welfare and common defense, Brutus argued that these
restrictions do not impose any actual limitation on the legislative powers under the Constitution. In
reality, only the legislature had the authority to contract debts and determine what is necessary to
provide for the general welfare and common defense of the nation. Therefore, the legislature’s
authority to lay taxes and duties is rendered unlimited. No state can emit paper money, “lay any duties,
or imposts, on imports, or exports” without consent of the Congress and “the net produce is for the
benefit of the United States.” Therefore, the only recourse left for the states to support their own
governments and discharge their debts is by direct taxation. This too, however, could be eradicated by
the federal government, who also has the power of direct taxation. Where the federal government
exercises this essentially unlimited authority, it would be impossible for the states to raise money on
their own behalf due to the limited monetary resources of its citizens. Without money, states cannot be
supported, and their powers would be absorbed by the federal government, thus eliminating any
sovereignty or autonomy left to the states.
Advocates more power to the states and the people as opposed to an overarching, over powerful
federal government.
Federalist No. 51 (James Madison – 1788) Checks and Balances
James Madison, like most Americans at the time, understood that once a single branch of government,
legislative, executive, or judicial, had accumulated all political power in its hands, nothing could stop it
from acting tyrannically. The checks and balances between the branches built into the proposed
Constitution, he explained in Federalist 51, are therefore essential to keep those powers properly
separated among the branches. In the midst of explaining these “inventions of prudence,” Madison
offered thoughtful reflections on why human nature makes politics — especially the great task of
framing a government comprised of men rather than angels — so challenging.
 Separation of powers should be designed such that the different branches keep the others in check
 Each branch of government should have its own will
 the selection/appointment of members of each branch should be as unconnected to the other
branches as possible in order to insulate it from outside influence
 their pay should also be as insulated as possible from the influence of the other branches
 How to prevent the gradual concentration of power in a single branch?
 “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition” (utilize this characteristic of human nature)
 “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”
 Politicians who run each branch must be given Const. tools AND personal motives to resist
encroachment of other branches
 Government must not only control the governed, but also control itself
 Accountability to the people helps with this, but more is needed
 In a republic, the legislature naturally tends to dominate, so steps must be taken to divide its powers
 Divide the legislature in two
 Executive has veto power and has some connections with the Senate
 The federal government’s powers are actually more equally separated than most state governments
 Federalism offers additional protections against abuse of the rights of people
 USA is a “compound republic” – state governments and federal government
 those governments will control each other while also controlling themselves
 The large size and diversity of the country (as encouraged by the republican & federalist
systems) limits the threat of majority factions to develop and threaten people’s rights
Federalist No. 70 (Alexander Hamilton – 1788) Single Executive
In this Federalist Paper, Alexander Hamilton argues for a strong Energetic executive leader, as provided
for by the Constitution, as opposed to the weak executive under the Articles of Confederation. He
asserts, “energy in the executive is the leading character in the definition of good government. It is
essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks…to the steady administration of the
laws, to the protection of property…to justice; [and] to the security of liberty….”
Though some had called for an executive council, Hamilton defended a single executive as “far safer”
because “wherever two or more persons are engaged in any common…pursuit, there is always danger of
difference of opinion…bitter dissensions are apt to spring. Whenever these happen, they lessen the
respectability, weaken the authority.”
Hamilton also argued that a single executive would be watched “more narrowly” and vigilantly by the
people than a group of people would be.

Federalist No. 78 (Alexander Hamilton – 1788) Description of Judicial Branch

“A View of The Constitution of the Judicial Department in Relation to the Tenure of Good Behavior”
(Hamilton’s description and justification for the Constitutional design of the judicial branch)
The duration in office of judges (how long do they stay in power?)
 Remain in office “on good behavior” with “permanent tenure” (indefinitely) – this is a
reasonable and effective standard to prevent encroachment (intrusion) of power by the
legislature
 Permanent tenure helps courts resist temporary whims of leaders and the public to
violate the constitution; allows them to reflect deliberately at a slow pace
 Helps resist laws that violate rights of particular classes of citizens; allows courts to strictly
adhere to the rights of the Constitution and individuals
 Needed to attract qualified judges with knowledge and integrity to handle controversies
Justifying the powers of the judiciary:
 Naturally the weakest and least dangerous branch to people’s rights (doesn’t have any
force or will of its own, but only the ability to judge)
o Therefore, needs to be strengthened
 Complete independence of courts is essential in our system; it must be able to declare all
acts contrary to the constitution void
 Courts act as an “intermediary” between the people and the legislature
o Legislature should not be judges of their own constitutional powers
o Courts’ job to determine meaning of constitution and laws
o But this does NOT mean they are superior to legislature
Responsibilities of the federal courts:
o When two laws contradict each other, the courts reconcile/ resolve the
differences and/or decide which one is correct
o When a law violates the constitution, fed. courts must adhere to the constitution
o Must rule on the law and exercise judgement rather than their own will/desires
  To avoid arbitrary discretion in the courts, judges must be bound by strict rules and
precedents to define their duties

Letter from a Birmingham Jail (Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. – 1963)
Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” in response to criticism of the nonviolent
protests in Birmingham, Alabama in April 1963. In the letter, King responds specifically to a statement
published in a local newspaper by eight white clergymen, calling the protests “unwise and untimely” and
condemning to the “outsiders” who were leading them.

He begins his letter by calling the clergymen people of “genuine goodwill” and acknowledging the
sincerity of their concern, setting a tone of reasonable dialogue. He then responds to the claims that he
is an outsider by informing his critics that as the leader of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference,
he was invited to Birmingham to support the African American residents fight for their civil rights.
Beyond that, he argues that he is in Birmingham “because injustice is here,” and like the Apostle Paul
and other early Christians, he must answer the call for aid.

King also rebuts the critics’ argument that segregation laws should be fought in the courts and not on
the streets, explaining that only through direct action can they force the white majority to confront the
issue of racism and enter into true dialogue. While the protesters are breaking laws—which is precisely
why King must write his letter from the Birmingham City jail—those laws are immoral and unjust, and
civil disobedience is thus a patriotic response.

In addition to responding directly to the criticisms brought forth by the clergymen, King uses his letter to
make his own judgments as well. He expresses his extreme disappointment at white moderates, whom
he considers more detrimental to the cause of racial equality than the Ku Klux Klan. He condemns the
fact that the moderate claims to support the mission while rejecting all attempts at direct action. He
would rather be considered an extremist “for the cause of justice” than stand by and passively allow
those injustices to persist, as the white moderate has done in the South.

King then extends his criticism to the leadership of the white church for championing the status quo. He
expected more of the church, an institution that once “transformed the mores of society,” but laments
the fact that the contemporary church has fallen far from its early Christian origins to become “an
irrelevant social club” rather than a source of inspiration. Yet with all of his concern about the lack of
support for the cause of racial equality and desegregation, King closes his letter on a hopeful note,
expressing his belief that African Americans will achieve the freedom and equality they are fighting for.
Constitution Summaries, Representative Democracy; Participatory, pluralist, elitist
Impeachment
US Constitution, Amendments
AP GOVERNMENT / KEY DOCUMENTS AND CASES REVIEW DOCUMENTS

1. Federalist Essay 10: Written in support of ratification of the Constitution. Madison argues that
political factions are “evil” (because members put party over government) but inevitable. Only way to
control them is with a large central government in a republic that will force compromise and protect
minority rights.

2. Federalist Essay 51: Written in support of ratification of the Constitution. Madison argues that a
large central government of three branches that includes both Checks and Balances and Separation of
Powers will limit abuses of power.

3. Federalist Essay 70: Written in support of ratification of the Constitution. Hamilton argues that a
strong single executive is necessary to provide guidance and strength and having multiple executive
leaders will cause chaos and confusion.

4. Federalist Essay 78: Written in support of ratification of the Constitution and for a strong,
independent Judiciary. Lifetime tenure for Judges and appointment, with Senate confirmation, rather
than elections, will insure fairness and non- political decision-making process.

5. Articles of Confederation: Created a weak central government during the Revolutionary War
that subsequently proved to be ineffective and led to the need for a Constitutional Convention. Lacked
the power to tax, control interstate commerce or raise a sufficient military force.

6. Brutus 1: Written in opposition to ratification of the Constitution by Anti-Federalists. Argues that

the Constitution’s creation of a strong central government will weaken state power and thus ultimately
deprive individuals of the liberties they fought the Revolutionary War for. Will not work well in a large
diverse nation of many states.

7. Declaration of Independence: Written to support break away from English authority and to
gain support of foreign nations. Not against monarchy’s in general but against this particular King.
Jefferson adopts the “social contract theory” of John Locke.

8. Constitution: Creates the foundation for a stronger central government in 7 articles to replace the
Articles of Confederation. Requires a system of Checks and Balances between the 3 branches while also
establishing Separation of Power for each branch. Also establishes direct election of House of
Representative members while preserving state control of Senator elections and Electoral College
control of President’s election.

9. Letter from Birmingham Jail: Written by MLK, Jr. in response to criticism from another clergy
who contends that he is moving too fast. Argues that protest is justified by unjust laws that continue
racism. That 400 years of such laws is too long and that it is morally correct to violate an unjust law in
pursuit of a greater good.
CASE REVIEW
1. McCulloch v. Maryland: Court rules that state cannot tax the 2nd National Bank because it
would violate the Supremacy Clause. Bank is Constitutional because of the Necessary and Proper Clause.
Background: State of Maryland wants to tax the national bank so it can make money and strengthen the
state banks. This raises issue of Federal vs. State power.

2. Marbury v. Madison: Court rules that it has “judicial review” power to declare an act of
Congress or the President unconstitutional. Expands power of the Federal Courts by declaring Judiciary
Act unconstitutional and thus allowing Jefferson decision not to deliver judgeships to stand. Background:
President Adams is leaving office and wants to keep Federalists Judges on the bench. He names many
and they are confirmed by Senate but Jefferson refuses to sit them and some of them sue to get their
jobs.

3. Engel v. Vitale: Court incorporates portion of 1st Amendment to the states through the 14th
Amendment by declaring that a state law requiring prayer in public school to be unconstitutional as a
violation of the Establishment Clause. Background: The State of NY required public schools to have a
minute of prayer during each school day.

4. Tinker v. Des Moines: Court incorporates portion of 1st Amendment to the states through the
14th Amendment by holding that symbolic political speech is protected even in public schools. Students
cannot be punished for symbolic speech unless it creates a material disruption to the educational
process. Background: Several middle school students in public school wear arm bands protesting the
Vietnam war despite rule saying they cannot, and they fight their punishment.

5. Wisconsin v. Yoder: Court incorporates portion of 1st Amendment to the states through the
14th Amendment by holding school compulsory attendance rules violated the free exercise clause as
applied to the Amish students. Parents right to freedom or religion decisions for their children was
found to be more important than the states goal of education. Background: Amish parents do not want
to comply with the state compulsory education requirement for students until they are 16. Their
argument is that it violates their right to free exercise of religion.

6. New York Times v. United States: Court rules against the government seeking “prior
restraint” of the press when it wants to stop publication of the Pentagon Papers. Court says Freedom of
Press under 1st Amendment outweighs claim of executive privilege in almost all cases
except a meritorious claim of National Security. Background: Both the NY Times and Washington Post
want to publish government documents that show the government had lied about issues concerning the
Vietnam War and President Nixon did not want these papers published.

7. Schenck v. United States: Court upholds arrest of defendant for interfering with the
governments use of military draft over claim of 1st Amendment protection. Finds there was a “clear and
present danger” exception to the 1st Amendment. Background: Schenck believed that the war was
wrong and that speaking out against the draft and holding signs to express his views was the best way to
explain his position.

8. Gideon v. Wainright: Court incorporates the protections of the 6th Amendment to the states
through the 14th Amendment and holds that all defendants charged with a felony are entitled to free
attorney if they cannot afford one. The right is later extended to all cases where the defendant is facing
the potential for a sentence of incarceration. Background: Florida forced Gideon to proceed to trial on a
felony charge without a lawyer because he did not have the money to pay for one.

9. McDonald v. Chicago: Court incorporates the protections of the 2nd Amendment “right to bear
arms” to the states through the 14th Amendment and holds that restrictions placed by the city on
citizens seeking gun possession permits were unconstitutional. Background: McDonald carried a gun
legally for work but also wanted to carry it off duty and the City had a law that said he could not as a
matter of public safety.

10. United States v. Lopez: Court restricts right of the Federal Government to prosecute high
School student for mere possession of a gun on school grounds. Finds that Federal Jurisdiction through
the interstate commerce clause was stretching that power too far. This case begins the restriction of
federal power (“devolution concept”) and restoring traditional police powers to the state. Background:
High school student in San Antonio is arrested on school grounds with a gun but charged by Federal
government instead of the state government. He argues that the Feds are overreaching.

11. Roe v. Wade: Court finds that the “Right to Privacy” is a fundamental right under the
Constitution (upholding Griswold decision) and therefore states cannot ban women from seeking an
abortion during the early months of pregnancy. This decision is based on what the court finds to be the
“Penumbras” of various rights set forth in the Bill of Rights and applied to the states through the Due
Process Clause of the 14th. Background: Texas woman wants an abortion, but it is illegal in Texas. She
then goes to Florida and has the abortion but is allowed to bring challenge to Texas law.

12. Brown v. Board of Education: Court holds that a state law of segregation by race of public-
school students are unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. In a
subsequent hearing one year later, it orders the states to begin the process of desegregation with “ALL
Deliberate Speed.” Background: Father of one student (there are a total of 5 cases combined) wants his
daughter to go to a nearby school but she is forced to travel, because of state segregation laws, to an all-
black school that is much further away.

13. Baker v. Carr: Court held that the state of Tennessee violated the U.S. Constitution because its
voting districts were not of equal population size. (“One Man- One Vote”) Court would subsequently
also hold that district lines for Gerrymandering purposes could not seek to dilute the political power of
minority residents. Broadens the power of the Federal Government. Background: State legislature
wanted to restrict black voters so drew district lines for representatives that had much different
population numbers in the various voting districts.
14. Shaw v. Reno: Court holds that when voting district lines are challenged based on race the court
will use “Strict Scrutiny” (state would need a compelling reason) to insure that the equal protection
clause of the 14th Amendment is not violated. Broadens the power of the Federal Government in
Gerrymandering cases. Background: Challenge was made to the way the district lines for representatives
were drawn because they purposely sought to limit black voters from gaining power.

15. Citizens United: Free speech protections of the 1st Amendment apply to Unions and
Corporations as they relate to political speech and thus campaign restrictions were unconstitutional. The
right to spend money to spread political speech is upheld. First Amendment challenge to Campaign
Reform Act is upheld. Background: Organization that sought to deny Hillary Clinton the ability to gain
office published a video against her during a period of time that was not permitted by Federal Election
laws aimed to limit the influence of organizations to spend money against opponents.
FRQ chart Information and Examples
Reserved, Concurrent, and Exclusive Powers. Checks and Balances
Congress positions
Congress powers, Bureacratic Agencies, Presidential Roles
Amendmets with court cases
 One point is earned for a description of one factor that increases the likelihood for the Supreme
Court to accept an appeal.

Acceptable descriptions include:

 Cases heard by lower federal courts/State Supreme Courts that have discrepancies/
inconsistencies in their decisions
 Cases dealing with a constitutional issue
 Cases with a pattern of concern/percolation of an issue
 Cases involving the federal government/Solicitor General

One point is earned for a description of one factor that limits the Supreme Court’s authority to hear
cases.

Acceptable descriptions include:

 The Supreme Court must be petitioned to hear a case

 State cases must be about a constitutional/federal issue
 Federal cases must be within appellate or original jurisdiction

Bureaucracy, Cabinet dept., Independent Regulatory Commissions, Gov Corporations

Due Process, 5th Amendment = Federal Gov, 14th applies to both Fed and State Gov
Federalism Changes- towards Federal Government

Separation of Powers Changes