Title: Constitutional Framework
Course: Joni's Quizzes

Q: How did Thomas Hobbes justify the creation of government?
- Hobbes argued that without government, kings and other rulers lives would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" since they would receive no taxes from their subjects, and would have no way of paying for castles and other necessities of royal existence.
- Hobbes argued that democracy was the only justifiable form of government and that without "rule by the people" kings would lead nations to war and peoples' lives would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."
- Hobbes argued that without government there would be no security and no order, and people would be doomed to live in the "state of nature," where a war of all against all would cause everybody's lives to be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."
A: Hobbes argued that without government there would be no security and no order, and people would be doomed to live in the "state of nature," where a war of all against all would cause everybody's lives to be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."

Q: How did John Locke justify the existence of government?
- Locke argued that without government there would be no security and no order, and people would be doomed to live in the "state of nature," where a war of all against all would cause everybody's lives to be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."
- Locke believed that government's were justified by the devine right of kings who he argued were chosen by God to hold power, and could thereby not be displaced. Whatever a monarch decided was in effect a direct edict from God, and to oppose a king's rule was to oppose God himself.
- Locke believed government was necessary to produce order, and justified to the degree that it protected the rights and liberties of citizens, or as he put it, man "is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property."
A: Locke believed government was necessary to produce order, and justified to the degree that it protected the rights and liberties of citizens, or as he put it, man "is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property."

Q: Identify two implications of John Locke's justification for government.
- Governments derive legitimacy solely in relationship to their ability to provide order, and citizens who try to revolt against the government should be banished from the country and possibly lose their citizenship.
- Repelling invasions and ensuring the proper moral behavior of citizens are the most important goals of good government.
- Government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed, and if it acts contrary to its legitimate ends the people are justified in taking action against it.
A: Government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed, and if it acts contrary to its legitimate ends the people are justified in taking action against it.

Q: What is the difference between "direct" democracy and "representative" democracy?
- In a direct democracy the people expect to benefit from policy "directly," while in a representative democracy it is only expected that the group one most obviously identifies with will benefit from policy.
- The framers of the US Constitution generally thought that direct democracy was preferable to representative democracy because they thought it produced greater stability.
- The people directly influence policy in a direct democracy versus choosing representatives who make policy in a representative democracy.
A: The people directly influence policy in a direct democracy versus choosing representatives who make policy in a representative democracy.

Q: Which of these best articulates the paradox inherent in democratic decision-making identified by Condorcet?
- While a "general will" of citizens may exist, it is always a challenge to get politicians to actually put the policies the majority wants into effect.
- Democratic majorities tend to make bad decisions, so the trick is to set up a process whereby The People think they are making decisions, but really informed elites are making them.
- While individuals can have coherent preferences, it is not clear that groups of citizens do. One consequence of this is that the order in which preferences are considered by democratic institutions may determine policy outcomes.
A: While individuals can have coherent preferences, it is not clear that groups of citizens do. One consequence of this is that the order in which preferences are considered by democratic institutions may determine policy outcomes.

Q: Which of these is an important criticism of requiring super-majorities to make decisions in a democracy.
- Majorities are always best at determining the correct policy, so requiring more than a majority to pass laws or change constitutional provisions is objectively wrong.
- The requirement that super-majorities decide policy gets in the way of informed elites making decisions that are best for the country.
- It unduly privileges the status quo, perhaps without any good reason for doing so, thereby hamstringing the majority from changing policies or constitutional provisions that may no longer be useful or desirable.
A: It unduly privileges the status quo, perhaps without any good reason for doing so, thereby hamstringing the majority from changing policies or constitutional provisions that may no longer be useful or desirable.

Q: What was it about the Stamp Act that helped bring the American colonies together?
- The Stamp Act, organized by the colonists themselves, was a way to raise revenue to fight the British in the Revolutionary War. Without the resources raised by The Stamp Act, George Washington would not have been able to win the war.
- The Stamp Act immediately preceded the signing of the Declaration of Independence, so it contributed directly to uniting the American colonists against the British during the Revolutionary War.
- Such taxes on commerce alienated powerful interests, including well-off traders in the North and prosperous planters in the South, who complained that the tax was enacted in England without the colonists’ input, hence the slogan “No taxation without representation,” which expressed a dual concern with political ideals and material self-interest.
A: Such taxes on commerce alienated powerful interests, including well-off traders in the North and prosperous planters in the South, who complained that the tax was enacted in England without the colonists’ input, hence the slogan “No taxation without representation,” which expressed a dual concern with political ideals and material self-interest.

Q: In what way is the Declaration of Independence’s idea that “all men are created equal” a democratic principle? In what sense are people equal if, in practice, they are all different from one another?
- While people are endowed with different talents and abilities, a basic democratic principle holds that economic and social outcomes should be relatively equal, and that a government that fails to produce those ends is not living up to the democratic promise.
- A basic principle of democracy is that all people should be treated equally in every way all of the time. There are never instances where different treatment is acceptable whether the subject is tax rates, voting rights, or parking spots.
- While people are endowed with different talents and abilities, a basic democratic principle holds that all should be equal participants in making the laws they will live under, and take part in choosing the leaders who will represent them.
A: While people are endowed with different talents and abilities, a basic democratic principle holds that all should be equal participants in making the laws they will live under, and take part in choosing the leaders who will represent them.

Q: What were the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation?
- The national government was too strong and tended to tax the states and the people too heavily.
- The president under the Articles was too strong, and the scope of legislative authority granted to Congress was too broad, giving too much power to the central government.
- The central government was too weak. It could not raise taxes, there was no president to enforce the laws, no judiciary to hear disputes between and among the states, a super-majority of states was needed to approve legislation, and unanimity among the state delegations to change the Articles themselves.
A: The central government was too weak. It could not raise taxes, there was no president to enforce the laws, no judiciary to hear disputes between and among the states, a super-majority of states was needed to approve legislation, and unanimity among the state delegations to change the Articles themselves.

Q: From what James Madison says in Federalist No. 10, what economic interest was the Constitution designed to protect?
- The right of the majority to pass debtor relief laws.
- The right of interest groups -- or factions -- to influence policy-making.
- The right to acquire and maintain property.
A: The right to acquire and maintain property.

Q: What did James Madison mean by “factions,” and what danger did they pose?
- Madison worried that if governments did not prohibit the right of people to organize into factions, those groups would dominate policy and lawmaking. Madison therefore saw the need to prohibit these well organized groups as integral to the preservation of republican government.
- Madison worried that if governments did not take steps to reduce the influence of factions that they would tear republican institutions apart. Therefore, while an advocate of free speech in general, Madison thought censorship of interest groups trying to influence politics worth pursuing.
- By “faction” Madison meant groups pursuing their self-interest above the public good, which he feared would organize into political majorities and trample on the rights of opponents, quickly enacting policies to the contrary of a more general public interest.
A: By “faction” Madison meant groups pursuing their self-interest above the public good, which he feared would organize into political majorities and trample on the rights of opponents, quickly enacting policies to the contrary of a more general public interest.

Q: What were the main compromises reached during the Constitutional Convention?
- For the most part, little compromise was necessary during the Constitutional Convention because the delegates largely agreed on the provisions that should be included in the new constitution. After all, there is a reason the process has been referred to as the "miracle in Philadelphia."
- The most important compromise worked out at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia was the decision to include a Bill of Rights in the Constitution, without which the document would most likely not have been ratified. In doing this, the framers anticipated the complaints of those who might oppose ratification of the new constitution.
- The Great Compromise – also known as the Connecticut Compromise – dealt with representation in Congress, giving more seats to large states in the House, and equal representation in the Senate; the 3/5ths clause allowed the Southern slave states to count that percentage of its slave population for the purposes of representation in the House and the Electoral College; finally, the creation of that Electoral College system for electing presidents resolved the debate over choosing the executive.
A: The Great Compromise – also known as the Connecticut Compromise – dealt with representation in Congress, giving more seats to large states in the House, and equal representation in the Senate; the 3/5ths clause allowed the Southern slave states to count that percentage of its slave population for the purposes of representation in the House and the Electoral College; finally, the creation of that Electoral College system for electing presidents resolved the debate over choosing the executive.

Q: Why was conflict between the different branches of government built into the Constitution?
- One way to make sure that people pay attention to politics rather than just their own daily lives is to produce conflict. People love conflict, so the more there is, the more likely it is that people will vote and pay attention to the issues.
- Madison thought that a process of conflict would enable the strongest faction to survive in a rough and tumble political debate, thereby allowing The People to identify which man, branch, or group should hold power and make all the decisions. If that man, branch, or group failed in its policies, The People would be able to "throw the bums out" during the next election cycle.
- Conflict was meant to reduce the chances that one man, one branch, or a small group of people would be able to monopolize the power of government, thereby reducing the likelihood of tyranny, and increasing the chances that policy would emerge as the product of compromise and contribute towards the public good.
A: Conflict was meant to reduce the chances that one man, one branch, or a small group of people would be able to monopolize the power of government, thereby reducing the likelihood of tyranny, and increasing the chances that policy would emerge as the product of compromise and contribute towards the public good.

Q: How is the Constitution different from the Articles of Confederation?
- Because the framers feared government tyranny, they made sure that the Constitution provided for a much weaker government than existed under the Articles of Confederation. Evidence of this can be seen by their decision to include Article 1, Section 8 of the document, which lists and limits the sorts of laws Congress can pass.
- The new Constitution did not provide for a Supreme Court, which was only added later by a Constitional Amendment following the Civil War.
- Unlike the Articles, the Constitution derived its authority from The People rather than the states, provided for a separate executive branch and federal courts, gave the national government the right to regulate commerce, and Congress the power to tax.
A: Unlike the Articles, the Constitution derived its authority from The People rather than the states, provided for a separate executive branch and federal courts, gave the national government the right to regulate commerce, and Congress the power to tax.

Q: How did the authors of the Constitution address the concerns of those who worried that the new federal government would be too strong?
- The framers ensured that states would be able to oppose the federal government when it did not like the laws passed by Congress by giving states the power to "nullify" federal laws.
- The framers of the Constitution ensured that states would be able to oppose the federal government by making it easy to pass constitutional amendments, and by providing legal steps for states to leave the Union if they so desired.
- The Constitution makes it difficult for the national government to exercise power through the separation of powers and checks and balances between the three branches. While the authority granted to the federal government is "supreme," it is also limited, most explicitly by Article 1, Section 8, which identifies the scope of Congress' lawmaking power. Meanwhile, state sovereignty remained significant, especially given the broad authority connected to state "police powers."
A: The Constitution makes it difficult for the national government to exercise power through the separation of powers and checks and balances between the three branches. While the authority granted to the federal government is "supreme," it is also limited, most explicitly by Article 1, Section 8, which identifies the scope of Congress' lawmaking power. Meanwhile, state sovereignty remained significant, especially given the broad authority connected to state "police powers."