Political Science Essay: US Constitution, Independence, and Governance

This essay delves into the foundational principles of American governance, tracing the historical context from the grievances against British rule to the establishment of the US Constitution. It begins by outlining the colonists' primary complaints against the British monarchy, including lack of representation, economic burdens, and an unjust legal system, which fueled the push for independence. The essay then explores the motivations behind the colonists' fight for freedom, emphasizing the ideals of equality, liberty, and justice. It examines the Articles of Confederation, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses, and explaining the factors that led to the 1787 Constitutional Convention. The essay discusses the key debates during the convention, including representation, slavery, and the balance of power between the states and the federal government. It analyzes the roles of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches as defined in the Constitution, and contrasts the Federalist and Anti-Federalist viewpoints on the structure of the government, taxation, and the judicial system. Finally, the essay argues against the idea of making the Constitution easier to amend, emphasizing the importance of stability and consensus in governance. The essay references Ginsberg, Lowi, Weir and Tolbert's 'WE THE PEOPLE' to support its arguments.

Running Head: POLITICAL SCIENCE
Political Science
Name:
Institution and Affiliations:
Instructor:
Date:

POLITICAL SCIENCE
Question 1
The first most objectionable complaint against the British King leading to rebellion from
American Colonists was the refusal to have them represented in the British government.
Initially, there had been Colonist representatives that mustered the army and collected taxes and
also contributed in setting local policies. However, after the British war with the French, Great
Britain refused to accept any legislations suggested by leaders in the 13 Colonies in North
America. The lack of parliamentary representation in the British government angered Colonists
to stage the 1765 to 1783 war for independence.
Secondly, the economic troubles after the French & Indian War where the British
increased taxes on the Colonies to fund the expenses of the war did not go down well with a third
of the Colonists. The British government increased regulations on trade including the Currency
Act and/or the Sugar Act of 1764. The colonies were only allowed to trade with the countries
that the British government chose and there was no free trade. Due to the Currency Act which
banned the printing of money within the colonies; the later had to rely on the poor British
economy to survive. The 1773 Boston Tea Party was the culmination of the Colonists’
expression against the taxation without representation approach.
Further, the criminal justice system within the colonies was quite unfavorable to the
Colonists and this was quite objectionable. Despite the international outrage that the Boston
Massacre attracted and also the arrest of Colonist free thinkers like Alexander McDougall, the
soldiers responsible for these heinous acts were acquitted of the same. These soldiers among
other British loyalists that infringed on the rights of the colonists including unsanctioned police
searches in private quarters were not charged for their acts. Instead, the colonial government
introduced legislation where accused officers would only be sent for trial in England. This

POLITICAL SCIENCE
limited number of possible witnesses against them making to a lower number of convictions as
compared to atrocities against the colonies. The system was also corrupt in that the judges were
appointed and also paid by the British Colonial government. As such, there was no fair trial for
Colonists, leading to extensive outcry and a call to struggle for independence.
Question 2
If I had been there in the year 1776, I would have had sufficient motivation to participate
in the cause towards independence. I believe in the words of the declaration that all men have
been created equal and have rights that are inalienable including rights to life, happiness and
liberty. Looking at the atrocities committed against the colonists like the Boston Massacre, the
corruption within the judicial system and the unfavorable trade controls through excessive taxes,
I could as well been able to stand against the then colonial government in search for
independence.
Question 3
The articles of Articles of Confederation responded to the demands and wishes envisaged
in the Declaration of Independence in 1776 by establishing the United States of America as a
sovereign country that is independent from Great Britain. It provided that the 13 states remain
sovereign, control their own economy and free from Great Britain. For self-governance, the
Confederation initially introduced a national government which comprised a one-house
legislature referred to as Congress with each state having one vote. Its establishment meant that
no more taxes could be paid to the British government as each state would have its own money.
The Articles of Confederation were flawed first because as a constitution, it did not
establish a central authority for governing the 13 colonies then forming the USA and further,

POLITICAL SCIENCE
there was no executive power. The first constitution did not also have the judiciary and thus there
were no adequate solutions to disputes within the states. It also did not establish an authority to
be in charge of taxation and this meant that there was not collection of money to pay soldiers and
cater for the American War. While the Continental government started printing money, it was
considered worthless as each state had its own money. This made it difficult for the colonies to
trade with other countries as one sovereign entity. All these factors contributed to the call for the
1787 constitutional convention.
Question 4
Competing views on Congress representation during the 1787 Constitutional convention
in Philadelphia included one that the delegates had no authority the then federal representational
scheme stipulated in the Articles of Confederation. According to this view, the states needed to
remain equally represented by delegates that could be appointed by legislatures of the state,
within the unicameral Congress. The opposing view as advanced by a section of delegates was
that the representation scheme outlined by Articles of Confederation was then flawed. They
insisted that it needed a replacement with a more "national" one as the other was unicameral in
nature. Their differing views went on for over six weeks without resolution until the Connecticut
Compromise. Another issue was on the mode of election where one side supported government
appointment of representatives while the other wanted a system that involved the exercise of a
people’s democratic right to choose leaders. The “Great Compromise” saw the delegates resolve
that the House of Representatives was to be based on the population while each state would have
two members in the Senate.

POLITICAL SCIENCE
In regard to slavery, the first competing view was on whether slaves could be included in
determining the population of a state and therefore the electoral vote; and also the taxes to pay.
While one side suggested that slaves not be included in the population, the Southern states
supported but considered a slave a three-fifth of a person. Another issue was whether slave trade
could be stopped or not. They agreed on the need to stop salve trade only until 1800, but it was
officially halted in 1807. Further, they argued on the issue of convict slaves. They agreed that
slaves who escape needed to be chased and returned to their owners.
I am impressed by the way they handled the issues understanding that they had no model
government to suit the democratic government they all wished to have as envisaged within the
Declaration of independence. However on the issue of counting a slave as a three-fifth of a
person, I see that it was somehow irrational understanding well that they contributed to the
economy of the Southern states through provision of labor.
Question 5
a
The legislature according to Article 1 of the Constitution has the responsibility of
making laws. It gives the powers to make laws by the Senate and House of Representatives
indicating their powers and the limits. In regard to the executive as covered in article 2, the
executive holds the responsibility of and/or authority to administrate. It consists of the executive
officers headed by the president. Article 3 on the other hand gives the judiciary the powers to
interpret law. It includes lower courts headed by the Supreme Court and are all made by the
Congress.
b. National Unity

POLITICAL SCIENCE
Article 4 calls upon all states to address the problems within their areas. However, they still
should work together in fixing problems that are deemed regional.
c. Amendments and ratifications
Article 5 indicates that while the constitution can be amended, new amendments can only be
added through a two-third vote approval from the Congress and 3/4 of the vote from the states.
d. Limits of the power of national Government
Under article 6, both constitutional and/or federal laws are above the state laws. Even so, every
law must be in line with US Constitution.
Question 6
First, the federalists agitated for central government that was strong enough to rule directly, the
citizens of United States but not through state governments. However, the anti-federalists sought
for central government with weak powers in that it would only serve the state governments
through performance of a limited number of functions which were only appropriate if carried out
by a single authority other than the rest of the states. These functions would be national defense
and/or diplomacy. The rest of functions according to the anti-federalists would just be carried
out by every state on its own.
Secondly, the two sides argued over the structuring of the judicial system. The Federalists
supported the idea of having a strong federal court system but the Anti-federalists wanted the
federal courts to be limited in that lawsuits by citizens of a particular state against the state would
not be heard by the Supreme court but instead heard by the courts of the specific state in line
with its laws. This means that if the antifederalists’ position would be taken then the powers of

POLITICAL SCIENCE
both the judiciary and the legislature would be destroyed. This power and other powers given to
the U.S. courts would result in the destruction of both the judicial function and the legislative
function of the state governments. The federalists were of the need for national government to
veto any laws set by state and decisions taken by state courts.
Further, the two sides had a stand-off over taxation. In this case, the federalists wanted
the federal government to have power to obtain taxes directly from citizens. This was to enable it
to fund defense, effective diplomacy and to pay its local and international debts. On the other
hand, the Anti-federalists were opposed to this idea and wanted the federal government get taxes
from each state government. According to the anti-federalists, lack of a check of the federal
government’s taxation, would likely become tyrannical on not only the people but also on the
states.
Looking at the country’s democracy today, I think that the Antifederalists were not
justified in their concerns 230 year ago. It is evident that the federal system does not infringe on
the rights of its citizens at all and it vetoes any legislations made by states that are not in line
with the constitution, mainly for the betterment of the country’s judicial, executive and
legislative system. The country is able to fund the best defense across the world through direct
taxes among other sectors under a common currency that is also among the strongest currency
worldwide.
Question 7
I do not agree that the system of government would be more democratic and/or fair in case the
US constitution is more easily emendable. Article 5 of the US constitution sets the minimum
number of states (38) and of Congress (two thirds) needed to change the constitution.
Understanding that democracy is a government for the people, the majority has the right to

POLITICAL SCIENCE
choose the direction of the country and this includes ratification of particular laws from the
federal government. Therefore, making the constitution hard to alter and amend helps the
country and states to stabilize in that any little proposed amendments do not easily find
themselves in the US constitution without the agreement of the majority.

POLITICAL SCIENCE
References
Ginsberg, Lowi, Weir and Tolbert. WE THE PEOPLE. FULL 11TH EDITION. WW Norton,
2016. .