Transcript
Use with ChatGPT / Claude Auto-scroll A
Explains why the Constitution still needed ratification and introduces the Anti-Federalists and Federalists. Covers the main Anti-Federalist leaders, their concerns about federal power, and the map of regional support.
Speaker A
The Constitution was created, but that meant nothing if the majority of the states did not agree to it.They needed three quarters, or 75% of the states to ratify the new Constitution in order for it to become actionable or enacted.By the summer of 1789, two years after they agreed on the Constitution at the end of the summer in 1787, nine of the 13 had ratified it and that was enough.However, New York and Virginia had not.These states were needed because they were two of the most populous and powerful states.
So the new government would be quite weak without them having agreed to the Constitution.So this will turn into a major debate with people arguing for and against the new Constitution.The sides became known as the Anti Federalists and the Federalists.These were not political parties.These were just names for the side of a debate.
Now, when we get into Unit two, there will be a party called the Federalist Party that is a completely separate organization with different goals and different rules.
Sorry, my phone was buzzing.It was my mom calling me.I will finish this first.
So when we get to Unit two, I'll say the same thing.These are not political parties, though.We'll start with the Anti Federalist.The four gentlemen here are some of the more famous or important supporters.I don't have their names up there because you don't actually need to know them, but I'll just name them off real quick.
Top left, right here is Patrick Henry, author, very famous for saying, give me liberty or give me death.
Samuel Adams, top right.We've talked about him.He of the Sons of Liberty.Bottom right is James Monroe from Virginia.Wealthy, wealthy planter, future president.
He is the fifth president.Right.Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe.Yeah, fifth president.And then bottom left is George Mason, who never necessarily held a major national political office, but he was very wealthy and a lot of the money that was used to help win the Revolutionary War.
He was one of the big financiers of that.He also has a university named after him, George Mason University.It was a big college basketball school usually.Now, Jefferson also expressed some of these same sentiments, but he wasn't involved in any of this because he was ambassador to France.In fact, he wasn't involved in the Constitution at all because he was overseas.
So he's not involved here.But he tended to lean towards the Anti Federalist side.
What are their arguments?What the Anti Federalists argued was that the Philadelphia Convention did not even attempt to fix the Articles, therefore they had no right to write a new Constitution.Second, they argued that the new federal government was Too strong.
There's too much power at the top.Third, the people are cut out of the system.There's too many speed bumps or roadblocks between the people and the government.They pointed to things like the Electoral college.Fourth power.
This new powerful government, national government, is dangerous and potentially tyrannical, essentially saying that the same things that happen under Britain will happen under this new government.And fifth and final, they said that if this Constitution is to go through, and the only way they would agree to it is if a Bill of Rights was added to protect the citizens.Since the Constitution did not list the rights of citizens, there was high potential for citizens to have their rights limited or removed, like what happened with the Coercive Acts.If they are listed, they argued, then they can be specifically and implicitly protected.And that's the anti Federalist.
The other side of this debate are the.Oh, sorry, here's the map showing the support.And you can see it's pretty divided, right?The blue being Federalist majority, favoring ratification, favoring approving the Constitution.The red against the few areas of tan brown, whatever this is, being mixed or evenly divided.And then the green just not being populated largely by Americans, either unpopulated or native territory.
Introduces the leading Federalists and their case for a stronger national government. Also explains the Federalist Papers and how they helped persuade the public to approve the Constitution.
Speaker A
So the Federalists, the big three here, Alexander Hamilton, big.The big picture on the right, John James Madison, bottom left.Obviously he's on this side in favor of the Constitution, Virginia plan, right.And then top left is John Jay.I talked about him before.He was one of the people who negotiated the Treaty of Paris of 1783.He's also one of the three major Federalists.
Their arguments, pretty straightforward.One, they argue that the new government is stronger because it clearly needed to be.I mean, look at how bad the Articles were with minimal national government power.Something needed to change in that regard.The pendulum had swung too far away from national government having power.
You got to swing it back to something more reasonable.Second, they argue that checks and balances would prevent corruption and the trampling of individual rights and also corruption in the government, like I said.Third, they said the Bill of Rights was not necessary.Madison believed that the rights were inherent to the Constitution, meaning that you didn't need to list them out.They were, everybody knows their rights.
And that was that.He didn't see the need to spell them out.And he believed that if you did that it would lead to problems of interpretation.
Right.Because the rights that we know that are spelled out in the Bill of Rights, nobody's ever argued over, let's say the right to bear arms.Right.
He also saw this argument as fear mongering, as the anti Federalists just stirring up fears that the government was going to trample their rights without any proof that that would actually happen.Right.They're just using fear to try to win their argument, which is actually a whole point in towards their argument that the masses could be easily led.Fear is a great motivator, particularly when it comes to political ideology.
However, they said that if adding a Bill of Rights will convince the anti Federalists to agree to the new Constitution, then they will write one and it to the Constitution.So they don't agree with it, they don't think it's necessary.But if that's what it takes to get the anti Federalists on board, then they'll do it.Now the Federalists are going to put all of their arguments into a series of essays called the Federalist Papers.The arguments on both sides actually were laid out in print, but the Federalist arguments became an important basis of constitutional interpretation.
This was 85 total essays written primarily by the three aforementioned men.Now initially written anonymously, but we figured out who wrote what in the intervening years.This outlined the blueprint for how this new government would work.It explained the how and why of how the Constitution was written.And it's considered some of the best and most important political writing in US history.
It's still referencing court cases and legal arguments to this very day.I based much of my lectures on the Constitution straight from the Federalist Papers.The whole thing I talked about with the Electoral College and the reasonings, that's from the Federalist Papers.That's not my interpretation.That's literally what they said.
The guys who made it.So there's 85 essays here.Number one, I'm just kidding.Not going to go through all 85 Federalist essays.This greatly influenced the population in favor of a new Constitution.
So eventually that Constitution will get approved and it will go into effect later in 1789.
Describes the promise and adoption of the Bill of Rights as a compromise to ease Anti-Federalist fears. Clarifies that these amendments originally limited only the national government.
Speaker A
There's one more thing though.Remember they agreed to a Bill of Rights and it will be a couple years, but 10amendments.The first 10amendments of the Constitution will be added in 1791.
And these are.This is the Bill of rights.The first 10amendments to the US Constitution.Remember these are not part of the original Constitution.They are changes to remove fear of anti Federalist that the new government would trample their rights.Also, these rights and protections were solely for the national government.
They did not specifically apply to the states.And that was only changed by various Supreme Court cases over the next 200 plus years.
The bill of Rights only applies or applied originally to the national bill government.So if the states violated your freedom of speech, that was not necessarily a problem.Good Lord, what just drove by my house?
I don't know if y' all could hear that, but somebody mowing or something.Stop it.
I'm sorry, I can't make them stop.I'm almost done, though.
All of the Bill of Rights, all, all except for number 10, focused on individual liberties and rights, except number 10, which deals with the state specifically.It's the rights of states.It's important as an American or as.As American citizen or as an.As someone living here, to know your rights.
So we're going to look at these 10.
Breaks down the First Amendment protections for speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. Emphasizes the limits of free speech and the separation of church and state.
Speaker A
First is the freedom of.I have a list here to help you.So this is the basic list, but I'll say a bit more about everything.So the first protects the freedoms of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition.These, as I've mentioned before, was a reaction to the coercive or intolerable acts we discussed, among other things, speech, religion, press.
We all understand assembly is gathering in public.Petition is the ability to.We understand what a petition is.This is the right to petition the government.So basically to ask the government for things.
The least known of these, obviously.But I want to talk for a moment about speech.Regarding speech, the.This only applies to the government limiting a person's speech and no other entity.If a business fires someone for tweeting terrible stuff, their legal right to free speech has not been infringed.
If Twitter decides that you're posting stuff that's against a violation of their terms of service and they temporarily suspend your account or they take you off of Twitter entirely, your right to free speech has not been infringed.It's simply a case of being faced with the consequences of your actions.
The.The second step of the F around and find out clause, perhaps.So freedom of speech is only from the government restricting your speech with.With a few limits, like you can't have speech that causes harm, like yelling fire in a movie theater or bomb on a plane, because that causes panic, people can get hurt, and you know, you can't make threats that you know.Right, we understand that.
But otherwise the government can't tell you what to say and they can't punish you for what you say.But businesses, friends, you know, employers, they could do that all day long.That is not a violation of your free speech according to the US Constitution.
Also, one thing, religion, religion, religion, as in the First Amendment, is both the freedom of and from religion Specifically, you cannot require a religious test for political office or government service.In other words, you can't say only Christians or only Baptists or Lutherans can have this job.Or you can't say you can run, you can be governor of Texas unless you're an atheist.Right.You can't have those kinds of laws.Those are unconstitutional.Because again, it's the government restricting your freedom of or from religion.The separation of church and state is a vital, critical part of the Constitution and the way the American government was built.No government employee can require adherence to their religion.So if you're serving as a, in a government, in a political office or government job, you cannot require the people you are serving to follow your religious beliefs.
That's a violation of the, the, the people you serves.Freedom from religion or freedom of religion.So the US does not have an official religion.Yes, the majority of the population is Christian, but if you look at the founders, a lot of them weren't actually Christian.They were either deist or agnostic.
So they were very clear that freedom of religion.I mean there's a reason it's here in the First Amendment.Press is self explanatory journalism and reporting without government limitation.Again, except for threats or things like libel or slander.Assembly is protesting.Petition is exactly like it sounds.So that's the First Amendment.Most of these aren't going to take this long.
Reviews the Second through Tenth Amendments, including arms, search and seizure, due process, jury trials, and states' rights. Concludes with the overall balance of power in the Constitution and the end of Unit One.
Speaker A
Second, the right to keep and bear arms.Also a reaction to things like the Intolerable Acts.
The Battle of Lexington Concord.I didn't get into it, but part of the reason that battle happened is the British army was trying to seize the weapons that the sons of liberty were stockpiling.What it actually says, a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.It's obviously a contentious issue in the only country that has consistent mass shootings.
So all I will say about this is think about the words well regulated Third Amendment.No quartering of soldiers.It's a reaction to the second Quartering act among others.But again you sensing a pattern here, right?These are reactions to things that were happening to them.
There was a reason the antifederalists were worried about their rights being trampled because their rights had been trampled.
The third Amendment is essentially irrelevant today, but it was considered necessary then if we get to the point where quartering is a thing or a worry, things have gone really sideways here in the US Fourth Amendment.No unreasonable search and seizure.You must have probable cause for warrants.This is a reaction to the writs of assistance in particular.Basically your person and or property cannot be searched without a reasonable suspicion and search warrants cannot be issued without a legitimate and probable reason or cause.
Piece of advice, if an officer asks if they can search you, always say no.This applies to your person, home, car and phone.This is not an anti police message, it's a pro your rights.Piece of advice, if they want to search you, they can get a warrant.If they ask, say no.
And if they say things like well you know, if you don't have anything to hide, no, screw that, say no.
Fifth amendment covers things like double jeopardy, self incrimination, due process.These are all pretty straightforward.You can't be convicted of the same exact crime twice.Like the murder of a specific person.You can't testify in such a way to incriminate yourself.
You must go and you must go through the legal processes to be deprived of either life, liberty or property.Pretty straightforward right.The due process is the last one.Self incrimination, can't testify and then double jeopardy.You can't be convicted of murder.If you murdered someone, they can't convict you of it twice.
Sixth Amendment, a speedy trial, an impartial jury.You have to be notified of being accused of a crime.You have the right to confront the witnesses against you in court, not just in general.You have the right to obtain witnesses in your defense and you have the right to an attorney for your defense.Again, pretty straightforward.But never ever represent yourself in an actual court of law.You will lose every time because you are not a legal expert.Lawyers need lawyers and if a lawyer needs a lawyer, you need a lawyer.Seventh, the right to a trial by jury in civil cases.So not criminal.
This is a jury trial for non criminal cases where the civil cases usually deal with money, where the value in question is over $20.
Pretty straightforward.So like if you're suing somebody because they caused you monetary harm, you have the right to have a jury trial if it's over a small claims amount.Eighth, no excessive bail, no fines, no cruel and or unusual punishment.Again, pretty straightforward.Ninth Amendment.It protects all of the rights not listed in the first eight.Basically covers everything reasonable but not specifically listed.They did not want other rights to be limited or denied because they weren't listed here.And then the 10th amendment powers of the national government and not prohibited by the Constitution are then powers of the states and or the people basically guaranteeing the rights of states and saying that if the national government doesn't have the power to do it.And it's not something that's prohibited, then the states or the people have that authority.
So as we see, the Constitution still allowed considerable power to the states.But how this all works is something we'll talk about in Unit two.So that is the end of Unit one study.Let me know if you have questions and good luck on your exams.