Chapter 2 Study Guide: the Living Constitution

AP Government & Politics: Mr. Tumino Chapter 2 Study Guide: The Living Constitution

While it is true that many Americans venerate the Constitution chiefly because they hear it mentioned in reverent tones (although, note in the chapter that many Americans do not know what specific provisions are in the Constitution), the student of government must dissect this document to discover why it has survived while other charters fade away. Is the Constitution an idealistic document? Or does it make a rather “hard-boiled” appraisal of people and try to check human weakness with human weakness? Is the Constitution great because it is majestic and unshakable — a kind of Ten Commandments good for all places and times? Or is it great because it is vague and flexible — a work of art that may mean different things to different generations?

Obviously, the Constitution of the new millennium is not that of the 1780s, if only because of the amendment process. Twenty-seven amendments have both increased and restricted the scope of national power; state power has been limited; the democratic basis of American life has been expanded by giving the vote to blacks, women, and residents of the District of Columbia; selection of the president and senate has been altered to give greater popular control.

But probably the most provocative question concerning the Constitution is that contained in the chapter title — “The Living Constitution.” The original document itself is carefully preserved under glass in the National Archives and is an old, somewhat faded parchment in eighteenth-century handwriting.

Question: Why is the Constitution a living document?

One answer: The Constitution is alive because it has received new blood through amendment.

Another answer: The Constitution has retained its vitality because of informal changes — custom, tradition, interpretation. Another answer: The Constitution is alive because its roots go deep into the American heritage, making it a document for the ages.

PART I — GLOSSARY

NATURAL LAW - A theory that defines right from wrong or law that is higher than human law. SEPARATION OF POWERS - A theory applied to the national government by the Constitution, dividing power among the three branches. CHECKS AND BALANCES - The constitutional arrangement that makes the three branches of the American government politically independent of each other but requires that they carry out many of their functions in collaboration. DIVIDED GOVERNMENT – Governance divided between the parties, especially when one party controls the presidency, the other the Congress.

11 DIRECT PRIMARY – Election in which voters choose party nominees. INITIATIVE- Procedure whereby voters, through petition, can propose a law or constitutional amendment and have it submitted to the voters. REFERENDUM – Procedure for submitting to popular vote measures passed by the legislature or proposed amendments to a state constitution. RECALL – Procedure for submitting to popular vote the removal of officials from office before the end of their term. JUDICIAL REVIEW - The power exercised by the Supreme Court in determining the constitutionality of congressional or state legislation and the authority exercised. EXECUTIVE ORDER – An order issued by a president that has the force of law. EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE – The right of confidentiality of executive communications, especially those that relate to national security. IMPOUNDMENT – Presidential refusal to allow an agency to spend funds authorized and appropriated by Congress. IMPEACHMENT – Formal accusation against a public official and the first step in removal from office. WRIT OF MANDAMUS - A Court order directing an official to perform a duty. MARBURY V. MADISON - Supreme Court decision of 1803 that established the practice of judicial review.

PART II — POLITICAL DIALOGUE: THE CLASH OF ISSUES AND IDEAS

1. Comment on the following statement: “Every nation needs certain semi-mystical symbols around which all men can rally —a flag, a man, a national anthem, the sacred writings of their forefathers. The Constitution as a symbol is such a common rallying point for Americans, be they Jew, Catholic, Protestant, atheist; be they Slav, Italian, Scot, or Swede; be they Democrat or Republican.”

Do nations need symbols? Why? What problems of this nature do the new African nations face?

Suggest a symbolic device used by a nation other than the United States.

2. Thomas Jefferson advocated that a new Constitution be adopted by every generation so that it belonged to the living, rather than the dead.

Would you approve of an automatic Constitutional Convention scheduled at 30-year intervals?

What advantages would such an arrangement have?

What would be apt to happen to the symbolic value of the Constitution?

3. “Beyond the Bill of Rights, few Constitutional amendments have radically altered the American system of government. Slavery was actually abolished by warfare,

12 rather than legislation. In all probability a new Supreme Court majority would have authorized the graduated income tax. Senators were actually chosen by the people long before the amendment was passed; women would today have the vote, Nineteenth Amendment or no.” Is this analysis valid? Can you find further evidence to make this point? Can you think of evidence that contradicts this thesis?

4. React to the following extract from a modern political speech:

“Today we live in perilous times, dominated by such doctrines as relativity. Our forefathers, the Founding Fathers, authored a great document, as valid for all time as the Ten Commandments. But modern judges, clever lawyers, have made of this Rock of Gibraltar a weathervane, which swings to the prevailing political winds. Instead of the Old Constitution, which stood four-square, they have constructed a barometer that rises and falls with every sentiment of the mob, every changing whim of the sociologists or psychologists.”

Is this a fair charge? Why?

5. “In a very fundamental sense the Constitution is undemocratic. It originally became operative when adopted by simple majorities of the conventions called in nine of the thirteen states.”

“Yet the amendment process was filled with traps and pitfalls that thwarted the majority will. All proposals for amendment were dependent on a two-thirds majority: ratification was dependent on lopsided three-fourths majorities. In other words, the Constitution was an iron trap–easy to enter; almost impossible to alter.”

Do you agree? Why? What explanation can be offered for the amendment process? Can it be defended? How have most modifications in our fundamental law been achieved?