Constitutional Convention - AP Government and Politics

The Articles of Confederation was a loose assemblage of the thirteen different states of the newly independent United States of America. With one representative from each state in Congress and few enforcement mechanisms, states were completely free to ignore federal laws regarding taxation, trade, or raising of armies. The 1787 Constitutional Convention was held to fix many of these issues, especially in light of events like Shays' Rebellion and financial crises.

The New Jersey Plan, as opposed to the Virginia Plan, called for a creation of a unicameral legislature in which each state has one vote to use in the enactment of laws. The Virginia Plan wanted proportional representation so that states with a greater population would have a greater say in the direction of the country. Logically it follows that the smaller states would have been much more likely to support the New Jersey plan. California was not a state at the time of this debate, and New York, Virginia, and North Carolina were three of the most populous states in the union. So the correct answer is Delaware.

The Connecticut Compromise was part of the debate on the ratification of the Constitution and the construction of the new Legislative Branch. The Compromise created a bicameral legislature in the United States with a lower and an upper house. The lower house would have proportional representation for each state based on its population, whereas the upper house would have an equal number of representatives for each state. The lower house was called The House of Representatives and the upper house was called The Senate.

Article 5 of the United States Constitution is concerned with establishing the process by which amendments can be proposed and ratified to alter the laws in the Constitution. An amendment, according to the Constitution, can be adopted and sent to the states for approval in one of the following ways: a two-thirds majority of the Senate and House; a two-thirds vote in a national convention of the states. To become part of the Constitution, it must then be passed by three-fourths of the states at a state ratifying convention.

At the Constitutional Convention, there were disagreements on how the Legislative Branch should be established. The big states, like New York and Virginia, favored a directly proportional representation structure based on the population of each state—this plan was called the Virginia Plan; whereas smaller states, like New Jersey, favored a system whereby each state would have equal representation in Congress regardless of the size of it’s population. This disagreement was remedied through the Connecticut Compromise, which established a bicameral legislature with a lower and upper house. This created a House of Representatives based on the population of each state, and a Senate, where each state has equal membership, regardless of population size. Additionally, the Framers could not agree on how to count slaves for the purposes of representation. New York, a free state, would have favored not counting slaves as citizens for purposes of representation in order to limit the ability of the South to affect government policy. This issue was remedied by the Three-fifths Compromise, which stated that each slave counted for three-fifths of a person for the sake of representation.

The Northwest Ordinance took place during the Articles of Confederation. It is considered by many historians to have had the most lasting impact of this period of American history. The Ordinance defined the original process by which new states could be admitted into the Union. It prohibited slavery in the territories, but allowed the states to vote on the issue of slavery once they joined the union.

After the U.S. became an independent nation, it drafted the Articles of Confederation as a general guideline for the colonies to run their new country. However, because the colonies had just gained freedom from a tyrannical, oppressive government, they shied away from creating a strong national government. Thus, the Articles were weak. After Shays' rebellion (an armed uprising), they knew that the Articles had to be reformed if their nation were to survive. So, they decided to form a written Constitution at the Constitutional Convention.

This is a slightly tricky question purely based off of the competing answers. The Connecticut (or Great) Compromise essentially took elements of the Virginia Plan and elements of the New Jersey Plan, and smashed them together.

The Virginia Plan advocated, among other things, a bicameral legislature of which both chambers would be apportioned based off of population. The lower chamber would be elected by the people of each state, and then the upper chamber would be selected through a two-step process: (1) each state legislature would nominate candidates and (2) the lower chamber would elect the upper chamber from the list generated by the lower. This arrangement favored big states, as it was based purely off of population (remember: at the time, VA was considered a large state, population-wise).

The New Jersey Plan, on the other hand, took a rather dim view of the whole apportionment-by-population thing, and essentially advocated for a unicameral legislature where each state was given an equal number of delegates, regardless of size (essentially, it was a reaffirmation of the Articles of Confederation, just with some tweaks here and there).

The Great Compromise took elements of both to form the government that we have today, as follows: the lower chamber (the House) was to be apportioned based off of the population of each of the states (VA Plan), and the upper chamber (the Senate) was to be equally divided regardless of population of each of the states (NJ Plan).

Virginia as one of the most populous stats at the time proposed that both houses of congress, representation would be based on population. New Jersey proposed equal representation. Connecticut proposed one house based on population and another on equality. Ohio wasn't a state yet, and Rhode Island did not send delegates to the Constitutional Convention.

This is another trick question. Honestly, this is a very tricky question, although you hopefully picked “The Philadelphia Convention” as the WRONG answer. Yes, the wrong answer. The Philadelphia Convention, ostensibly, was NOT to get rid of the Articles of Confederation; it was, on the face of things, to AMEND the Articles.

Now, one of the delegates in particular (James Madison) hoped for an incredibly drastic change culminating in the destruction of the Articles of Confederation. And, arguably, since he ended up as one of the chief architects of the Constitution, it is fair to say that he got his wish.

At any rate, Madison (and perhaps one or two others) were alone in their machinations. The majority of the other delegates attended the Convention under the impression that they were to amend the Articles and fix some of the more egregious problems. This, of course, changed fairly quickly, but the original purpose of the Convention was to amend, not destroy.

This is a straightforward question. The Constitution is conspicuously silent about political parties. In fact, the Founders regarded political parties as particularly vulgar and inappropriate. We see hints of this throughout the Constitution itself, along with George Washington’s farewell speech.

The (original, un-amended) Constitution does not mention political parties; indeed, it’s likely that the Framers didn’t even consider their existence. Prior to the ratification of the 12th amendment, for example, the President was elected by receiving the highest number of votes in the Electoral College; the Vice-President, however, was elected by receiving the SECOND-highest number of votes in the Electoral College (this is a bit simplified, but still true).

When political parties began emerging, you can imagine how many problems this caused (generally it would be the President from one party, and the VP from the opposing party).

George Washington actually warned about the dangers of political parties during his farewell speech (the speech he gave when retiring from office).

This question is slightly tricky, but not if you pay close attention to the wording. “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.” This, of course, is the Constitution and a very legalese way of saying that 9 states had to ratify in order for the Constitution to supersede the Articles of Confederation.

This is politically and historically significant for two reasons: one, it removed the unanimous consent rule from the Articles of Confederation (AoC); two, it mandated that ratifying conventions—NOT state legislatures—had to approve the Constitution.

Remember: under the AoC, any amendments to the articles had to be approved by every single state! (Or, more accurately, every single state’s delegates had to approve it). Thus, the constitution purported to replace the AoC—using its OWN mechanism! That said, the Constitution didn’t REALLY take effect until VA and NY ratified it, even though 9/13 states ratified prior to those two.

As for the ratifying conventions requirement, it quite cleverly removed a lot of power from the hands of ardent antifederalists who were holed up in various states’ legislatures, and put it in the hands of the people of the states.

The famous words "We, the People" decorate the top of the Constitution, the formal document drawn up by the representatives of the first 13 states following the American Revolution.

The Articles of Confederation were drawn up in Continental Congress. Power was placed in unicameral congress. The Articles established no permanent executive or judicial branch. Under the Articles, congress also had very limited power. They could not levy taxes or control trade and commerce between the states. Congress could only use and enforce expressly delegated powers mentioned in the Articles. To increase effectiveness, the Articles would need to be revised.

In the early years of the American republic, many Founders believed that only white male property owners were qualified to vote. Blacks were considered slaves and denied the right to vote. Women were not given the right to vote until the 1920s.

At the Constitutional Convention the structure of Congress was contentious. Smaller states argued for equal representation among states while larger, more populous states, argued for representation based on population. The Great Compromise was the decision to create two houses of congress, the House, based on state population, and the Senate, each state gets two representatives.

The Founders, including such prominent men as Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and James Monroe, believed that in order for any governmental system to be legitimate, it absolutely needed one essential quality: the consent of the governed. Political power, as Jefferson and John Adams both wrote, is dangerous and requires careful handling, so that it may both respect and uphold the natural rights of its citizenry without claiming any of the poisonous controls of divine right or hereditary might that were espoused by many monarchs. To this end, the people who live under a government must first consent to the operation of that government, agreeing to allow leaders and institutions to function. If such consent was not secured, or if it was first received but then abused, the Founders held that it was perfectly justifiable for the people to withdraw their consent and to dismantle their governmental structure – “to throw off such tyranny,” as the Declaration of Independence so beautifully states.

While the Articles of Confederation were undeniably and hopelessly flawed, they did at least allow the national government to properly provide for the administration of the new country’s vast federal lands out West (although many historians argue that this is hardly just compensation). In 1787, the national government passed the Northwest Ordinance, an act that helped foster new exploration and settlement of the lands immediately adjacent to the thirteen colonies (these lands were seen as being “out West,” aka farther West than the Eastern shore). These lands were rich in resources, including timber, fresh water, fertile farming lands, wild animals, and minerals. However, despite this salient administration of federal lands, the Articles were overwhelmingly a failure, almost from the very beginning. Under the Articles, the national government was so weak that it was essentially entirely dependent on the states’ governments; for example, Congress was unable to pass any taxes and had to obtain any funds from the states, which were not at all compelled to provide any money. Additionally, Congress could not control domestic or foreign trade, the national government was cut off from engaging with the citizens, the states were not obligated to send delegates to the government on a regular basis, and Congress was unable to maintain its army and navy. The states were permitted to govern themselves unchecked, without any deference or synchronicity with the national government.

The delegates at Philadelphia’s Constitutional Convention shared several core beliefs that helped inspire and guide their activities together. One such belief was that human nature is innately selfish, so that all humans have a tendency to act in their own self-interest; therefore, government needed to make sure to account for such aspirations by controlling power and limiting corruption. The best mechanism for such control, they believed, was limited government – a system of checks and balances in which power was spread amongst various branches of government, so that no one individual or branch possessed all control. The delegates also felt quite keenly that this government must protect and respect individual private property rights (such as land and money). Money, or more accurately, the unequal distribution of money, is the ultimate root of all political conflict, second only to religion and loyalty to individual leaders. Perhaps more than anything else, the Convention delegates feared the rise of factions (political parties or interest groups), which they knew political conflicts were sure to engender. They viewed factions as deeply threatening to government, as impediments to proper governmental functioning and as incitement towards instability, corruption, and violence. The delegates recognized that it is impossible to altogether prevent the existence of factions, as people naturally disagree and form associations based on these disagreements and/or on shared commonalities, so they focused their energies on controlling these groups, making sure that no one faction (no matter how popular) would be able to dominate the government and thus become tyrannical.