Fluent Essays

OverviewThis assignment will help you review the 3 major plans proposed at the Constitutional Convention and also help you get used to using external Political Science resources available at the PCC Shatford Library. Please follow the directions, as they will walk you through this assignment step by step.In this assignment you will summarize the major plans that impacted the creation of the Constitution:The Virginia PlanThe New Jersey PlanConnecticut/Great CompromiseDirectionsStep 1: Research Your PlanUse the resources in the POLSC 1: Introduction to American Government Library GuideLinks to an external site. to find 2 external sources about your plan. The Article Databases tab in this resource will be particularly helpful if you are off campus. For this assignment, you may find the Gale Virtual Reference Library and the US History in Context databases useful. Step 2: Summarize Each Plan In your own words, create a 150 word summary of each plan (450 words total). Here are some questions to guide you. Please do not simply answer the questions, but rather use them to create a well-organized summary of your information. Who wrote the plan?Who benefited from the plan?What specific powers will the congress have?What powers (if any) will the executive have?Is there a separate judiciary and interpreter of laws?What will the relationship look like between the national and state governments with this plan?Again, these questions are meant to guide you, please create a summary using your own words.Please do not copy and use your own words.The assignment will be checked for plagiarism.How to Complete Your AssignmentSubmit your work here in the CANVAS system as a Word 97-2003, .docx--------------------------------------------------------------------------------For the 2 sources requested above, I have provided 2 PDFS to use.In the PDF are their citation sources (MLA 8th Edition), which are:1.Constitutional Convention. Gale U.S. History Online Collection, Gale, 2018. Gale In Context: U.S. History, https://link-gale-com.ezp.pasadena.edu/apps/doc/GDUQEI886990313/UHIC?u=pasa19871&sid=UHIC&xid=a4d0ff38. Accessed 15 Jan. 2020.2.Hebel, Sara. Virginia plan offers fiscal stability, but the attached strings worry colleges. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 18 Feb. 2000, p. A42+. Gale Academic Onefile, https://link-gale-com.ezp.pasadena.edu/apps/doc/A59513756/AONE?u=pasa19871&sid=AONE&xid=b0852b6c. Accessed 15 Jan. 2020.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Please quote these 2 PDFS in the paper. constitutional_convention.pdf virginia_plan_offers_fiscal_st.pdf Unformatted Attachment Preview Disclaimer: This is a machine generated PDF of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace original scanned PDF. Neither Cengage Learning nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the machine generated PDF. The PDF is automatically generated AS IS and AS AVAILABLE and are not retained in our systems. CENGAGE LEARNING AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the machine generated PDF is subject to all use restrictions contained in The Cengage Learning Subscription and License Agreement and/or the Gale In Context: U.S. History Terms and Conditions and by using the machine generated PDF functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against Cengage Learning or its licensors for your use of the machine generated PDF functionality and any output derived therefrom. Constitutional Convention Date: 2018 From: Gale U.S. History Online Collection Publisher: Gale, a Cengage Company Document Type: Event overview Length: 1,832 words Content Level: (Level 3) Lexile Measure: 1080L Full Text: The Constitutional Convention was a gathering of the founders of American government. These men hoped to draft a new system of U.S. governance. 55 delegates from 12 states met in Philadelphia between May and September of 1787. They gathered at the Philadelphia State House with the goal of establishing a stronger central government. Since its declaration of independence from Great Britain in 1776, the United States had been operating under a system outlined in the Articles of Confederation. Ultimately, the delegates created the United States Constitution, the foundational document of American governance. Background to the Constitutional Convention Prior to 1776, the United States existed only as a collection of colonies under the rule of Great Britain. As such, it was required to follow British laws. Leading up to its decision to fight for independence, the leaders of the 13 colonies grew increasingly frustrated with how the British Parliament treated the colonies. For example, in 1774 American activists protested against English taxes on tea by throwing chests of British tea into Boston Harbor. The British Parliament punished the Massachusetts colonists by reducing their ability to self-govern. American colonists were already upset by their lack of representation in Parliament. These new restrictions proved to be too much for the colonial government to tolerate. After declaring independence, the colonists realized they needed to create a system of self-governance. They wrote a series of rules on how their country would be run called the Articles of Confederation. This set of rules served as the United States first constitution from July 1776 to March 1789. The writers of the Articles of Confederations primary goal was to ensure the unity and protection of the United States in its first years as an independent state. This was important because the United States was engaged in the American War of Independence (or Revolutionary War) with Great Britain from 1775 to 1783. While the first leaders of the United States agreed that the country needed an official document outlining its system of government, many were unsure whether they agreed with how the Articles of Confederation organized the country. As a result, the Articles were not officially okayed as the foundation of American government until 1781, when it was finally approved by the local governments of all 13 colonies. Under the Articles, each of the 13 colonies was essentially an independent government only loosely organized together as a single country. The central government was very weak. It was not allowed to impose taxes or makes rules about how business was conducted between individual states. It was only allowed to make treaties with other countries, issue coins, settle disputes between states, and maintain the United States military. The Articles of Confederation was organized this way because many of the states leaders were afraid of creating a new system of governance that had a central government that was too powerful. They thought such a system would limit their ability to conduct their own affairs as states. As colonies, they had become used to operating independently of one another. They believed that the large physical size of the United States would make it impossible to function with one mind. They were also worried about creating a government that was too similar to the British system they were fighting against. In the end, the Articles of Confederation maintained the ability of each state to keep its “sovereignty, freedom, and independence.” As the War for Independence dragged on, the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation became more obvious. The Continental Congress formed under the Articles lacked the ability to control the states. It did not have the power to enforce any rules it created and it was not able to force states to pay it money to fund its agencies. Equally troubling, the states could deny any requests from Congress to provide troops. These issues meant there were difficulties in establishing productive foreign policy. The new republic was viewed by other countries as a simple alliance of nation-states rather than a single unified country. Strong disagreements between states in various regions further led to concerns that the new nation might split into three or four separate federations. When the war with Great Britain finally ended in 1783, the United States was changed. There was a stronger national spirit thanks to the victory over Britain. The Treaty of Paris (1783) formally set the terms of peace between Great Britain and the now-independent United States. In this agreement, Britain recognized the United States as a fully independent nation and granted this new country the rights to all land east of the Mississippi River that Britain had previously owned. By 1786, this new spirit of cooperation began to fade as the old rivalries reemerged. These issues again highlighted the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. Delegates from five states met in 1786 to discuss how to resolve these problems. They agreed that the Articles of Confederation needed to be fixed or perhaps even replaced completely. They invited representatives from all 13 states to Philadelphia to discuss the issue further. The Constitutional Convention Initially, the organizers of the Constitutional Convention hoped to simply alter the existing Articles of Confederation. In fact, the official resolution calling for the Convention stated that the goal for the meeting was for the “sole and exclusive purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation.” Under this belief, the 55 delegates gathered at Independence Hall in Philadelphia on May 25, 1787. This same building had hosted the creation of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Among the delegates were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Samuel Adams and Benjamin Franklin. George Washington, a hero of the American Revolution, was selected as the Conventions president. The debate over how to create a new, effective system of government was combative. The convention quickly split into two groups. On one side were those who believed, like Adams, that the Articles of Confederation could be fixed relatively simply. On the other side were men like Washington who thought that a completely new document that radically reworked the existing system was necessary. Washington favored a strong central government, while Adams wanted the states to retain much of their former power. The United States Constitution Over the course of nearly 100 days, the delegates carefully established a new form of representational government. Ultimately, the drafting of the Constitution fell to a group of elected delegates called the Committee of Detail. The members of this group included John Rutledge of South Carolina, Edmund Randolph of Virginia, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, and Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts. They drew from many different models of government in their composition of the Constitution. These included the existing state constitutions of the 13 colonies, the Articles of Confederation, governmental models of classic Roman and Greek origin, the British government, and input from the Conventions delegates. The final form of the Constitution created the system of government with which Americans are familiar today. The framers of the Constitution chose to split the government into three branches: the executive (the president), the legislative (Congress), and the judicial (the Supreme Court). The delegates disagreed about whether states should have proportional representation (meaning that each population would determine how many representatives it had) or equal representation (in which every state would have the same number of representatives). Ultimately, they split Congress into two houses, a system called a bicameral legislature. The House of Representatives would use proportional representation, the Senate, equal representation. Perhaps most important among the delegates innovations was a system of checks and balances. No one branch of government would be too powerful. The three branches of government each had powers that would allow them to limit the abilities of another branch from acting recklessly or from trying to assume too much power. For instance, the President has a veto power that allows him to reject legislation that he does not like. Similarly, Congress has the ability to overrule a veto if two-thirds of Congress vote in favor. Finally, on September 17, 1787, 38 of the 41 delegates present at the Conventions conclusion supported the final draft of the U.S. Constitution. On May 29, 1790, Rhode Island became the last state to ratify the Constitution, officially making it the new law of the land. A New Constitutional Convention? In 2018, some Republican members of Congress began to call for a new constitutional convention. This group of politicians and their supporters argue that, just as in 1787, the current system of government needed repair. This new campaign is led by several conservative organizations including a group called the Convention of States. Together, they are advocating for a new convention that could be triggered by invoking Article Five of the U.S. Constitution. The Founding Fathers recognized that over the course of time, the Constitution might need adjusting. Article Five details the process that would allow changes to the Constitution. It has mostly been used to add amendments to the Constitution. Since 1790, it has been used to add 27 new amendments to the Constitution. Amendments are created when two-thirds of each house of Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate) votes in favor of a new amendment. Then, three-fourths of the states must then approve the change. However, this article also allows for changes to U.S. Constitution if two-thirds of the fifty state legislatures independently vote to stage a new convention. If any changes are approved at such a convention, then three-fourths of the states must voice their approval. Conservatives have pushed two forms of changes. The first is a simple requirement that the federal budget must be balanced. As of September 2018, 28 of the required 34 states have shown their support for this amendment. The second, more radical, approach asks for a full revision of the Constitution. The goal by supporters of this plan is to decrease the powers of the federal government. By doing so, they believe they would reduce the size of the government itself. This second plan has the support of several influential conservatives, including former governors Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin, former senator Tom Coburn, and current senator Rand Paul. Despite their efforts, little progress has been made to advance this proposal. Another Article Five measure pushed by a group of liberals has sought to limit the influence of big money in politics. This measure has gained the support of five states as of 2018. Critical Thinking Questions Critical Thinking Questions How did the government created by the United States Constitution differ from the one established by the Articles of Confederation? Why was the government established by the Articles of Confederation unsuccessful? What concerns did the states have about creating a stronger central government? Words to Know Articles of Confederation the constitutional rules that established the first government system used by the United States ratify to officially approve or confirm a treaty, law, or other government document representative democracy a type of government system in which officials are elected to serve the people republic a form of government in which officials are answerable to its citizens veto a power that allows the U.S. president to reject a piece of legislation Further Reading “The Constitutional Convention.” Constitution Facts. https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-constitution-amendments/the-constitutionalconvention/. “Constitutional Convention and Ratification, 1787–1789.” Office of the Historian, U.S. Department of State. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/convention-and-ratification. Edling, Max M. A Revolution in Favor of Government: Origins of the U.S. Constitution and the Making of the American State. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Foner, Eric and John A. Garraty, eds. “Articles of Confederation.” The Readers Companion to American History, trans. J. J. Perret. Critical edition by M. Waggoner. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1991. https://www.history.com/topics/early-us/articles-ofconfederation. Klarman, Michael J. The Framers Coup: The Making of the United States Constitution. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. Lartey, Jamiles. “ Conservatives Call for Constitutional Intervention Last Seen 230 Years Ago.” The Guardian. August 11, 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/11/conservatives-call-for-constitutional-convention-alec. Madison, James, Edward J. Larson, and Michael P. Winship. The Constitutional Convention: A Narrative History from the Notes of James Madison. New York: Random House, 2005. Matson, Cathy D., and Peter S. Onuf. A Union of Interests: Political and Economic Thought in Revolutionary America. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1990. Morris, Richard B. The Forging of the Union 1781–1789. New York: Harper and Row, 1987. Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2019 Gale, a Cengage Company Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition) Constitutional Convention. Gale U.S. History Online Collection, Gale, 2018. Gale In Context: U.S. History, https://link-galecom.ezp.pasadena.edu/apps/doc/GDUQEI886990313/UHIC?u=pasa19871&sid=UHIC&xid=a4d0ff38. Accessed 15 Jan. 2020. Gale Document Number: GALE|GDUQEI886990313 Disclaimer: This is a machine generated PDF of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace original scanned PDF. Neither Cengage Learning nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the machine generated PDF. The PDF is automatically generated AS IS and AS AVAILABLE and are not retained in our systems. CENGAGE LEARNING AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the machine generated PDF is subject to all use restrictions contained in The Cengage Learning Subscription and License Agreement and/or the Gale Academic OneFile Terms and Conditions and by using the machine generated PDF functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against Cengage Learning or its licensors for your use of the machine generated PDF functionality and any output derived therefrom. Virginia plan offers fiscal stability, but the attached strings worry colleges Author: Sara Hebel Date: Feb. 18, 2000 From: The Chronicle of Higher Education(Vol. 46, Issue 24) Publisher: Chronicle of Higher Education, Inc. Document Type: Article Length: 1,578 words Abstract: Issues discussed concern a Virginia plan to link state funding with performance at public colleges. Topics addressed include the allocation of state funds, increasing quality and accountability in publicly funded colleges, and the contracts requirements. Full Text: 6-year contracts could provide more funds and more government scrutiny A UNIQUE PLAN to require Virginias public colleges to sign performance contracts with the state government, in return for their public financing, isnt bowling over the traditionally autonomous campuses. But advocates of the idea are urging a closer look, saying it could allay the historic concerns of higher-education leaders about money. In 18 months of discussions with lawmakers, college presidents, business leaders, and higher-education insiders, Virginias Blue Ribbon Commission on Higher Education recognized a common desire: financial predictability for the states public colleges, whose officials want to be able to develop long-term plans. Members of the commission, appointed by Gov. James S. Gilmore III, say they matched that request with a priority of the Rebuplican governors: holding colleges more accountable for the $3.5-billion in taxpayer funds they receive each year. What emerged is a new method of allocating state funds that has intrigued many higher-education leaders in the state, although details of the plan have raised concerns. The proposal would require institutions to enter into six-year contracts with the state. The colleges would predict their budget needs over that period, and would agree--in exchange for long-term financing--to meet performance targets. Thirty-nine states already link state aid to colleges performance in some way, and this year, legislators in Colorado and Connecticut are expected to seriously consider doing the same. But other states plans do not specify any financial commitments from the state in return. Nor do they cover as long a time period as Virginias proposed agreements. They also do not tailor performance measures as closely to individual institutions missions as do the contracts that each Virginia public university, and the community-college system, would negotiate directly with the state. We are marrying up performance standards with the funds colleges need, said Frank Atkinson, a lawyer and a member of the governors commission. It is essentially a strategic plan the state has bought into. 73 RECOMMENDATIONS The proposal to establish these institutional-performance agreements is the centerpiece of the commissions final report, released this month. It spells out 73 recommendations meant to increase quality accountability, and affordability in the states higher-education system, which is generally considered one of the strongest in the nation. The report represents a new course for Virginia higher education that Governor Gilmore wants to chart. Since taking office in 1998, he has been a very involved executive, intent on guarding taxpayer dollars. He has done so by turning a skeptical eye on entities--like the public colleges--that tend to be so respected that they avoid sustained scrutiny. Several college leaders remain unsure about the wisdom of Mr. Gilmores watchful approach toward the independent-minded colleges, whose officials have become used to limited policy intervention from state government. But many college officials and commissions members said they viewed the performance-cont ... Purchase answer to see full attachment