Peter Diaz

Professor Bolar

POLS B1

27 February 2021

Essay Exam #1

1. Describe what factions are, why the Founders thought they were inevitable and
dangerous, and how the US Constitution is designed to mitigate the effects of
factions.

Factions are a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of

the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest,
adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to permanent and aggregate interests of the
community. The Founders thought they were inevitable because it is very difficult for
independent thinkers to have uniform beliefs. They feared factions because factions could
lead people to try to use the government for groups rather than everybody. At the time of
founding, there was a fear that those without property would seize property from those who
do by using the government to take it away.

The US Constitution utilizes checks and balances alongside federalism to mitigate the
effects of factions. For example, constitution did not want a unified government under the
control of one faction and instead wanted a system in which ambition counteracted
ambition. As a result, the constitution separated the government powers into three branches.
The legislative branch (Congress) would make the laws. The executive branch (president and
federal agencies) would enforce the law. The judicial branch after Marbury v Madison, would
specifically interpret what the laws mean. The fear of legislative supremacy was assumed, and
congress was divided against itself, between the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The division meant to serve as a protection a single branch of government having too much
 power. Each branch has its independent source of authority of power alongside its own
cultural ethos. Besides the different branches, the first ten amendments lay important
limitations on the power of the federal government. Specifically, the 10th Amendment forces
Congress to share power with state governments. This was an additional measure of division
to combat ambition against ambition. The share of power amongst branches, states and
electorates ensures that not a single a faction or group of people holds too power. One must
also consider the term limits on the presidency, life term of the Supreme Court, and the
election of Congress people on cyclical basis.

2. Why did the American colonists declare their independence from Great Britain?
Between 1763 and 1776, British attempts at direct control clashed with colonial self-
interest and identity. The Declaration of Independence stated colonists' grievances against
British rule. There were 27 reasons listed in the declaration, however the five most important
are stated below:
I. American colonists were not given an opportunity for the fair trial. Back then, if a
citizen was charged with a crime, they were guilty until proven innocent. They were
not given trial by a jury of their own peers. The king paid the judges himself and
were denied trial by jury, which was unequal treatment as it was one of the rights of
the Englishmen.
II. American were taxed by a British Parliament to which they elected no
representatives. Examples of unpopular taxes/acts include the Townshend Acts. The
Townshend Acts were a series of measures, passed by Parliament in 1767, that taxed
goods imported to the American colonies. This imposed duties on British china,
glass, paint, paper, and tea imported to the colonies. Another act that was an
unrepresented tax was the Stamp Act of 1765, which taxed paper goods. There was
significant protest on these taxes reflected by colonist conflict with British troops as
seen in the Boston Massacre as well as seen with the Boston Tea Party. American
protest led to the repealing of the acts; however, they were replaced by the
Intolerable acts. This act dismantled Massachusetts’ publicly elected government,
closed Boston Harbor, instituted the Quartering Act, and manipulated the judicial
 process in favor of British officials if they were charged with capital offenses. The
Intolerable acts eventually culminated into the American revolution.
III. The king dissolved the representative houses repeatedly who went against the will of
the king. For example, in January 1768, Massachusetts assembly wrote a petition
stating that the Great Britain had no right to tax the colonists without their consent.
The king responded by saying that if they did not reverse their positions, the colony
would lose its ability to self-govern. The assembly refused to reverse and lost the
right to self-govern.
IV. The king kept a standing army in the colonies without consent of the legislatures to
keep the colonies in check in case they did not want to pay taxes.
V. The colonist could not trade with anyone but the British Empire.
Overall, the Americans felt that they were not respected by their mother country. They felt
inferior to the average Englishman. They were taxed without being represented. They felt like they
were being mangled by the empire and were unequal treatment. The colonist reason’s for declaring
independence can be summarized into three main themes: violation of individual rights, lack of
representation and taxation.

3. Why is the 14th Amendment important?

The 14th Amendment granted citizenship to all born or naturalized in in the United States. This
part of the Amendment helped resolves citizenship issues regarding who was identified as citizen.
Before this part of the amendment, the States determined who was a citizen, in which there were
greatly varied definitions among the states. The Fourteenth Amendment overturned the Dred
Scott decision by granting citizenship to all those born in the United States, regardless of color.
The third part of the first section of the 14th states that “nor shall any State deprive any State any
person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”. This was important because the Fifth
Amendment only limited the federal government and not the states. In Barron vs Baltimore,
Barron's wharf was virtually destroyed by the debris of the city. Barron sued in which he alleged that
the value of his property had be taken for public use without just compensation. Chief Justice
Marshall denied ordering Maryland to compensate Barron. While Barron was entitled to
compensation, it was not guaranteed by the US constitution. As demonstrated, this was one of the
most important cases which should that the bill of rights of were protections against the protection
against the federal government, not the state government. This clause of 14th amendment helped
incorporate the Bill of Rights and the protection of civil liberties into and over state governments.
Finally, the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment positively obligated our federal
government to protect us as citizens if our rights are being violated by other governments.

4. How has the commerce clause been used to enhance the power of the Federal
government at the expense of state governments?

In Gibbons vs Ogden, the Supreme court affirmed Congress’ power to regulated interstate
commerce. By the Supremacy clause, all state laws related to interstate commerce were to yield to
constitutional acts of Congress. This power affected enhanced the federal government’s power to
regulate the state’s economy. During the New Deal era, the commerce clause was expanded by the
National Labor Relations Board v Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation case. Essentially, Congress
was given control over any interstate activity that a close and substantial relation to interstate
commerce to protect commerce from burdens and obstructions. This power alongside grants in aid
gave the federal government significant power over what states could spend their money.
The expansion of the Commerce Clause alongside the Supremacy Clause later significantly
enhanced the federal government’s power issues over discrimination and treatment of its
constituents, once decided at the state level. Congress found a rational basis that the racial
discrimination in public service entities had a direct and adverse effect on the free flow of interstate
commerce. The commerce clause gave Congress the right to pass anti-discrimination legislation.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 was declared constitutional under the commerce clause, which banned
racial discrimination in public accommodations, banned racial discrimination in employment, cut off
public funds to segregated institution, and created the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission.