This is a book about political words – an inquiry into the language of argument in the American past

through a handful of the keywords which have boomed (მეხივით გავარდა) through American
politics since independence.

“If you want to know what politician is up to, watch his feet, not his mouth” – Said Marvin
Meyers.პოლიტიკური რიტორიკის ერთ-ერთი მნიშვნელოვანი ფუნქციაა ფარული
ზრახვებისა და ინტერესების მაღალფარდოვანი პოლიტიკური ტერმინებით შეფუთვა.
ასევე,you can hide the policy of the day behind the popular slogans of the moment. Political word
mystify.But they are also more: they inspire, persuade, enrage, mobilize. Words make mass actions
possible. Masses of men have made revolutions, flung themselves into war…

The words: freedom, equality, sanctity of property, that individuals separated from normal sight of
each other, are shaken into consciousness that their ambitions, angers and desires aren’t peculiarly
theirs but, at some slightly altered level of generalization, the material of politics. Abstract,
generalizing talk makes private matters public.

Political talk is political action of a particular, often powerful, sort.

In the nineteenth century, Americans made political giants out of men we would now call
consummate (სრულყოფილი) windbags.(ჩანთა სავსე ქარით - ანუ, თვალთმაქცი, ცარიელი
სიტყვებით მოსაუბრე ადამიანი, რომელიც საქმეს ნაკლებად აკეთებს).დღესდღეობითაც
სამეფო ხაზინის ძვირფასეულობების ექვივალენტს წარმოადგენს დამოუკიდებლობის
დეკლარაცია, ე.ი Pure Words.

ავტორი სიამაყით ამბობს, რომ ამერიკელები არ მისდევდნენ აბსტრაქტულ აზროვნებას.“The

most distinctive American theory of government isn’t to theorize” – Harvard’s leading political
historian wrote with some pride in 1907. Our political theorists have singled out our Revolution as a
wonderfully untheoritical upheaval, in contrast to the revolution in France, where the citizenry took
ideas too seriously. A nation of practical tinkerers, plain Henry Fords who make things work, we
have left the high-wire risks of theory making to other folks. We were pragmatic, it is said, centuries
before pragmatism was invented, utilitarians without needing to read Jeremy Benthaim. In a world
swept by ideologies, we have often taken pride in having none.

Tools and Paradigms

ამერიკელებზეა აქ საუბარი, რომ

“We have all spoken the same political language; we have made the same political assumptions; we
have all thought the same political thoughts.”

One could bind our major political writers (Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln…) within a common tradition,
a consensus, a common frame - or so it seemed. The most powerful argument in this vein remains
Lous Hartz’s The Liberal Tradition in America, a brilliant, scorchingly critical portrait of a political
culture without exits, without critics, imprisoned in one dimensionality. ამასთან, ამბობს იმასაც,
რომ პოლიტიკური ტერმინების მოპარვით, მათი მცირე რაოდენობის გამო, მისი სხვა
კონტექსტში გამოიყენების იმედით, პოლიტიკური ოპონენტები ხშირად კონსენსუსი
ილუზიის მიღმა რჩებიან.

Natural Rights - To Jeremy Bentham nothing revealed the folly (foolishness) of the American Revolution
more clearly than the Americans’ defense of it. The opening arguments of the Declaration never struck
him as anything other than ridiculous. He thought that rational persons do not spend their time
“puzzling like children” about the origins of governments or “wrestling their desires” (რაღაცასთან
შეჭიდება, ძალისხმევა) into something called Natural Rights
“And yet of all the big and booming terms to come out of the American Revolution, the most powerful
and least containable was Natural Rights. მოკლედ აქ ამბობენ, რო სხვებმა ეს უფლებებიო ადგნენ
და „ეკლესიის კარებში მიამაგრესო“ და ამერიკელებმა ეგრევე პოლიტიკის ერთ-ერთ იარაღად
აქციესო. They invited an inquiry “ not simply into the rights which human beings possesed but into
those rights which, given their nature, they ought to posses.” მოკლედ ამ Natural Rights როგორც
უკვე ვახსენეთ ძირითადად პოლიტიკისთვის იყენებდნენ ისინი, ვისაც სჭირდებოდათო რა
და დიდად სერიოზულად არ აღიქვამდა არავინ. “Those who took the idea of Natural Rights
seriously in America often ended up, not where Locke would have wanted them, but elsewhere:
dumping tea cargoes overboard or decrying the unnatural privileges of banks and corporations or as
critics of the ancient notion of a man’s ownership of his wife or his slaves” (აი ამ წინადადებაში
ძაან ნათლად და კარგად ჩანს მიდგომა ამ საკითხთან დაკავშირებით). მერე ე.წ. „მეორე
ტალღა“ წამოვიდა ვინც აქტიურად ლაპარაკობდა ამ Natural Right - ზე : Workingmen , land
reformers, slavery opponents and feminists.
For all these reasons, there was nothing static or consensual about the language of Natural Rights in
America. Talk of Natural Rights was a tool, sharp with subversive possibilities, and always
controversial. What Bentham overheard was not the enunciation or a political creed but an argument
: “words big enough for men to fight over their possession.”
A state of Nature –it was Thomas Jefferson’s assignment in 1776 to sweep together a dozen years of
angry, ectrapolated argument into a self-evident whole, as if the axioms of the Declaration of
Independence had been all along, as Jefferson was later to claim, simply the “commons sense” of the
matter. But Americans angry at Parliamentray taxes and impositions had not set out at the beginning
to talk about their “inherent and inalienable rights”. Only with vastly more effort than the
Declaration admitted had theu begun to talk about the natural, original rights of man at all. The
language however, had its own vitally important uses. Charges of plots and corruption, indispensable
as they were at home, were not likely to change many ministry officials’ minds or win many allies in
Parliament. Here the leaders of the resistance needed a soberer language of charter precedents,
implicit constitutional guranatees, and rights. და მოკლედ მერე წერია რო აქ მიხვდნენო რამდენს
ნიშნავდა ზედსართავი სახელიო „natural”, რომელიც ხაზგასმის როლს კარგად თამაშობდაო.
და ფილოსოფიურადო მწერლებმა ეს სიტყვა გამოიყენეს, როგორც ღმერთთან
დაკავშრებულიო, They were rights, the declaration writers began to insist, which the lawyers had
never written down : rights „founded in the Law of God and Nature (Masacchusetts Stamp Act 1765),
which were ‘the common Rights of Mankind.’ John Dickinson declared that those rights are not
given to us by parchments and seals, they are created in us, born with us, exist with us and cannot be
taken from us by any human power without taking our lives. In short, they are founded on the
immutable maxims of reason and justice.
The pamphleteers grasped hard for the words, but as a rhetoric of resistance much less of revolution,
the language of natural law had its limits.

Much less of revolution, the language of natural law had its limits. It was one thing to appeal, as the
patriot leaders continued to do well past 1776, to laws written in the frame of human nature, but it was
another to gather much agreement on the rights that frame entailed. Of the major fiures of the
Revolution, Jefferson was one of the few to stick with the task over the long haul. One might call the
policies of the king an affrotnt to the laws of nature, but where the most telling thing conservatives
found to say about the rebellion in America was that it was profoundly “unnatural”, the rhetoric of
natural law was not particularly tractable stuff to put to servie of open disobedience.

It was in its third, though at the outstet least common, meaning – as a description of rightss inherited
from an original state of nature – that the word “natural” was capable of genuinely unsetting uses. …To
talk in this way was to induce men to ask what rights human beings must originally have posessed and
could conceivably have agreed to surrender when, out of nothing but their free consent, they had
brought governments into being. ..To talk in this way was to talk retrospectively, utopianly, and
democraticallt. In short, the meaning for the tetm Natural Rights was powerful enough to knock the pins
out from the smooth assertion of a Tory like Blackstone – “king and parliament had “the supreme
disposal fo every thing”. But it wasn’t a way of talking that the colonists came to easily or selfevidently.

This trouble with state of nature reasoning had fallen sharply into disrepute by the last third of the 18 th
century. Here are Locke and Rousseu with different ideas. Locke’s style of argument was considerably
stronger. But among the 18th century British writers whose lines the colonial pampletheers were
pillaging for usable arguments, the flight from Locke’s state of nature notions was all but complete.
Open attack on the fiction of a reservoir of rights retriavable from the past was the work of the Scots
pilitical philosophers. David Hume - “of the original contract” (1748) – ridiculed notion that 18 th century
Britain subjects were somehow usefully conceived as immigrants from a state of nature, carrying with
them an ancient satchel of rights.
Adam Ferguson – 1767 – “If we are asked, therefore, where the state of nature to be found?”

The Americans wrote for English, not Scottish ears. 😊 English Whigh and opposition writers an older
tradition of restrospective argument still carried masssive weight. By the middle of th 18 th century they
cautiously cut their ties to Lock’es strategy of reimagining (axali koncefciis shemushaveba) the terms of
original creation. When mid-18th Whig writers wrote of the “original contract”, what they usually had in
mind was the constitutional settlement of 1689. And when they pushed deeper into the past that that –
law, monarchy, even propery itself- were in a dangerously ambiguous state but to a soberer myth they
called the Ancient Constitution. საბოლოოდ ლოკი მაინც მაგარი ტიპი იყოო, კარგად
იმსჯელაო და უფრო სპორტული გახადა ეს მსჯელობაო ;დ

მოოკლედ, 1760-70იანებში კოლომნისტები ერთმანეთს ლანძღავდნენ როცა ამ

ბუნებითობას არჩევდნენ. მერე ჩამოთვლილია სახელი და გვარები თითო წინადადებით
ვინ რას იგონებდა და ახალ აბზაცში წერია, რომ ვერცერთმა ვერ შეძლო აღეწერა how the
word « natural » had been wrenched out of its ordinary tracks, how Natural Rights had become
retrospective rights, how that palpable (ხელშესახები) abstration called the state of nature had
become real enough for men to imagine they could wring (გამოწურვა??) thetorical advantage from it.

A hint of the multiplicity of those pressures came to the surface in Virginia in June 1776, when the
telltale phrases of the state of nature were first wedged into a statement of fundamental law. “

“All men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when
they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest ( ჩამორთმევებია
ორივე) their posterity” –so the Virginia Convention boldy began its Declaration of Rights, in phrases
which electrified readers far Beyond Williamsburg. The phrase “when they enter into a state of society”
– had not been part of George Mason’s original draft. From the outset the terms of the state of nature
were elastic – verbal contrivances (მაქინაცია) open to men in all sorts of hard places.

But the overriding exigency (ყველაზე საჭირო დადგენილება) was the need for precendents.
Claims of power demanded counterclaims of precedent. The patriot writers filled their briefs with
precedents of all sorts, appealing to a hodgepodge (ნარევი) of “natural, ancient, constitutional, and
chartered Rights” in arguments that were jumbled. ( არეული,დარეული უახრო) . They were stupid
to imagine that the first American colonists had regained smth strikingly akin (მსგავსი) to the state of
nature itself: that the conjectural territory ( ნავარაუდევი,ნაგულისხმევი) which the natural law
writers had placed beyond the grasp (გონება) of men at the beginnings of time was a land the colonists
had in sober fact (suprisingly ) reclaimed.

In 1786 (after the USA won independence from Britain), a group of several hundred debt-laden, cash-
poor farmers in Massachusetts took up arms against their new government. They were led by Daniel
Shays (who faced the threat of debtor’s prison). Shay’s Rebellion pitted poor farmers like Shays-who had
been hurt financially by an economic downturn after the war-against the Massachusetts state militia.
The farmers resented the state government’s enforcement (აღსულება) of foreclosure rules
(გამსესხებელი იღებს კონტროლს ქონებაზე) and its alignment with Boston-area merchants. The
rebels closed down courts across Massachusetts in an attempt to prevent debt collection. their numbers
become to around 1,400. The rebellion was eventually crushed in Springfield by a privately funded
government militia, but the armed resistance( შეიარაღებული წინააღმდეგობა) by civilians against
state troops (სამეფო ჯარები) alarmed (შეშფოთება გამოიწვია) political leaders throughout the
young country.

შეის აჯანყებამ აჩვენა რომ არსებოდბა კონგრესი, მაგრამ არ არსებობდა

აღმასრულებელი ხელისუფლება, რომ შეესრულებინა კონგრესის მიერ მიღებული
კანონები, დაიცვას სახელმწიფო საშინაო თუ გარეგანი საფრთხეებიდან , ან
წარმოადგინოს ქვეყანა საგარეო ურთიერთობებში. And congress had to “requisition”( an
official order laying claim to the use of property or materials) the states for money, and then wait for
them to raise funds and forward those to the national government. Finally, the procedure for amending
(make minor change) the articles was too onerous, making it nearly impossible to address these
shortcomings under the articles.

When delegates from the various states gathered at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia In
1787 to improve the institutions of government, they quickly decided to write a new constitution (they
had Shay’s Rebellion in mind). They understood that they needed to strengthen ( გამაგრება) the
national government so that it could respond to crises like these.

A major concern resulting from the national government’s lack of enforcement and direct taxing powers
(მთავარი შეშფოთება გამოწვეულია ეროვნული მთავრობის მიერ სააღსრულებო და
პირდაპირი დაბეგვრის უფლებების არარსებობის გამო), was the financial free riding (A free
rider is a person who benefits from something without expending effort or paying for it) among
the states was common. ყველა სახელმწიფო მიირებდა ბენეფიტებს ამით, but it was in each
state’s interest to let the other states pay for the military power necessary to keep order (წესრიგის
შესანარჩუნებლად). As a result the national government failed to rise more than 20% of the funds
owed to it by the states, with some states paying none of what they owed. Including Shay’s Rebellion,
quickly revealed the problems inherent In having a national government without an executive
wielding(აღმასრულებელი ხელისუფლება) military powers.

The task for the founders at the constitutional convention was to agree on a set of (ერთობლიობა)
governmental institutions that were powerful enough to resolve collective dilemmas among the states
in times of crisis, but not so powerful as to become dictatorial or dangerous to liberty (the founders held
different views about it. Some wanted much stronger national powers and other’s wanted opposite of
it). In the end, the former group (called federalists) won out.

What do constitutions accomplish? In societies governed by the rule of law, legal codes are applied to
everyone In an unbiased manner (მიუკერძოებლად) (ეს ეხებოდა როგორც ჩვ, მოქალქეებს, ისე
სახელმწ. მოხეელბსაც).

აუტორიტარულ რეჟიმში ლიდერი იმ წესებს არ ექვემდებარებიან , რასაც ჩვ . მოქალქეები ,

სამართალი ისაა რასაც მმართვეი იტყვის.

Written constitutions from the basis of most societies governed by the rule of law.
Statutory(ნორმატიული) laws are those passed by legislatures (კანონმდებელი) or by administrative
agencies empowered by legislatures. Constitutional law is seen as the collection of fundamental rules for
making statutory laws and regulations. a legitimate constitution reflects a shared understanding of who
can wield public authority and what kinds of authority public officials should have.

Origins of the American political system.Two of the collective dilemmas we discussed in chapt.1. were
collective-action problems and coordination problems. Let us now examine. When these states faced a
collective-action problem, each had a strong incentive (სტიმული) to free ride off the efforts of
others(გაათავისუფლოს სხვისი ძალისხმევა?). As a result, many states failed to pay their share of
the debt incurred during the revolutionary war, even though all the states enjoyed the benefits of
independence from Britain. ბევრმა ახალი ინგლისის სახელმწიფოებმა დაუკეტა ბრიტანულ
ნაწარმს პორტები, მაგრამ კონექტიკუტი პირიქით მოიქცა and securing (უზრუნველყოფა)
more favorable terms of trade from England than those extended to other states, კონექტიკუტმა
დაუწესა მასაჩუსეტს taxes როცა შელაპარაკება მოხდა სახელმწიფოებს შორის.

The constitutional convention was called in 1787 largely because leaders in the continental congress and
in the states acknowledged that the weakness of the national government under the articles made it
impossible to solve these types of collective dilemmas. Most believes that stronger national government
was necessary.

Colonial characters In the mid-eighteenth century, the American colonies were part of the British
empire. Having defeated the French in French and Indian war of 1754-63, the British has established
political control over the most of the Atlantic seaboard, from what is now Virginia to Maine. The
colonies provided raw materials (ნედლეული) for British industry, money for the crown through
taxation of colonial subjects, and space for émigrés from Britain to settle in the New World.

There were 2 types of colonies, proprietary (founded by British noble families & companies, governed by
those until the American revolution) and royal (were governed by British crown). თითოეულ
კოლონიას ჰქონდა წესდება, რომელშიც აღწერილი იყო ხელისუფლების სხვადასხვა
შტოს უფლებამოსილებები და პასუხისმგებლობები. Colonial governments typically consisted of
a lower chamber (the assembly), whose members were elected by propertied white males in the
colonies; an upper chamber (the council(appointed (დანიშნული) by British government officials)); and
a governor (the governor (გუბერნატორი) was appointed by the governing English noble or company
that ran proprietary colony, or in the case of a royal colony, by the British government).

These characters, and the institutional design they described, clearly presaged (იცავდნენ) later state
constitutions and the U.S constitution.

The revolution Tensions (დაძაბულობა) between the British government and the colonies escalated in
the 1760s, as the colonists grew increasingly weary (დაღლილი) of being exploited (გამოიყენეთ და
მიიღოთ სარგებლობა (რესურსიდან)) for the economic benefit of England. Many of them
especially resented (განაწყენებული) the repressive taxes and unfair trade rules imposed by London.
They rebelled against the Crown by various means, including boycotts, riots, attacks on British troops,
and formal declarations that colonies had sole authority to tax themselves (“no taxation without
representation”). The colonies ignored or flouted a series of measures by which the Crown
demonstrated its authority. Radical groups of colonists, such as the Sons of Liberty in Boston, planned
public events to highlight the abusive (ძალადობრივი) actions of the British government. In one such
event, was the Boston Tea Party.

In 1774, the continental congress, which represented the colonies in communications with the British
government, repeatedly passed resolutions deploring (ასახავს) the actions of the Crown, asking for
relief, and expressing continued loyalty. At the same time it approved broad boycotts of British goods
and indicated (მიუთითა) that the colonies were willing to risk war with Britain to be free of its
tyrannical control. The British government responded to these provocations, not by seeking
compromises, but by sending troops (ჯარი) to America and threatening to arrest the leaders of the
rebellious colonies.

In the spring of 1775, under orders to arrest John Hancock and Samuel Adams, two Massachusetts
leaders who had been urging (მოუწოდებდა) the colonies to declare independence, 700 British troops
confronted (დაუპირისპირდა) 70 Massachusetts militiamen in Lexington, outside Boston. By the end
of the battle, 73 British troops had been killed and 200 wounded(დაჭირილი). These opening battles of
the war for American independence were humiliating setbacks (დამამცირებელი ნაკლოავნებები)
for the British.

News of the battles spread rapidly on both sides of the Atlantic. The British and the Americans mobilized
additional troops, and over the next year they fought to capture key cities and forts (ციხეები) from
each other. In the spring of 1776, realizing that it had a real fight on its hand, the crown sent tens of
thousands of additional troops to put down the troublesome colonists. Throughout the year, thousands
of British-paid Hessian mercenaries (დაქირავებული) were dispatched to invade and occupy New York
City (გაგზავნეს რომ შეჭრილიყვნენ და ოკუპაცია მოედინათ). It was widely assumed that they
would then proceed to conquer (დაპყრობა) the capital city of Philadelphia.

As the colonies prepared for a new British onslaught (შეტევები), they formally announced their
separation from Britain in July 1776. Implicitly, the declaration of independence was also declaration of
full-scale war against Britain. Discussion within the continental congress prior to the signing of the
declaration revealed a bitterly divided group of colonial leaders (კონტინენტურ კონგრესზე
მსჯელობამ დეკლარაციის ხელმოწერამდე გამოავლინა კოლონიური ლიდერების
მწარედ გაყოფილი ჯგუფი). Those who remained and signed the document did so with considerable
trepidation (მღელვარება). Had the revolution failed and the men been captured by British they
would surely have been shot or hanged (ჩამოხრჩობ) as traitors to the Crown(მეფის მოღალატე). In
fact, they wrote a secret agreement into the records of congress: “to prevent traitors and spies from
worming themselves amongst us, no person shall have a seat in congress until he should have signed the
declaration”.

After the declaration the war raged for five more years along the atlantic seaboard, at various locations
in the interior of the continent in the West Indies, and in what is now Canada. With considerable help
from French, who provided badly needed naval power, the Americans eventually were able to isolate
British forces and destroy them or induce their surrender (დაპყრობა).

The Declaration of Independence

The declaration of independence and the U.S Constitution are famous for being the founding documents
of the United States and for their influence in promoting specific philosophies of government. The
constitution plays the more important role in our daily lives, because it determined the institutions of
American government. However, the Declaration of independence, written by Thomas Jefferson has
long been widely quoted in defence of revolution and in defiance of abusive authority.
The Declaration consists of 3 parts. The first offers an argument for rebellion. The members of
Founding generation, including Jefferson were influenced by John Locke, who wrote that
government was legitimate only if it was based on the consent of the governed. The Declaration’s
famous opening paragraphs reflect Locke’s influence in asserting that all men are created equal, that
people have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that the government derive
their powers from the consent of the governed.

The declaration’s second section provides political justification for rebellion. In the document’s third
part the Representatives of the United States of America declare, that the colonies are and of right
ought to be free and independent states. Continental Congress approved the Declaration on July 4,
1776.

The Articles of Confederation

The articles of Confederation, ratified in 1781, created more of a cooperative framework among
sovereign states than a sovereign national government with power to govern effectively. (მანამდე
აბზაცში ლაპარაკია, რომ ცალკეული შტატები განსხვავებულ კონსტიტუციებს აკეთებდნენ,
ამიტომ საჭირო გახდა რამე დოკუმენტით თავი მოეყარათ ამ ყველაფრისთვის) Under the
articles, the states agreed on action that they should not take independently, such as conducting
foreign policy of. Undertaking military operations. They also agreed on how states woyld respect one
other’s contracts. Each state had two to seven delegates but only one vote in the Congress under the
Articles. And the voting rules were such that 9 of 13 state delegations were required to approve
legistation. Because of the absence of an executive with powers to enforce the rule of law and
without the power to reise revenue for common action, the Confederation under the Articles proved
ineffective.

ამის შემდეგ დაიწყო The constitutional Debates. ახალი, ეფექტური დოკუმენტის შექმნა
უნდოდათ, მაგრამ რაღაც საკითხებზე ვერ თანხმდებოდნენ შტატები.
პირველი უთანხმოება: Liberty vs Strong National Government. ეს საკითხი გადაიჭრა so called
Virginia Plan-ით, რომლის სახეშეცვლილი ვარიანტიც საბოლოოდ კონსტიტუციაშიც
დაამატეს. The plan called for legislative supremacy and an independent executive. The legislature
would have two houses, with representation accorded to the states on proportion eather to the
population or to their contributions to the national treasure. A lower house would be elected by
people, and an upper house would be nominated by the states and elected by the lower house.

მეორე უთანხმოება Large states vs Small states.

Virginia Plan did not sit well with those from smaller states, who worried about a legislature in
which seats were apportioned by population size. New Jersey delegation proposed the New Jersey
Plan, according to which there would be no seperation of powers between teh executive and the
legislature. This plan was eventually rejected.

მესამე უთანხმოება Slavery

Northern and Southern states devided over the topic of slavery. Neither teh Virginia Plan, nor the
New Jersey Plan were satisfactory to all the states. (მოკლედ მონებს როგორ დაითვლიდნენ ამ
გეგემების მიხედვით იმაზე იყო დავა, საბოლოოდ ორივე დაარეჯექთეს და არ წერია როგორ
გადაიჭრა პრობლემა)

ამ უთანხმოებებს წიგნში მოიხსენიებენ როგორც Three Cleavages at the Constitutional

Convention.

The issue of representation ის (ანუ მეორე უთანხმოება) გადასაჭრელად მიიღეს New Jersey Plan
და Virginia Plan ის შუალედურ ვარიანტი, Connecticut Compromise, რომლიც მიხედვითაც,
The congress would be composed of two houses, with representation in the lower house apportioned
by population and the upper house having equal representation across the states.

მონობის საკითხის გადაჭრა: Four articles in the Constitution implicitly sanctined slavery:

 Article 1, section 2: Every five slaves were to be counted as three persons

 Article 1, Section9: The importation of slaves could not be prohibited by Congress until after
1807
 Article 5: No constitutional amendment was allowed that would change article 1, section 9, until
after 1807
 Article 4, section 3: Fugitive slaves fleeing to another state were to be returned to their owners

After this, The Constitution was finally agreed to and signed by all but three of the delegates in
Philadelphia. The last signer was Benjamin Franklin.
A bicameral legislature

American congress consist of two different parts. 1) House of representatives , which is directly elected
by the voters. 2) the senate , where states are represented with two senators, originally were appointed
by the state governments . Since 1913 it is elected by the people in their respective states. CONGRESS
intended to be the center of the national government, with the most expressed powers.

An independent Judiciary
Judicial power rests with the federal courts, headed by the supreme court.USA also has district court
( regionaluri ) and appeal court ( saapelacio ) . it is independent branch of the government. With
those two courts, states solve the state-level issues, while federal courts deals with cases involving
conflict among states, between citizens living in different states and bla .. blaa .blaa…

Supreme court has the authority to determine the constitutionality of actions by the government
within USA.

Seperation of power

In USA there is 3 governmental branches. ( legislature, executive and judicial ) . the president,
elected independently from the legislature branch , is the hallmark of the system. So congress only
determines the laws that executive must carry out.

Checks and balances

This is an idea, that three branches of government should have overlapping powers. For example :
president has some legislative power and power to veto legislation .congress can override the
president’s veto. President also appoints judges to federal courts. Congress must approve the judges
and etc. ( main idea გასაგებია)

Federalism with national authority over the states .

USA’s states remain significant authorities in there territories. But problem was the national
government. There were controversial ideas, but finally they agreed, that weak national government
should led to serious problems. Today national government’s main goal is to secure states from
intervention with strong military forces, to solve collective-action problems. It can , at some field,
limit the authority of the states .

Also , all powers, that isn’t granted to the national government by the constitution, are reserved to
the states.

Amending the constitution

It can happen with two methods . 1) when 2/3 of both houses of congress and ¾ of the state
legislatures approve it. 2) 2/3 of the state legislatures ca call to national convention to propose
amendment, which must be approved by ¾ of the state legislatures. Only 27 amendments, out of the
thousands , have been approved .

FEDERALISTS VS ANTIFEDERALISTS
Antifederalist most common fear was, that national government would tyrannize the states.
( followers were Virginia , new York , Massachusetts) . antifederalists views were summarized in a
pamphlet titled “letters from the federal farmer to the Rebulican”

Opposition of this views were the list of articles, that is now known as “federalist papers”

The bill of rights

it specifies the limits of government action in order to protect individual rights. ( like free speech or
religious practice, right to bear arms and etc.)

Abbreviations :
Ex : - example
doc. - document
Const. – Constitution
P. - president
A.C.S. – American Constitutional System

In Comparison : National Consitutions

Another main focus on US consitution. I’s really interesting how it differs from another state’s
constitution.

Some countries don’t have written constitution. Ex: Great Britain, New Zealand & Israel. Instead their
government use multiply doc.s or laws passed by the legislature( საკანონმდებლო ორგანო) that are
given constitutional status. (In UK basic principles of conduct & laws born of traditional practises (so
called common law).)

Other countries have written constitutions but they are essentially meaningless: Ex: North Korea & Iran
– both of them have really nice constitutions full of modern values (equality, freedom speech etc. ) but
authority do not give a sh*t about.

The US contitution contains too few word (4600 word - original version , 8000 – including amendments).
It does not delve(ჩაღრმავება) into detailed social & political goals, or into citizen’s duties (unlike of
Brazil&Portugal). Rather it focuses on the powers of government and the right of individuals that are to
be protected by the government and from the government.

Nevertheless, basic elements of U.S. Contitution’ve been adopted by others.

The Living Constitution

The constitution should not be understood as the static, nonchangable doc., but vice versa. It’s a “living
document” which could be shaped by the amendments, court decisions and the practises of politicans.

Relative Powers of the Branches of Government

Take for instance the military powers of the president, which have changed significantly from the very
beginning. After much debates they decided to divide rsponsibility between Congress and the P.

The Const. clearly states, Congress shall play the preeminent ( უმნიშვნელოვანესი; უპირველეს
ყოვლისა)role in military decision making, while the P. is in charge of implementing congresional
decisions.

(There are exapmles of Washington, Reagan & Bush – they use militay without congressional
authorization. However in the case of Bush Congress had passed a resolution giving Bush, but the
decision to invade was his to make (Iraq, 2003))

These all may seem strange (the way those presidents acted), but the thing is that sometimes reality is
different from what const. says. Any const. text invariably contains passages that are ambigious in their
application ro real situations, or that will become outdated by historical events. + it is not only the
meaning of given const. text that is subjected to change over time, but the text itself.

Slavery

In one simple but profound example, the original Const. not only permitted the institution of slavery to
exist, but also incorporated it into the fundamental methods for determining representation by the
states in Congress. The Thirteenth Amandment (1865) – abolished slavery in the US.

National Power vs. States’ Rights

In short, the constitution itself contains a number of apparent contradicitons . მოკლედ, ნათქვანი
იყო რომ კონგრესს შეეძლო კანონების მიღება საყოველთაო სიკეთეებისთვის , მაგრამ,
მეათე დამატება შეიცავდა ყველა იმ უფლებას, რომელიც არ იყო აქამდე ხსენებული და
ჰქონდა ცალკეულ ინდივიდებს და შტატებს. დავუშვათ, როცა საქმე ვაჭრობას ეხებოდა ,
შტატებსაც ხომ უნდოდათ დამოუკიდებლობა, ანუ კონგრესს რომ არ ემართა იმათი
კომერციული საქმიანობები, საsამართლოს დადგენილებამ შეუზღუდა ეგ კონგრესს და
დაადგინა commerce clause – the constitution grants congress the power to regulate commerce when
it’s conducted with foreign nations and when it involves more than one state.

Direct Election of the President and Senators

A long time ago ;d House of Representatives was directly elected, but the P. and senators were not
elected directly by the ppl., but were appointed by the states through a group of electors or legislators.
The right to vote was owning by white males. : ) Over the time it changed, it’s enabled new goups in
society to vote + the const. also has been applied by the courts to protect vigorouslt the rights of ppl to
orginize, speak out, and protest against the government.

Rights and Liberties

Many of the Rights established by the Bill of Rights are clearly stated, but not so clearly enough. Ex:
there is no line about the yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater (when there is not), but the Supreme court
will state that freedom of speech does not permit someone to yell stupid things like this.

Penumbras – implied rights – other rights not specified in the text have been discovered in there.

Griswold case – nowhere is the right to privacy mentioned in the constitution but this case stated that
marital privacy is a fundamental right that exists due to 9 th Amandment and also within the penumbra.

Despite those exeptions the original doc. And the const. framework remain important today.

Consequences of the Constitution

Main question in this chapter – “so what have been the consequences of the governmental institutions
that were established by the original U.S. Constitution?”

Answer – not as straightforward as it seems.

1. – we can’t understand what could be happened if U.S. had not had a strong president, but a
weak one appointed to a ceremonial position by congress.
2. We can never know for certain if outcomes were caused by the Const. or by the other factors in
society.

However, to determine cause and effects, there are two promising apporaches:

1. To compare what happenes in other countries that have differents constitutional or institutional
frame-work.
2. To compare what happens over time as institutions change.

Extensive research has showed that democratic institutions across the world tend to lead to better
economic growth, improved health among citizens, a higher level of education achivements and etc.

In addition, there is difference between presidential and parliamentary systems. ( see the figure 2.3
below, I mean at another page, pls)

People under the rule of law tend to be more active in local and national governance in their societies by
belonging to civic organizations and participating in politics.

U.S. constitution’s reputation is overwhelmingly positive. By the mid-ninetheenth century, in the minds
of most Americans the Const. was fundamental to the thriving of the country.

Historicans and political scientists in our own era credit the Constitution with establishing a stable
political system that became more democratic over time and that has enabled the country to grow in 3
important ways: geographiclly, by population, and by wealth.

Finally, there is widespread agreement: the constitutional basis for protection of private property and
for ensuring that courts remained independent of political manipulation, was instrumental in the
unprecedented economic growth (esp. in the 19 th century).
Critics:
Charles Beard- founders deliberately wrote a Constitution to protect the economic interests of ppl in
their own class.

Others – American system of government, supported by the legal and political institutions established
by the Const., has led to extreme inequality and racial subjugation. (this criticism have merit. Ex. Implicit
sanctioning of slavery)

Another others – A.C.S. suggests that it creates partisan conflict that does not adequately represent
public opinion.