and today we’re going to talk about the United States Constitution.

And, in doing so, we’re going to explore

how the American style of government became the envy of the entire world,

so much so that everyone else copied us. [hey oh]

What’s that, Stan?

We’re not gonna talk about other countries stealing our form of government?

Because no other countries stole our form of government?

That doesn’t seem possible, Stan. ['MURICA!]

[Libertage]

No, Stan, not the Libertage.

Cue the intro!

[BEST]

[intro music]

[intro music]

[intro music]

[intro music]

[intro music]

[EVAR]

So,

today we’re going to learn why the green areas of not-America didn’t copy us.

[nonMurica]

Alright, so as Americans may dimly remember from history classes,

the constitutional system we’ve been living under since 1788,

the year of the first Presidential election,

was not the original American government.

The first government set up by the Continental Congress

was called the Articles of Confederation and it was,

in a word: Bad.

In two words, it was not good. Which is why it only lasted 10 years

The problem with the confederation is that it wasn’t so much a framework

for a national government as it was a “firm league of friendship,”

which unfortunately only sounds like a team of Care Bear Superheroes.

[Care Bear Stair tax?]

The Articles set up a “government” that consisted of a one-house

body of delegates, with each state having a single vote,

who, acting collectively,

could make decisions on certain issues that affected all the states.

There was no president and no judiciary.

You can try to tell me that John Hanson, the president of the congress

was the first American president, but it’s just not true.

Any decision required 9 of the 13 congressional votes,

which pretty much guaranteed that no decisions would ever be made.

Ahh, supermajorities: Always so efficient. [SARCASM]

But besides the 2/3rds requirement,

the Congress was very limited in what it could actually do.

The government could declare war, conduct foreign affairs and make treaties—

basically, the stuff you need to do to go to war with England.

It could coin money but it couldn’t collect taxes, that was left to states,

so if you needed money to, say, go to war with Britain,

[you know, regular tuesday stuff]

you had to ask the states politely.

The articles could be amended, but that required a unanimous vote,

so zero amendments were ever passed.

The government was deliberately weak,

which followed logically from Americans’ fear of tyrannical governments

taxing them and quartering soldiers in their houses and so on.

But here’s the thing, weak government is like nonalcoholic beer:

It’s useless.

That said, the Articles government did accomplish a couple things.

First, it won the war.

So yay—

unless you were a slave or a Native American, in which case,

you know, probable boo.

Second, the government developed rules

for dealing with one of the most persistent problems facing the new nation:

Ohio.

[For reals]

Which was called the northwest, presumably because it is

north and west of...Virginia. [zing]

Getting control of the land meant taking it from the Indians who were living there,

and the Articles government was empowered to make treaties, which it did.

Crash Course World History fans will remember the Athenians telling the Melians

that the strong do as they can and the weak suffer what they must,

and the Americans definitely went to the Athenian School of Treaty-Making.

Through treaties signed at Fort Stanwix and Fort McIntosh,

the Indians surrendered land north of the Ohio River.

The biggest accomplishment of the Articles government was

the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which set up a process to create

5 new states between the Ohio and Mississippi rivers.

Two things to know about this:

First it acknowledged that American Indians had a claim to the land

and that they had to be treated better if settlers wanted to avoid violence,

[just a thought]

and second, Stan, can I get the foreshadowing filter?

Yes, perfect.

The ordinance outlawed slavery in all five of the new states.

Still, the Articles government was a complete disaster for exactly one reason:

It could not collect taxes.

Both the national government and the individual states had racked up

massive debt to pay for the war, and their main source of revenue became tariffs,

but because Congress couldn’t impose them, states had to do it individually,

And this made international trade a total nightmare,

a fact worsened by the British being kinda cranky about us winning the war

and therefore unwilling to trade with us.

In 1786 and 1787, the problem got so bad

in Massachusetts that farmers rose up and closed the courts

to prevent them from foreclosing upon their debt-encumbered farms.

This was called Shays’s Rebellion,

after Revolutionary War veteran and indebted farmer Daniel Shays.

The uprising was quelled by the state militia, but for many, this was the sign

that the Articles government, which couldn’t deal with the crisis at all,

had to go.

But not for everyone.

Thomas Jefferson, for instance, was a fan of Shay’s Rebellion.

“A little rebellion now and then is a good thing.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time

with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” [don't tread on that old chestnut]

Which is all fine and good, I mean, unless you’re the bleeding patriots or tyrants.

But to most elites, Shays’ Rebellion showed that too much democratic liberty

among the lower classes could threaten private property.

Also people who held government bonds were nervous, because without tax revenue,

they were unlikely to get paid back.

And when rich people feel like something has to be done,

[mitt robotney]

something is usually done. Let’s go to the Thought Bubble.

The first attempt to do something was a meeting in Annapolis in 1786 aimed at better regulating

international trade. Only six states sent delegates, but they agreed to meet the next

year in Philadelphia to “revise” the Articles of Confederation.

The delegates who met in Philly the next year had a funny definition of “revision,”

though. Rather than make tweaks to the articles, they wrote a new charter of government, the

Constitution, which is, with some significant alterations, the same one that Americans live

under and argue about today.

Despite what some seem to believe, the 55 men who met in Philadelphia and hammered out

a new form of government were not gods, but they were far from ordinary, especially for

the time.

Most were wealthy, some very much so. More than half had college educations, which was

super rare since .001% of Americans attended college at the time. About 40% had served

in the army during the war. But, one thing they all shared was a desire for a stronger

national government.

The delegates agreed on many things – the government should have executive, legislative

and judicial branches and should be republican, with representatives, rather than direct democracy.

But the devil appeared in the details. Alexander Hamilton, probably the biggest proponent of

very strong government, wanted the President and Senate to serve life terms, for example.

That idea went nowhere because the overarching concern of almost all the delegates was to

create a government that would protect against both tyranny by the government itself and

tyranny by the people. They didn’t want too much government, but they also didn’t

want too much democracy, which is why our Presidents are still technically elected not

directly by regular people but by 538 members of the electoral college.

This system is so byzantine and strange that when American politicians speak of spreading

democracy through the world, they never actually advocate for American-style elections.

Thanks, Thought Bubble.

Yes, I know, you have fantastic elections in Canada.

Yeah, right, okay. All that too.

I get it, okay?

It’s U.S. History, Thought Bubble.

So conflicts between competing interests arose quickly

at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. The first being

between states with big populations and those with small populations.

Large states supported James Madison’s Virginia Plan, which called for

a two-house legislature with representation is both proportional

to a state’s population.

And smaller states, fearing that the big boys would dominate,

rallied behind the New Jersey plan. New Jersey…

This called for a single legislative house with equal representation for each state,

as with the Articles of Confederation.

But, of course, coming from New Jersey, it had no chance of succeeding,

and sure enough it didn’t. [oh oh oh, he's on fire...]

Instead we got the Great Compromise,

brokered by Connecticut’s Roger Sherman, which gave us two houses,

a House of Representatives

with representation proportional to each state’s population, and

a Senate with two members from each state.

House members, also called Congressmen,

served two year terms while Senators served six year terms,

with 1/3 of them being up for election in every 2 year cycle.

The House was designed to be responsive to the people,

while the Senate was created to never pass anything

and it was so masterfully designed that it still works to this day.

[mission accomplished]

However, this solution created another problem:

Who should be counted in terms of representation?

Slaveholding states wanted slaves to count toward their population,

even though of course they could not vote, because they were property.

States with few slaves argued that slaves shouldn’t be counted as people because,

just to be clear, none of these dudes were not racist.

[#ForefatherProblems]

This issue was solved with the notorious 3/5ths compromise.

For the purpose of determining the population,

the total number of white people plus 3/5ths the population of “other persons”

– the word “slave” was never used –

would be the basis for the calculation.

So…yeah. That’s still in the constitution. [word "awkward doesn't even come close]

The constitution also contains a fugitive slave clause

requiring any escaped slave to be returned to their master.

And this meant that a slave couldn’t escape slavery by moving to a state

where slavery was outlawed,

which meant that on some level some states couldn’t enforce their own laws.

Spoiler alert: this becomes problematic.

But except for the tyranny of slavery, the framers really hated tyranny.

To avoid tyranny of the government, the Constitution embraced two principles:

Separation of powers and federalism.

The government was divided into three branches—

legislative, executive, and judiciary,

and the constitution incorporated checks and balances:

each branch can check the power of the others.

The legislature can make laws, but the president can veto those laws.

The judiciary can declare laws void, too,

but that’s a power they had to grant themselves—

you won’t find it in the Constitution. I promise. You can look for it.

[press pause. we'll wait.]

And federalism is the idea that governmental authority rests both

in the national and the state governments.

As an American, I am a citizen both of the United States and of the state of Indiana.

And the national government, the one set up by the constitution,

is supposed to be limited in scope to certain enumerated powers.

Most other powers,

especially the protection of health, safety and morals, are left to the states.

But the constitution also seeks to protect

against the radicalism that too much democracy can bring.

The mostly rich framers worried that the people,

many of whom were poor and indebted, might vote in congress people,

or God forbid a President, in favor of,

like, redistribution of property.

To hedge against this, senators were elected by the states,

usually by state legislatures,

and they were supposed to be, like, leading citizen types.

You know, the kind of good Americans who take bribes

and have adulterous affairs in airport bathrooms and patronize prostitutes

and shoot Alexander Hamilton.

Anyway,

the other hedge against too much democracy is the aforementioned electoral college,

which many Americans hate because

it has the potential to elect a president who did not win the popular vote,

but that’s kind of the point.

The electors were supposed to be prominent, educated men of property