More notes at http://tanguay.info/learntracker
C O U R S E 
Constitutional Law - The Structure of Government
Erwin Chemerinsky, University of California, Irvine
C O U R S E   L E C T U R E 
The Articles of Confederation
Notes taken on November 30, 2016 by Edward Tanguay
historical background
after the Revolutionary War, it was necessary to create a new government
the Articles of Confederation were drafted among the states
were deeply distrustful of having a strong national government
they didn't want to give the national government any more power than necessary
these were the states deciding what to do
they wanted to be the unit of primary government in the United States
there was a president
John Hanson
the first president of the Article of Confederation
granted limited power to Congress
no authority to impose taxes
no authority to govern commerce between the states
no federal judiciary or federal courts
quite predictably in hindsight, they were a failure
states began to develop trade wars, e.g. with taxes
1787 The Constitutional Convention
goal was the amend the Articles of Confederation
gathered in Philadelphia
decided not to pose amendments to the Articles of Confederation
but to scrap them
nothing was easily agreed upon
United States Constitution
size of states
it is crucial to regard it as a compromise
in fact, almost everything in it was a compromise
the large states wanted to have representation in congress allocated based on population
smaller states wanted to make sure every state had equal representation in congress
this was resolved with the House and the Senate
issue of slavery
it was clear that the Southern states would not ratify a Constitution what did not protect the institution of slavery
many Northerners viewed slavery as abhorrent, repugnant, immoral and unacceptable
question: if you had been in Philadelphia in 1787, and they were a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, would they have ratified a document, would they have agreed to a document, that protected the institution of slavery?
or would it have been more ethical for Northerners to have held their ground and agreed to have the colonies split into two or three separate countries?
in any case, a compromise was reached
the constitution protected the institution of slavery
but the word slavery does not appear in the United States Constitution
Article 1 Section 9 limits the powers of Congress
could not ban the importation of individuals for 20 years
Article V
The Constitution cannot be amended to allow Congress to ban the importation of slaves for 20 years
Article IV: The Fugitive Slave Clause
if a slave escaped from a slave state into a free state, the person would have to be returned to its owner
Article I of the Constitution
representation and allocation of representatives
based on the number of free persons and 3/5 of all others
slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person
from 1787 to 1865, slavery was a part of the United States society
Constitution was approved by those who drafted it on September 17th, 1787
they applied their signatures, then went home to argue for its ratification
ratification of the Constitution
strongly opposed
the Constitution was more about the structure of the government only, not human rights
so many were concerned about the lack of a Bill of Rights
passed by a very small margin e.g. in New York
North Carolina and Rhode Island ratified it later
the Articles of Confederation stated it could be changed only by unanimous consent of the States
presidential election was held
Congress was election
John Jay was the first Chief Justice
1789 Congress passed a judiciary act which created the lower federal courts
the basis for the first major Supreme Court decision, Marbury vs. Madison
helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches