USCC 1
SIMUN XIV
Saint Ignatius Model United Nations
Chicago, IL – November 7th, 2015
USCC 2
Dear Delegates,
My name is Alex Chaidez, and it is an honor to welcome you to SIMUN XIV! First, here is a
little bit about myself. I am a junior here at Saint Ignatius, and this is my third year doing Model UN. This
is my first time chairing a committee after serving on the staff last year at SIMUN XIII. US History is one
of my favorite topics, so it is a pleasure for me to be serving as a chair to the United States Constitutional
Convention.
After the Articles of Confederation left the nation weak and disjointed, there was a call to action
by the country’s leaders. The Virginia legislature called the Annapolis Convention in September 1786,
and delegates from five states discussed ways to reduce rampant interstate conflicts. Because less than
half of the states were in attendance at Annapolis, the delegates decided to meet again in Philadelphia the
next May 1787 at a “Grand Convention” to discuss how to improve the Articles of Confederation. Our
committee session starts here, on May 25, 1787, the first day of the convention. I will be serving as
George Washington, the President of the Constitutional Convention.
The two topics that the committee will be discussing are the Branches of Government and the
Control of the Federal Government. It is my hope that the debate surrounding these topics is fruitful and
leads to either substantial reform of the Articles or an entirely new Constitution. I trust that the delegates
of this committee will treat the topics with importance as all delegates can make an impact on the
outcome of the events and discussions held in committee. All delegates should be well informed on their
position. One of the most important things to keep in mind for this committee is that you are not obligated
to follow historical canon. In fact, it is recommended that all delegates provide new ideas that vary from
what actually went into the Constitution. Remember, today is your chance to alter the course of history, so
take advantage of it!
As for awards, the dais will be looking for people who are informed, creative, and serve as
leaders throughout moderated and unmoderated portions of debate. Delegates who shape committee with
their speeches, as much with their content in resolutions and questions to other delegates will be
considered for awards. Position papers are due in person the day of the conference, but you are welcome
to email me the papers early if you so choose. Still, I would request that you bring a hard copy of your
papers to committee to give to me. Without position papers, you will not be eligible to win an award.
Lastly, even if this is your first conference or your tenth conference, I hope you have a great time
and learn a lot in this committee. Don’t be shy to ask questions before, during, or even after as this
conference is meant to help delegates sharpen their skills in committee. Feel free to email me at
alexandra.chaidez@students.ignatius.org with any questions about the conference, this committee, the
topics, or anything else you may think of during your preparation. Good luck, and I cannot wait to meet
you all!
Best,
Alex Chaidez (George Washington)
USCC 3
Notes on Committee – Updated Rules of Procedure
Much like a normal Model UN conference, there will be debate at the beginning of
committee to set the agenda. However, there will be more than one decision that delegates have
to make before officially setting the agenda to topic one or two. This decision is whether to
amend the Articles of Confederation or create an entirely new Constitution. This session is called
today with the knowledge that most delegates want to abandon the Articles and create a new
Constitution, but all delegates have the right to speak on the matter before we determine which
course of action to take. The procedure for doing so is as follows.
Immediately following roll call, a delegate must make a motion to open a speakers’ list.
This list will be used to conduct debate on whether the committee would like to amend the
Articles or make a new Constitution. Once substantial debate has occurred, the chair will
entertain a motion to either amend the Articles or create a Constitution. This motion requires two
speakers for and two speakers against and a simple majority to pass. If the motion passes, then
the committee will return to the speakers’ list (unless there are other motions) to begin debate on
whether to start with topic one or two. Once there has been enough debate on this topic, the chair
will entertain a motion to set the agenda to either topic one or two. Again, this motion requires a
second, two speakers for and against, and a simple majority to pass. Once a topic is set,
committee will continue normally.
Another important point of information: If the committee chooses to amend the Articles
of Confederation, any resolutions passed will take the form of amendments to the Articles. If the
committee chooses to create an entirely new Constitution, then any resolutions passed will be
complied into this new Constitution.
Please don’t hesitate to email me or anyone else on the dais with questions!
Thank you,
Alex Chaidez (George Washington) – alexandra.chaidez@students.ignatius.org
Megan Holland (Political Officer) – megan.holland@students.igantius.org
USCC 4
Topic 1: The Branches of Government
On November 15, 1777, the Second Continental Congress adopted the Articles of
Confederation, the first official “constitution” of the United States of America. Four years later,
in 1781, the thirteen sovereign colonies ratified the Articles unanimously, thus creating a loose
confederation of states. The thirteen states are linked together in friendship to deal with common
issues that affect the entire nation, while still retaining their “sovereignty, freedom, and
independence.” Independence is an extremely important value to the American people as they
have fought vigorously for their freedom from the British crown and do not want to see their
newly founded nation undergo the same tyranny as it did under British rule. That being said,
certain states and their leaders are beginning to doubt the Articles of Confederation. Under the
Articles, the government only consists of a unicameral Congress, thus lacking an independent
executive or judicial branch. Congress has no power to regulate commerce, collect taxes, act
directly on individuals, or really enact any domestic policies with a nine state requirement for the
adoption of new legislation.
This lack of central power in the United States is beginning to cause issues in various
states. Many states have passed conflicting laws regarding trade and navigation, and the country
is quickly becoming bankrupt as Congress as no power to collect money, other than on a
voluntary basis as decided on by the states. Because of this, Congress cannot pay necessary debts
collected during the war. Even worse, violence has broken out among the states. One example of
this is the recent Shay’s Rebellion, a protest of angry farmers (many of which were former
veterans of the Revolutionary War) in western Massachusetts who were fighting against taxation,
debt, and the lack of currency that they could pay their debt with, leading to many foreclosures
of their farms. Because of these growing issues, both friends and critics of the Articles are calling
for a change. The chief difference that divides the country today is how this change will be
achieved, and to what extent will the Articles change themselves. In this Convention, delegates
must decide whether to amend the Articles or throw them away all together, what goals should
be focused on during debate, how much power should individual states have (if any at all), and
most importantly, how power should be organized in the government (especially in legislative
and executive roles).
USCC 5
The Legislative Branch
As previously stated, the current state of Congress is weak. Under the Articles, Congress
does have the power to make and confirm treaties with other nations, resolve boundary disputes
between states, provide for the regulations of the value of coin, designate the amount of ships
allowed at peacetime, fix weights and measures, establish post offices, and appoint officers to the
service of the United States. Still, Congress is even more limited when it comes to carrying out
these actions, as a supermajority in the body (nine out of thirteen states) must agree on the
adoption of any new legislation or any congressional action.
This ineffectiveness in Congress is reverberating back into the states and is causing many
Americans to blame Congress for the issues plaguing their area. Shay’s Rebellion occurred for
numerous reasons, many of which, people argue, could have been prevented by a stronger
federal government. The economic depression and the lack of funds to pay many of the
protestors for their service in the War could not have been fixed by the current Congressional
authority as they lack all power to tax or collect money from the states. In addition, Congress
was unable to raise their own army to quell the rebellion and instead had to rely on local militias.
Again, many believe that if congressional authority was strengthened, outbreaks like Shay’s
Rebellion could easily be prevented.
Many are calling for the reform of congressional authority and with that comes the debate
about the introduction of new powers to Congress. Still, there is a powerful sect that demands
that Congress maintain an inferior role in making decisions for the states. This group believes
that the addition of new powers would make one governmental body much too strong. With that
in mind, delegates must consider the implications of new powers and exactly what powers
should be implemented. There is a myriad of powers that Congress could potentially have: the
ability to decide rules of naturalization and citizenship, to collect taxes and duties, to raise and
support armies, to regulate commerce among the states and with foreign nations, to provide
copyrights and patents, and much more. When considering such powers, delegates must keep in
mind the effect that they would have on their states and fellow citizens, and most importantly,
whether it would help or hinder the growth of this new country.
USCC 6
A number of delegates of this convention have come out in favor of the addition of new
powers for Congress. These supporters, often called Federalists, emphasize the weakness of the
Articles of Confederation and advocate for any plan that strengthens the national government’s
position when dealing with domestic and foreign affairs. That being said, they call for more
direct jurisdiction by Congress over the states and their local governments. Still, there is an
opposition to such a plan by a group known as Anti-Federalists. Anti-Federalists are in
agreement that the Articles do cause many issues within the nation, but they are not likely to
attribute these issues to the existing governmental structure. They are generally wary of giving
more powers to the Congress and any form of central government, mainly for the fear of abuse of
power by this new Congress. Many Anti-Federalists believe that the existing government could
simply be granted the increased powers over taxation, commerce, and foreign affairs, but that
this government should remain fundamentally dependent on the states. Delegates must keep
these two schools of thought in mind when deciding on the implementation of any reforms to the
existing Congress.
On the other hand, one must also consider the structure of this Congress and any new
potential legislative bodies. Many are voicing their support for a bicameral legislature, while
others still support the current form of unicameral system. The current unicameral system does
offer many advantages to both governmental leaders and citizens, including the potential to enact
proposed legislation rapidly (since only one body is needed to adopt legislation thereby
eliminating the need to reconcile divergent bills).
greater accountability (since legislators cannot blame
the other chamber if legislation fails to pass, or if
citizens’ interests are ignored), fewer elected officials
for the population to monitor, and reduced costs to the
government and taxpayers. Still, there has been
increasing support for a bicameralism legislature,
consisting of two separate houses. This type of
legislature is seen in the British Parliament, which
contains the House of Lords and the House of
Commons. Again, there are significant advantages to
such a system as well, including being able to
formally represent diverse constituencies (e.g., state,
region, ethnicity or class), facilitate a deliberative
approach to legislation, hinder the passage of flawed
or reckless legislation, and provide enhanced
oversight or control over the executive.
The debate about the structure of Congress goes hand in hand with the debate about the
specific makeup of the legislative body. Delegates must come to terms with how exactly states
USCC 7
will be represented in the Congress and how they will choose these representatives. Currently,
each other thirteen states can appoint two to seven representatives to go to Congress, and every
state is given one vote in the body. This unicameral body grants equal representation and power
to each state, but citizens of larger states are calling for proportional representation of each state
based on population. This notion is vehemently opposed by smaller states, which prefer the
system still in place with equal representation (despite the population size). Those who prefer
proportional representation are arguing that their plan better represents the citizens of the country
and allows for the majority of the country to democratically voice their opinions in the national
legislature. Others who prefer equal representation stress that the current system prevents any of
the larger (and often times, more powerful) states from taking advantage of smaller states in
Congress. Both arguments somehow must be reconciled to create a Congress that truly takes into
account both small and large states, while also effectively representing the people of those states.
When considering any plan that represents a state’s population based on size, delegates
must decide how the population will be counted (typically, a census). There also needs to be a
discussion about how significant slave populations will be counted towards seats in the Congress
if a plan of proportional representation is to be adopted. Obviously, states with more slaves
(usually in the South) will want them to be considered fully, while other states with smaller slave
populations would argue that because they cannot vote or hold office, slaves should not be
included in any count that determines the allocation of seats based on population. Nonetheless,
delegates must present detailed plans for representation in Congress that does not leave any stone
unturned.
When discussing the representation of American citizens in the national Congress, one
must consider the logistics of choosing these representatives. Presently, each state government
appoints their own delegates to Congress and has a reserved right to recall any delegate at any
time within their term. Many are voicing support for keeping this system running as it gives
states a chance to directly check Congress and its power. On the other hand, there has been a
strong voice for the direct election of representatives by the people themselves. Whichever route
the Convention chooses to go down, other important factors must considered as well, such as the
qualifications of any representatives (whether elected or chosen). Under the Articles, the states
chose what they look for in a representative, and each representative can only serve three out of
ever six years. When creating or reforming a new Congress, delegates must consider age
qualifications, citizenship and residency requirements, term limits, and the appointment or
election process.
The true fight over Congress is the fight over what role it should play in society and the
daily lives of the citizens of the United States. Limits for Congress’ authority are certainly a tool
that can bring ease to those who fear any abuses lodged towards states and their undeniable
rights. These limits and checks must be decided upon by this body, while also not denying
USCC 8
Congress the ability to lead and make choices. Another factor to consider is how to grant power
to Congress. Should they be granted general powers that are left to interpretation, or should they
be granted more specific powers that are limited in their scope? The first choice is deemed too
general, with the possibility of too much abuse; the second is considered too strict, with a
congress with more power than it had currently, but unable to adapt to changing
conditions. Power is necessary to get things done; too much power is corrupting. Finding a way
to balance the power is needed to make Congress work as effectively as possible.
The Executive Branch
Under the Articles of Confederation, no
independent executive branch was created. Many states
were unwilling to give up most of their powers and what
powers they did concede went to the Congress. The
notion of choosing a single leader (in such a monarchial
fashion) for the entire nation was not popular after the
Revolution, a war fought to end the rule of King George
III over the United States. This tyrannical executive had
done many misdeeds when it came to ruling the colonies,
so for that reason, the Articles only created a weak
executive based in the Congress. The Articles declare that
Congress would “appoint one of their members to
preside, provided that person be allowed to serve in the
office of president more than one year in any term of
three years” and it assigned no other official duties to the
office. This president only performs some minor
ceremonial duties, but he really does not have any final
power of approval for the entire Congress. The president is considered more of a leader of a
social club or the chairman of a board as they could occasionally represent the organization in a
public capacity, but is not very important in daily decision making. Instead, most of the
presidential power exists with a 13-member "Committee of the States”. It is a cabinet in the
parliamentary style and appoints a Secretary of Foreign Affairs and a Secretary of War. The
USCC 9
occupants of those two offices are theoretically much more important and powerful individuals
than the president of the Congress. The current “president” of Congress is Cyrus Griffin.
Some leaders believe that a separate executive is necessary to carry out the laws passed
by the legislature. Others believe that an executive is too dangerous as it opens the door for
another powerful king-like figure to take control. That being said, a president can provide a
unifying front for the nation that it is beginning to increase in size. Another group of leaders
believe that an energetic and independent executive was necessary if the national government is
to fulfill its responsibilities of promoting the security and stability of the Union.
The various roles of an executive could encompass a wide range of responsibilities,
including the military and foreign affairs, roles that are traditionally filled by the Congress.
Executive power, many believe, must be subject to limitations, but it must also provide the
government with another outlet to lead. The president can serve as the Commander-in-Chief,
while also focusing on the economy of the nation. He can have the ability to enforce the law
through mechanisms only given to his office, and he can also negotiate foreign affairs. These
roles are incredibly varied, but they are all important and can, if the convention sees fit, fall
under the executive. Some have proposed that the executive branch should be split up into
different positions, much like the current “Committee of States” that exists in the Congress.
There are some schools of thought that believe that having the presidency become a plural office
rather than a singular office would allow each executive leader to focus on their specific
directive and avoid the burden of having to run an entire country. However, this system could
lead to many of the problems that are seen within Congress: a lack of unity in decision making
and a lack of coordinated response. By splitting up the roles of the executive branch, it might
make tyranny from the executive less likely, but it may make its efficiency and ability to act
suffer.
However many individuals are involved in the executive branch, an important topic to
debate is how they must be elected in power. Should that be the responsibility of the Congress,
or should the election of a president go to the general masses? The issues many see with just
allowing Congress to choose the president is that it really does not change the situation that the
Articles put into place, and it would make the president effectively become a pawn of the
Congress. That being said, Congress could easily check the executive branch if its members were
to have a direct say over who takes office. Another way to elect an executive branch is through
the vote of the people. Many have come to agree that this option provides for the most
democratic and open process possible, but others have claimed that the general American public
is not educated enough, through no fault of their own, to pick a U.S. president (or presidents).
Either way, there must be a plan the reconciles both schools of thought, providing for a voice of
the people while also providing for the best possible option for leadership (both for the nation
and for other branches of government). In addition, any limits placed on the president must also
USCC 10
work side by side with necessary qualifications for becoming the head of the executive branch.
Term limits, age requirements, citizenship, and educational standards must all be discussed when
choosing what sort of leader this nation would want to have. Lastly, a new branch (but especially
the executive branch) must have some ties to Congress and other potential branches. How they
serve in the country in relation to Congress is truly dependent on any decision made by this
convention.
In conclusion, the issue of forming an executive authority is extremely delicate. This
convention must never forget the injustices undergone through King George III and other British
tyrants, but it must also not let fear of this stop their potential in government by weakening it.
Because of this, the delegates of this convention must deal with the complicated task of
balancing fear of overreaching authority and a practical need for a leader.
Other Branches of Government
The Legislative and Executive Branches are typically seen as the most important
functions of government. That being said, other branches of government should not be
overlooked. Any decision to create new branches of government must be based on what powers
Congress is willing to divert away from their branch and to what extent it is giving away these
powers. Some have called upon the creation of a separate judiciary, but others greatly oppose
having judicial power taken away from the states. When considering any new branches, one of
the most important factors to decide is what kind of limits would exist to keep each working
efficiently and legally.
Bloc Positions:
Federalist: Federalists are generally in favor of a complete reconstruction of a new structure of
government, including the creation of a new Congress. This new Congress, they believe, must be
given a significant number of powers that are currently held by the states. They are in support of
USCC 11
strong central government with a division of authority between the state and the federal
government. They call for a strong executive and legislative branch and are in favor of the
adoption of a separate judicial branch. Federalists believe that the creation of the office of the
presidency is of upmost importance to the strength and accountability of the nation, especially in
matters of foreign affairs.
Anti-Federalist: Anti-Federalists are quite weary of the adoption of an entirely new constitution
but still believe that reform of the Articles of Confederation is necessary. They do not want the
federal government to be granted powers that may make it more powerful than the states, and
they see that the creation of the executive branch might lead the way to the rise of another
tyrannical leader. They fear that the creation of more branches of government can also lead to the
take over of government by one of those branches, as the other branches watch powerlessly. The
bottom line is that the Anti-Federalists believe that states would lose influence with the growth
of the federal government and that this convention should tread carefully when writing any
legislation.
Questions to Consider:
 Should the structure of the current unicameral Congress stay the same?
 Who should make up Congress, and how are they chosen? Should be there certain
requirements met for these representatives? If so, what?
 How can states be fairly represented in Congress and in the government in general? What
should the number of seats given to a state be based on?
 What powers will the federal legislature be given? How do those powers work in relation
to the states and other potential parts of government?
 Should an Executive Branch be formed at all? If so, what should the structure of the
branch be? Should it be headed by one person or by a board of people? How should
he/they be elected or chosen?
 What powers would the Executive Branch be given?
 How will this convention make sure that any executive does not take complete power
over the country?
 Should there be other branches of government? If so, what?
 How do we check any new branches of government?
Helpful Resources:
Books and Documents
 Articles of Confederation: (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp): Articles
II, III,V, VI, VIII, IX, and XIII.
 The Federalist Papers
USCC 12


The Constitution http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/preamble (Although this
committee should not adopt all of the same principles in the Constitution, it is still a good
resource to have)
Documents from the Convention: http://www.loc.gov/collections/continental-congressand-constitutional-convention-from-1774-to-1789/about-this-collection/
Websites
 http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/new-nation-1783-1815/creating-newgovernment/timeline-terms
 http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_ccon.html#brights
 https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/Presidents
 https://www.ndi.org/files/029_ww_onechamber.pdf
 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp
 http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/
 http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_founding_fathers.html
USCC 13
Topic Two: Control of the Federal Government
When the Articles of Confederation came into power, the country was emerging from a
bloody conflict that left their nation indebted and suffering. Yet, these brave citizens have
something more valuable then riches: freedom. The freedom that they fought for must
undoubtedly be protected, but who has the right to protect it? Who has the power to see that this
nation does not go down the same road of tyranny? The answer is this Convention, the delegates
that are overseeing the creation or reformation of a new government and rule of law. The
previous topic discussed the expansion of government, but this topic is focused on how much
control should said government really have on daily life. Most of the debate involving the
powers of government is pivoted around the fact that many Anti-Federalists believe that the
government (while it does need reform) should not infringe upon the liberty allotted to the states
and to the citizens of the United States.
Government involves the exercise of power. Force can often be a component of that
power, but democratic governments like this one attempt to provide legitimacy for the exercise
of power by grounding it on justice and on what the Declaration of Independence refers to as
“consent of the governed.” This convention must not only find appropriate measures of power
for the federal government but must legitimize this government in the eyes of the state. To do
this, any new constitution must grant adequate powers to the new government in order to rule
more efficiently than the one in place under the Articles, but it must also seek to limit these
powers so that they do not threaten individual liberty.
Checks of power are some of the mechanisms that can be proposed to make sure that the
federal government does not abuse its power. The possibilities for these checks are endless and
must be decided in conjunction with the creation of any new governmental offices. These checks
can exist through elections, as the government can be dependent on the electorate. Other checks
such as term limits and approval processes can be effective in preventing one person within the
government from taking full power and control. The division of powers within a branch of
government can also serve to limit the possibility of autocratic control, but it may also serve as a
USCC 14
weakening force in government. This considered, any new government must learn to control
itself, to serve as justly and as truthfully as possible to prevent any abuse of power.
When debating power given to the federal government, powers that should not be given
to federal government must be considered. Should powers not given to the federal government
be given to the states? Should powers not given to the state be given to the federal government?
These questions must be considered carefully by this convention. Many believe that without
explicitly stated freedoms for the citizens of the United States, it risks a return of tyranny.
Currently, all final decisions of the federal government are at the discretion of the states.
When creating any new system of government and granting it power that may supersede the
states, some feel that this convention must decide what the federal government cannot do. Many
believe that there must be a clear designation of powers reserved for the federal government and
powers reserved for the state governments. These exact powers must be determined but can
include: passing tax laws, declaring war on other nations, regulating commerce, passing a
budget, determining the right to vote, etc. Some believe that issues regarding localized areas with
solutions that may vary from state to state should be handled by the state government and issues
that affect the entire nation must be taken care of by the federal government, while others believe
that all issues (regardless of scope or significance) should be handled by either the state
government or the federal government. The balance (or the imbalance) of powers and which
powers must be specifically designated between the state and the national government must be
determined through careful consideration of each government’s capacity and resources.
When dealing with powers that the federal government cannot have, many call to
question how much control the federal government can have over individuals. Leaders are
stressing the necessity for a clear set of rules
that indicate what citizens have the right to
do. These rights, many claim, will draw a
firm line that the government cannot cross.
Explicitly stating these rights would
safeguard individual liberty and provide
citizens with the opportunity to educate
themselves on their liberties. Others believe
that such a document would be insufficient;
that no matter how comprehensive it may be,
it would not define all of the rights to which individuals are defined to by nature and those rights
and privileges to which governments are obliged to secure their citizens. Critics also claim that it
suggests that these principles were already addressed in the Declaration of Independence and that
including them into a constitution would suggest that people only received their rights from law
rather than from nature. They claim that this would only suggest a government of unlimited
USCC 15
power, where these explicitly stated rights are the only ones that are given to its citizens.
Nonetheless, limits must be placed on government in order to address and ease people’s fears
about a stronger central government.
Certain issues (and which government should control the rights to make a judgment on them)
are incredibly contentious. One issue that divides delegates on state and regional lines is slavery.
Due to the significant variation of opinions and the consequences of debating it, the president of
this convention asks that the delegates do not allow slavery to fracture this meeting (and nation)
but rather move it forward to another time.
This issue truly boils down to one major point: whether a strong federal government is a
good or bad thing for this country. Federalists believe that a powerful central government is a
necessity to keep this country
running. Under the Articles, many
believe that giving the states too
much power would impend on the
development of commerce (through
the imposition of state tariffs and
other laws) and threaten private
property. A stronger federal
government can also be seen as a
unifying factor to this new country
and be a critical step to achieving a
place as a leader on the world stage.
With a more powerful federal government, Congress can run at a greater capacity than it is now
and can deal with a larger range of issues more effectively. That being said, there are still cons to
a more powerful federal government, cons that groups like the Anti-Federalists believe in
strongly. A larger federal government is more susceptible to the rise of another absolute
authority like the King of England. With more power in the hands of states, many believe that
government can be closer to the people and that laws may be made to suit individual needs. As
the United States expands, there are concerns about whether a large (but distant) central authority
can lose control or stay in touch with far off constituents. Both of these beliefs must be
reconciled to create a government that is beneficial to the nation.
USCC 16
Bloc Positions:
Federalist: Federalists believe that, while the federal government must be controlled to a certain
extent, a strong central government is a necessity for the nation. In general, they believe that the
federal government should have more control than the state government, but there must be some
form of balance between the two. Most are also not in favor of the adoption of any Bill of Rights
as they see it to be irrelevant to any constitution.
Anti-Federalist: Anti-Federalists believe that the federal government should be constrained as
they fear the rise of another tyrannical leader. In general, they believe that the states should
secure more power than the federal government. Many are in favor of any document that lists
individual freedoms and rights of the people.
Questions to Consider:
 What should be added to the Articles or this new constitution to ensure that the
government does not abuse its power?
 How can the government be effective without infringing upon the liberties of the people
and the states?
 Who should check the power of the government?
 How should the branches of government be checked?
 What individual rights should be protected? Should there even be a designation of rights
in the Constitution?
 What powers should the federal government be given that the states should not?
 What powers should the states be given that the federal government should not?
Helpful Resources:
Books and Documents
 Articles of Confederation: (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp)
 The Constitution http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/preamble (Although this
committee should not adopt all of the same principles in the Constitution, it is still a good
resource to have)
 Documents from the Convention: http://www.loc.gov/collections/continental-congressand-constitutional-convention-from-1774-to-1789/about-this-collection/
 Declaration
of
Independence:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
Websites
 http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/12/securing-liberty-the-purpose-andimportance-of-the-bill-of-rights
 http://www.ushistory.org/gov/3.asp
USCC 17




http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/creating-new-government/resources/unitedstates-constitution-federalists-v-anti-feder
http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/chart.fed.pdf
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/billofrightsintro.html
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_founding_fathers.html
USCC 18
Delegate List
Roger Sherman
William Samuel Johnson
John Mercer Jr.
Abraham Baldwin
Daniel Carroll
Luther Martin
Rufus King
Elbridge Gerry
Robert Yates
John Langdon
William Paterson
William Livingston
Alexander Hamilton
John Lansing Jr.
William Richardson Davie
Hugh Williamson
Benjamin Franklin
James Wilson
Gouverneur Morris
Charles Pickney
Charles Cotesworth Pickney
John Rutledge
James Madison
George Mason
Edmund Randolph
John Dickinson
Caleb Strong
Robert Morris
William Blount
Gunning Bedford Jr.
USCC 19
Bibliography
"America's Founding Fathers - Delegates to the Constitutional Convention." The Charters of
Freedom. National Archives and Records Administration, n.d. Web. 31 July 2015.
<http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_founding_fathers.html>.
"Articles of Confederation : March 1, 1781." The Avalon Project. Yale Law School, 2008. Web.
30 July 2015. <http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp>.
Bailey, Tim. "The United States Constitution: Federalists v. AntiFederalists." GilderLehrman.org. He Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, 2009. Web.
31 July 2015. <http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/creating-newgovernment/resources/united-states-constitution-federalists-v-anti-feder>.
Collier, Christopher, and James Lincoln Collier. Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional
Convention of 1787. New York: Random House, 1986. Print.
"Constitutional Powers of the President." CQ Press. Ed. M. Nelson. SAGE Publications, 2003.
Web. 30 July 2015.
http://www.cqpress.com/incontext/constitution/docs/constitutional_powers.html
Davis, Kenneth C. "Why Do We Have a President, Anyway?" Washington Post. The
Washington Post, 07 Sept. 2012. Web. 30 July 2015.
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-do-we-have-a-presidentanyway/2012/09/07/5d86f23c-f861-11e1-8398-0327ab83ab91_story.html>.
"Federalist & Antifederalist Position." Polytechnic.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 July 2015.
<http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/chart.fed.pdf>.
"Federalism." Ushistory.org. Independence Hall Association, 2014. Web. 31 July 2015.
<http://www.ushistory.org/gov/3.asp>.
Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, and John Jay. The Federalist Papers. Ed. Clinton
Rossiter. New York: Penguin Group, 1961. Print.
"Hamilton and the U.S. Constitution." PBS - The American Experience. PBS Online, 2000. Web.
30 July 2015. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/sfeature/hamiltonusconstituion.html>.
Kladky, William P., Ph.D. "Constitutional Convention." George Washington's Mount Vernon.
Mount Vernon Ladies' Association, n.d. Web. 30 July 2015.
USCC 20
<http://www.mountvernon.org/research-collections/digital-encyclopedia/article/constitutionalconvention/>.
Linder Uni, Doug. "The Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia." Exploring
Constitutional Law. University of Missouri-Kansas City Law School, 2012. Web. 30 July 2015.
<http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/convention1787.html>.
Linder, Doug. "The Bill of Rights: Its History and Its Significance." Exploring Constitutional
Law. University of Missouri-Kansas City Law School, 2008. Web. 31 July 2015.
<http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/billofrightsintro.html>.
Linder, Doug. "The Question of State's Rights and The U. S. Consitution: American Federalism
Considered." Exploring Constitutional Law. University of Missouri-Kansas City Law School,
2008. Web. 31 July 2015.
<http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/statesrights.html>.
Lloyd, Gordon. "The Constitutional Convention | Teaching American History." Teaching
American History. Ashbrook Center, 2006. Web. 30 July 2015.
<http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/>.
One Chamber or Two? Vol. 3. Westminster: National Union of Conservative and Constitutional
Associations, 1910. Legislative Research Ser. Ndi.org. National Democratic Institute For
International Affairs. Web. 30 July 2015. <https://www.ndi.org/files/029_ww_onechamber.pdf>.
Postell, Joseph, Ph.D. "Securing Liberty: The Purpose and Importance of the Bill of Rights." The
Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation, 14 Dec. 2007. Web. 30 July
2015.<http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/12/securing-liberty-the-purpose-andimportance-of-the-bill-of-rights>.
"Presidents of the United States before George Washington." JJ McCullough. N.p., n.d. Web. 30
July 2015. <http://www.jjmccullough.com/earlypresidents.htm>.
"The Heritage Guide to The Constitution." The Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation,
2012. Web. 30 July 2015. <http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/preamble>.
"The Major Debates at the Constitutional Convention." Constitutional Rights Foundation. CRFUSA, 2015. Web. 30 July 2015. <http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-25-2-themajor-debates-at-the-constitutional-convention.html>.
"The Presidents." The White House. The White House, n.d. Web. 30 July 2015.
<https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/Presidents>.
Vile, John R. The Constitutional Convention of 1787: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of
America's Founding. Vol. 1. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2005. Print.
USCC 21
Vile, John R. The Constitutional Convention of 1787: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of
America's Founding. Vol. 2. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2005. Print.
Walenta, Craig. "Constitutional Topic: The Constitutional Convention." USConstitution.net.
Steve Mount, 12 Mar. 2012. Web. 30 July 2015.
<http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_ccon.html#brights>.