American Constitutionalism in Historical Perspective (packet)

Criticisms

1. 
   All about economic interests. Constitution meant to entrench the rights of creditors over those of debtors. (Beard). But ratification d/n line up that way, supported by debtors, opposed by creditors.
   
2. 
   Dahl reads # 10, as stating polyarchy (lot of different interests groups contesting for power) which may roughly approx the public good. But 10 seems to regard polyarchy as a form of factionism.
   
3. 
   Valorizing distance, what about responsiveness to local needs?—has led to emergence of lobbying. Elitist argument: ppl w/ more vision will think beyond the state & do well for all of the ppl.
   
   1. 
      Low rates of pol participation: perhaps rep democracy d/n work well when ppl are less informed.
      
   2. 
      Superfactions: majority at state and natl level – Christianity, racism. South dominates natl gov’t until repeal of 3/5 clause. D/n address factions of race-hatred and anti-Semitism
      
4. 
   Downplaying judicial review: which has been necessary to address superfactions of race/religion. Afraid of damage by increasing the persistence of faction, and reactionary democratic politics (court skeptical approach). Moral principles of the court may not be those adhered to by the people.
   

McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819: Bank reintroduced after rigorous debate in legislative & exec branches. Marshall shows deference to their perspectives since this issue d/n involve the “great principles of liberty.”

1. 
   Is it constitutional to have a national bank since not enumerated in Art. I, sec. 8? If it is constitutional, what powers lie in the state to tax?
   
   1. 
      Strict constructionism: interpreting powers narrowly to reserve more power to the state. Authority for bank not enumerated in Const., creating implied powers may stretch powers too far. (Jefferson)
      
   2.