all right welcome back video about all the required documents in one place all right so starting off with the Declaration of Independence there's not too much here I think they're going to focus on main ideas being natural rights popular sovereignty and social contract these are the foundation of governmental power so I have a couple quotes here um we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal that they are endowed by the creator with certain unalienable rights you have this idea of rights that are not best showed by people um but rather that these come from somewhere above whether it's God or nature or otherwise so you have this idea of natural rights you also then have the idea that governments are instituted among men that derive their powers from the consent of the governed so people are the source of power that's popular sovereignty social contract is that governments again come from men and that their job is to secure and protect the natural rights that men have all right so we have the Articles of Confederation so the first system of government prec Constitution under the Articles each state was Sovereign so they had the ultimate Authority and Power in the federal Congress each state had one vote so all the states were equal and it had to be unanimous to do things so again you see how each individual state had a significant amount of power Congress could not tax they also couldn't regulate interstate commerce Congress could however declare war they could make treaties they could raise an army coin and borrow money so essentially notice that what they can do is they can do foreign policy they couldn't really make domestic policy um they can raise an army but they couldn't tax so they were reliant on voluntary donations contributions from the states um so they could tell them hey we're raising an army we need this amount of money but they couldn't actually enforce that there was no executive or judicial branch at the national or federal level so states were the ones who could impose tariffs on other states states could also create their own money and they could even ignore Federal treaties so again States being Sovereign here we then move on to the Constitution which established a limited government so it said here are the things that government can do or the federal government can do if it's not mentioned here then it belongs to either States or to the private citizens to the people um some of the basic ideas that they put into this government included separation of powers checks and balances uh the idea that it's a representative form of government and federalism so dividing power between national state and local governments this is super super brief because the unit one review video is pretty much all about this so check that video out um to get much more information on the Constitution and all the things you need to know about it all right so now now we get to the Federalist Papers we have four of them in our required documents so Federalist number 10 this one we're talking about so remember the federal side was in favor of the Constitution so this is the pro argument for the Constitution why it would be good Federal number 10 argues that factions are the biggest threat facing the new Republic and he defines James Madison here writing federos 10 defines a faction as a group of citizens united by an interest adverse to the rights of other citizens so meaning a group who didn't want what's best for the public who was actually against the rights of other people he said that that would be the biggest threat to the nation we can't get rid of factions however he says that they're natural we can't remove the causes of them as long as people are different have unequal amounts of money as long as people have different opinions will always have factions so you can't destroy factions without destroying Liberty so rather than try to eliminate factions we have to control the negative effects of such factions um he says if we don't well one way that people might try to do this would be through democracy but he says democracy can't handle factions because you'll have a majority faction because they'll just win the election so democracy you have a vote and The Winning Side gets to make the policy so he says democracy would lead to a tyranny of the majority the majority would just tyrannize minorities and take away their rights at will so Madison solution and it's what's here highlighted for you a large Republic is the best way to control factions and protect minority rights while maintaining majority rule so we want a majority of people to be able to make policy and influence policy however we don't want that majority to be able to trample minority rights he says by having a large Republic we'll have so many factions that's why the large part is important which will dilute the power of each individual faction and diminishes the chance for any single faction to dominate the government so we should have a larger Republic and we should have a republic instead of a democracy because we'll have um Representatives who should have the Public's best interest at heart um these enlightened Statesmen that kind of thing to do this all right so Federalist number 51 the main idea here is Madison's arguing for checks and balance and separation of powers so you have that highlighted so let's go back to how and why he does that well you have the famous quote if men or Angels no government would be necessary you must first enable the government to control the Govern and oblige it to control itself so because men are fallible and imperfect we need government because people will do bad things but the people who will be in our government aren't perfect either they are also people who can do bad things so we need to limit their power so we we need we need to have government to limit people because they do bad stuff but we need to limit the power of people in government because they can do bad stuff too essentially so his solution is ambition must be made to counteract ambition so divide power up separate it make three branches so we have the legislative the executive and the judicial branches and then give each of them some power but give them each some power over the others as well so each branch can check the others because they will jealously guard their own power and not want the other branches to take away their power so they'll each step up and defend their powers and in turn limit the other branches so he argues that this will be a successful way to limit the power of government he also does go on to add a check within a check or argue for a check within a check which is that since the legislative branch or congress is the strongest Branch remember that's what they thought at the time its power needs to be divided into two houses to further weaken it so within Congress we have the house and the Senate so bills have to pass both so again this check within a check you see a further limiting of power all right so Brutus number one is going to argue the opposite position he is going to argue against ratifying the Constitution prefers for power to be held by the people in smaller more local governments whether that be state or municipalities um argues in favor of democracy so people being able to directly vote on things and part of that means that it needs to be a smaller government he offers some warnings he says that once people give up power to this new federal government they'll never get it back he also says he was particularly worried about Article 1 Section 8 the necessary and proper clause aka the elastic clause he says this gives the federal government quote absolute and uncontrollable power justifying the passing of almost any law he is absolutely right that it has expanded Federal power tremendously he's not exactly right because it hasn't allowed them to do anything remember the necessary Proper Clause has to be related to um congress's explicit or expressed powers so they are able to make additional laws but they do have to be linked to the express powers of congress he says the power attacks could lead to a tyranical federal government um standing armies could lead to the destruction of Liberty so he opposes both of those Powers so again you see he would have preferred something like the Articles of Confederation he predicts that Federal governments will eventually destroy state governments and he points the historical fact at that time which is that only small republics um have ever been successful and so whereas Madison wants a large public with diverse people he prefers a smaller democracy with people who are similar to themselves all right so shifting gears to Federal number 70 Hamilton here is arguing in favor of a unitary executive meaning a single oneperson president not a council so why does he argue for this because that would seem to give a lot of power to one person which goes against pretty much the rest of the Constitution so Hamilton says a good government needs an active and decisive executive um if we have multiple people it's going to lead to indecis ision and you'll see coming up that he's you know we need somebody that can act quickly and one person can act more quickly than a council or a group he says that if the executive is weak it will lead to an inefficient government a single president is more effective than dividing executive power among a group again that decisive nature that activity that energy that Hamilton describes that he thinks is necessary and then he makes an important distinction he says while it's good for Congress to move slowly and deliberately the executive needs to be able to react quickly so in case of emergency they should be able to quickly jump into action and if you have a number of people sharing that power they won't be able to do so and then he also I think in a very clever argument says that if we only have one president a unitary executive it's much easier to assign blame and hold the president accountable um than if there were multiple people on that presidential Council we'll know exactly whose fault it is they won't be able to point at each other and say oh it wasn't me it was that person so they will actually be in fact more accountable to the people and public opinion as a single executive than as a group so Federal number 78 is arguing in favor of Life terms for federal judges in favor of an independent Judiciary and the power of judicial review so how can Hamilton defend this idea that judges should have life terms they're not even elected by the people and then they get this job for life he says don't worry they are the least dangerous Branch they don't have power over money to tax they don't have power to go to war and they can't even enforce their own decisions they rely on others to do that for them the quote there it has neither Force nor will merely judgment now as far as that judgment goes Hamilton argues that they must be completely independent to matter he argues that if Congress the president could fire them or reduce their pay or put other pressure on them that they wouldn't be independent and then they aren't going to do their job and he describes that job in the last two bullet points he says the judicial Branch's Duty must be to declare all acts contrary to the Constitution void he is saying here the whole reason we have a judicial branch is to protect the Constitution from you see the quote there legislative encroach Ms meaning against Congress when they pass something unconstitutional so we need to have a judicial branch that will strike it down or when the president does something unconstitutional so we can't let Congress or the president be able to dictate to them what they can or can't do to threaten them with removing them uh firing them that kind of thing so they need to be totally independent to be safeguarded and to actually practice judicial review all right and our final required document letter from a birming jail how can this be a founding document the others are all 18th century documents and this one is not well it can be interpreted as demanding the Fulfillment of words found in the Declaration and the Constitution demanding that those words apply to everybody especially looking at race because we know that this didn't apply to African-Americans for a long long time and Martin Luther King Jr here is demanding that these words finally do apply to everybody so we see parallels to other of our required documents um the first quote I have there is similar to the argument Brutus made so he says privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily um that's in letter from Birmingham Jail what Brutus said was about uh once you give somebody power they don't give it back unless you take it back with Force so similar argument there like the Declaration listed the Grievances um Birmingham Jail also lists some of the bad things that had been happening in the South and that were the cause of why um we needed to have this direct action of Civil Disobedience he also appeals to moral law and the law of God natural law natural rights um just like Jefferson did so there are some very good parallels there some key quotes freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor it must be demanded by the oppressed so you see the Viewpoint here uh the demand for freedom again demanding that those words of the Declaration the equal protection cause are finally fulfilled he also states that Injustice anywhere is a threat to Justice everywhere and that an unjust law is no law at all therefore people have a right and in fact a duty to not comply with and in fact to break laws that are unjust very similar again to the Declaration when Jefferson talks about people having a right to get rid of a tyrannical government that violates their rights all right make sure you subscribe if you haven't already hit that like button for me if this video helped you in any way hope you guys do great on the AP exam till next time this has been a l money production