Unruly Americans And The Origins Of The Constitution

The reasoning behind the Constitution of the United States is presented as 'based upon the philosophy of Hobbes and the religion of Calvin. It assumes the natural state of mankind in a state of war, and that the carnal mind is at enmity with God.' Throughout, the struggle between democracy and tyranny is discussed as the Founding Fathers who envisioned the Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787 believed not in total democracy, but instead saw common man as selfish and contemptuous, and therefore in need of a 'a good political constitution to control him.' Being a largely propertied body, with the exception of William Few, who was the

‘Transformed beyond recognition from the vision of the Founding Fathers.’ Discuss this view of the modern US constitution.

David O. Stewart, by profession, is a lawyer with a resume that includes everything from arguing appeals at the Supreme Court level to serving as a law court to the acclaimed Junior Powell. But in writing The Summer of 1787: The Men Who Invented the Constitution (specifically, I read the First Simon & Schuster trade paperback edition May 2008, copyrighted in 2007), he uses that experience in law to prove himself a gifted storyteller. Two hundred sixty-four pages long, this United States history nonfiction book does indeed have the substance to engage the reader throughout. It has special features that include two appendices featuring the elector system and the actual constitution of 1787, author’s notes, suggested further reading, acknowledgments and an index (which escalate the total length of the book to three hundred forty-nine pages long).

​The United States Constitution was carefully crafted by a group of deliberate and thoughtful individuals; each having their own unique and particular ideas about government, and the people it may govern. As this supreme foundation for government was molded, each founding father put forth their learned beliefs and philosophies to be integrated into this modern document. All of the crafting members were both well-read and thoroughly educated, allowing for deep and extended discussions on past governments, their efficiencies, and their deficiencies. Through their readings and philosophical discussions, it became apparent that two previously governing bodies stood, in their opinions, above the rest: The Greek and Roman empires. Their governmental practices and virtues were key in the development of the Constitution, as they were dissected, and eventually, emulated by this country’s founding members.

The Federalists Papers were written in the eighteenth century by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay in an effort to persuade New Yorkers to ratify the new U.S. Constitution. These papers are said to be the key that unlocks the true interpretation and meaning of the Unites Sates Constitution. One of the controversial topics relating to the Constitution that the Federalists Papers help to straighten out, is the practice of judicial review by the Supreme Court. In this essay, I will point out many of the examples Alexander Hamilton gives in Federalist No. 78 that support the idea of the Supreme Court having power of judicial review over all levels of

In modern America, many citizens hold to the notion that the Constitution was adopted unanimously, without debate or disagreement. Not only is this not the case, the debate and disagreement that took place during the institution of the governing articles for the newly formed country are ultimately responsible for the system we have in place today as the concerns and counterpoints raised in the discussion were more crucial to the successful continuance of stability in the nation than any unanimous decision. Given the apparent import of such discussion, it is therefore prudent to examine the original points of contention to determine their merit and to further ensure that the concerns originally raised have been addressed sufficiently.

Viewing the Constitution of the United States of America – one of America’s oldest documents - as another great beloved American classic may be demanding for almost anyone to do. Because of its old age and “unrelatable” content, the American Constitution remains a difficult thing for people of all professions, races, religions, and political views to read and enjoy just as much as any other novel. Thanks to the renowned Akhil Reed Amar, the average person’s perspective of the United States’ Constitution is altered and their knowledge of the work is expanded through the explanations provided in America’s Constitution: A Biography. By explaining not only the mentality of those who dreamed, drafted, and voted for the Constitution but also the desires of the founding fathers when creating a democracy as their choice of an ideal government for their country in a world full of monarchies, Amar is able to give readers insight on a piece that was not only relevant when it was created but is able to expand as society does. Amar creates a biography perfect for those who desire to know more about the foundations America was built on and its ability to adapt and evolve throughout the

The primary source is Federalist paper No. 10, which is a the first of James Madison’s contributions to the series of essays known as the Federalist Papers. This essay is a highly regarded paper among the collection. The Federalist No. 10 is merely rhetoric used to rationalize the benefits of a new system of government, explain how the new union will be constructed and most crucial to the essay, sway public opinion to support the ratification of the new constitution. This particular primary source is imperative to understanding the complexity of the United States government at the time of its birth as well as now. Madison makes an argument that the expansion of the federal government is necessary to protect liberty against the excess of democracy. The document reveals the advantages of a Republic and serves as an explanation as to why the U.S. espouses a Republican form of government and the Constitution.

The first chapters introduce the life of the American people and the failed of the Articles of Confederation which is in chronological time, yet the division later in issues makes the reader confuse about the time line. The authors based their work mostly on Madison “notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787” and also in Georgia delegate William Pirce Farrand’s records; the “notes” of Pierce and Madison, focuses on the conflicts and compromises giving the book a sense of a time line, yet the biographies of some of the other delegates cause confusion on the historical time of the overall book.

In the book “A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution” by Carol Berkin she explains the constitution from start to finish from how it all began, to the debates inside the convention and finally the end product. Berkin takes the reader and puts him directly in the middle of the convention of 1786; throughout the book you can feel the excitement, the frustration, the tensions between delegates and the overall commitment to making a new government work for all.

The question posed by both Madison and the Framers in the 85 “Federalist Papers” and Dahl in his book How Democratic is the American Constitution? is how effective the Constitution is at promoting the ideals of a democracy. For Dahl, there are several issues surrounding the Constitution, from its drafting, to its ideology, to its relevance. By analyzing Dahl’s critiques of the Constitution in terms of the parallels that exist between factions and the two-party system, the issue of unequal representation, and the necessity for the Framers to compromise on their ideals to ratify the Constitution, Dahl defined a clear argument based in his general disapproval for the Constitution. However, by combining Dahl’s critiques with potential rebuttals from the opinions and perspectives of Madison and his fellow Federalists, it is evident that both Dahl and the Framers believed that if the constitution was completely successful, then the lives of the American people would be enhanced. While Dahl believed that the Constitution, ultimately, has not fully protected the rights of all persons, he, like the Framers, focused on the particulars of government that must be improved such that the American life is bettered.

According to Scott (2008), the Constitution of America has undergone several translations within the history of America because they found it to be unclear. Whereas it appears discrepant that the unclear Constitution could be useful, the disagreement is the case (Robertson, 2005). Americans regard the Constitution to be helpful for the reason that it allows for diverseness of views. In the history of America, a variety of thoughts would develop with alarming and formidable support through various factions (Robertson, 2005). Today, the main political arguments are presented from the Republican group or Democratic group. During the early periods of the American government, arguments on politics were made by Thomas Jefferson

This fresh, new foundation came in the form a document that outlined the way the government would work. Unlike the way Europe was governed before the Enlightenment period, Americans, since they had recently liberated themselves from the British throne, wanted to establish a government in such a way that would prevent tyrannical monarchy. By this time, they still were faced with the challenge of a republican self government. But again, we see the influence of Locke’s ideas from his Treatise, where he proposed that people had the right to establish their own government for their own protection of their natural rights. As a result of this idea, the preamble to the Constitution was created. This section provided analysis as to what the whole Constitution was about; improvement on the current government (to ensure that they are just) and protection for its citizens.

Is the United States Constitution a sacred and absolute document? Dahl (2001) argued that the Constitution is not perfect or permanent in his book, How Democratic is the American Constitution. He stresses that his main aim is not to propose that the Constitution must be amended, but to facilitate readers in changing how they think about the Constitution. In order to help people rethink the Constitution, Dahl (2001) explained the limitations of its Framers and the Constitution’s not widely known undemocratic aspects. The strengths of the book are its ethos or reputation of the author that establishes his credibility, informal writing style that can appeal to more people, its consideration of a number of undemocratic aspects of the

In this essay I will try to explain and critique the two dominant methods of constitutional interpretation. Which are originalism and non-originalism. I will do this by taking help from “How to Read the Constitution” by Christopher Wolfe, and different source’s from Internet. I will start by giving what Wolfe says originalism is, and then I will give some background to other ways to interpret the constitution, and the founders and interpretation and I will finish up with my view on originalism and non-originalism and the critics to that.