Since its inception in 1787, the U.S. Constitution has been considered as the oldest and most influential document. It laid down the principles and foundation which helped shape U.S. as a nation, and the more than one hundred countries that used it as a model for creating their own Constitution (Constitutionfacts.com, n.a.). But the circumstances during its creation were critical. The American War of Independence (1775-1783) against Great Britain had ended with the signing of the Treaty of Paris that gave sovereignty to the U.S. in 1783.
Both documents from both the Federalist document number one and the Anti-Federalists document number one examine what our nation would be like under one central government. These documents are very generalized introductions for their arguments to either created a new constitution, or ratify our existing one. Before the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the United States didn 't use a large, powerful government as we know it today. The nation put most of the power into individual states which created several issues with the overall standing of the U.S. The governing document during this time, the Articles of Confederation, had multiple weaknesses including that there was no tax authority, no chief executive, and no judicial system.
The faction was a number of citizens who were minority or majority who were united and activated by some kind of common impulse of passion, or of interest, to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the one’s community. The Articles of Confederation, which is faction was in danger. Madison knew that the new constitution had its problems nothing in life is easy. New York had no proper quorum for its delegation to vote at the Convention in Philadelphia, which means a state with new Republic could no survive.
(Schrecker 105). This is because, as seen in the example of McCarthyism, with the demise of the left-led unions and organizations, the nation lost the network that created a public space where legitimate alternatives to the status quo could be presented. In addition, moderate reform groups were now exposed to right-wing attacks, which rendered them less effective. Schrecker also said, “Moderates feared being identified with anything that seemed too radical, and people to the left of them were either unheard or under attack.” (Schrecker 105).
Therefore, he makes an early conclusion that the knowledge of the framers, though some of them, may well have been the best available in 1787 but reliable knowledge about constitution appropriate to a large representative republic was at best meager. In addition, history had not produced truly relevant models of representative governments on the scale of the U.S had already attained, not to mention the scale it would reach in the years to come (Dahl, 2003, p. 9). The author says that lack of other countries to who were democratic enough to learn from was a major historical limitation that could have led them to come up with a document that was not truly democratic. The book portrays the framers as some knowledge that would later be brought to the light of the day
The American Constitution is recognized as one of the greatest documents to ever have been formed in American history. It changes and evolves with the times as needed to form to new and improved American ways. As great as the document is, some questions still arise from it such as, were the framers of the Constitution democrats or elitists, and how democratic is our constitution? In this essay I will answer these questions and provide information to validate my answers. Our constitutional framers were definitely nothing more or less than elitists.
According to the chart of voting and jury rights of Blacks in the North in 1860, only five out of sixteen northern states allowed Blacks the right to vote (Doc A). This shows that even though fourteen percent of the population of America at the time was Black, they did not always get to vote. They cannot vote for people to represent them in government. This leads back to when Britain was taxing the colonies even though they had no representation in the British parliament. The Blacks are being taxed, yet they have no representation in government.
This point of view makes sense since, as I said earlier, there are 100 million people that have not voted in the last election, this means that around 40 percent of those eligible to vote, do not. We are missing a huge gap in our societies opinions. However according to text 2 “Countries such as Venezuela and the Netherlands practised compulsory voting at one time but have since abolished it”. This means that there are countries that have tried it in the past, and it did not work. Lastly, since 100 million people vote the majority reason that people do not vote, do not vote because they do not have the knowledge for an educated answer.
This broke people up into two groups: Anti-Federalists and Federalists. The Anti-Federalists were those in favor of strong states’ rights. They disliked the Constitution because they believed that there was a chance that Constitution would destroy the freedoms the colonies fought for. They were scared of tyranny, especially pertaining to the fact that under the new Constitution, the national government, or Congress, would be able to make decisions without even asking for the states’ permission.
Partisans on both sides of politics are often so angry with each other that they barely communicate, making it difficult to work together to find solutions for America’s issues. Extreme partisans sometimes refuse to work with members of an opposing party. Each party believes the other is treasonous, and is purposely harming the nation. The same Pew Research Center study found that opposite sides do not just believe they have better ideas, but honestly think the other party is more interested in partisan gains than the well-being of the nation. The study also found that over that last thirty years the nation has become more partisan, and Congress has become less effective.
James Madison was the president, secretary of state, founding Father and Salesmen. Without James Madison we would not have anything the same. James Madison Lived in virginia all his life. Madison With Hamilton and Jay wrote the federalist papers a series of essays anonymously to the public. James madison Wrote 26 essays supporting the constitution in the span of 6 months.
FEDERALIST PAPER NO. 67: “THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT The purpose of the Federalist papers was to convince the citizens of the state of New York to approve the Constitution, as the citizens of New York were worried about giving too much power to what they thought had the possibility developing into another monarchy. In Federalist Paper no. 67, the writer of the paper, Alexander Hamilton, tried to explain and defend the suggested future role of the Executive Branch, namely the position of the President of the United States of America. Hamilton wrote to defend the role of the President of the United State against false pretenses, invalidate incorrect similarities that were made of it to previous unpopular monarch roles, and to clear up the
Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist on Taxation Although the Articles of Confederation had its flaws, not everyone agreed with the Constitution. Under the Articles, the federal government had no taxing authority. This posed a major problem. After the War for Independence, the new country had various forms of debt.
Hamilton began his political career by serving in the Congress of the Confederation from 1782-1783. The Congress of the Confederation was the original lawmaking body of the United States after the American Revolution. Hamilton served as a representative for New York. The Congress of the Confederation was governed under the rules of the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation was the first constitution of the United States.
The question of why Americans supported or feared the Constitution of 1787 is imperative for it provides further insight into the founding of the United States. The young republic of America had several reasons to strongly support or fear the Constitution of 1787. To many, it would provide stability, but to others, it would take away their individual rights. Those who supported the Constitution (generally the Federalists) felt it was enough—no need for a Bill of Rights. Those who feared the Constitution (generally the Antifederalists) demanded a Bill of Rights to protect citizens.