Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Critically examine platos cave
Analyze Plato's allegory of the cave
Analyze Plato's allegory of the cave
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Critically examine platos cave
“Knowledge about the inner life of the governmental community of Washington becomes imperative for understanding the political system of the new nation.” ( Young p.108) The Constitutional Framers envisioned a national government that is similar to the concept of Plato's cave which is that it would be "at a distance and out of sight" of the everyday affairs and thoughts of ordinary Americans. The end result, it was anticipated, would be a new form of "national" and "long term" thinking by men of prominence, motivated only by their devotion to a national public interest and legacy. The constitutional framers wanted “The people to elect good men.” (Federal Farmer No.9, p.27) The Washington Community or “the original beltway boys” had an expectation of what it intended to be socially and politically and ended up being something different.
The Washington community helped develop the political community based on the constitutional framers original idea as well as implementing their own self-interest. The elected government ended up being even more limited than the constitutional design had envisioned. The Washington community ended up being a backwater that did not develop properly with few privileges socially and economically, and with limited political presence. The city was not fully developed and it made the elected officials seem that they had the power and they were of significance. Therefore, elected officials in both the House of Representatives and the Senate would not stay around long to serve. The original powers the constitutional framers intended for the elected officials of Washington to have was a separate territory removed from the political carryings of the states and the people that would allow deliberative democracy...
... middle of paper ...
... and thoughts of ordinary Americans. The Washington Community or “the original beltway boys” had an expectation of what it intended to be socially and politically and ended up being something different. The Framers of the Constitution designed the constitution to establish a foundation that would assist the government lead the people and the United States. They hoped that a new form of national and long term thinking by men of prominence and motivated to serve the national public interest. What ended up occurring was that the Washington Community was a backwater with few privileges. The government was not developing properly and there was limited political presence. The national government was deemed insignificant and that was a major problem. The vision that the constitutional framers anticipated was not in actuality carried out by the early Washington Community.
Before the Constitution was drafted, the United States’ budding government, now independent from Great Britain, acted under a dysfunctional constitution called the Articles of Confederation. Although this constitution kept the new nation running, there were still flaws that needed to be fixed. The Articles of Confederation lacked a developed executive or judicial branch and a method for the main government to collect taxes from state governments, according to the background essay of the DBQ Packet. An assembly of fifty-five men eventually gathered for a Constitutional Convention in order to write a new constitution that would better satisfy the people’s needs. The trouble of creating another constitution lied behind creating a document
There were men like Herman Husband who despised wealth, gluttony, extravagance, and luxury, and as such, he made sure that he educated as many “ordinary people” as he could, as often as he could, about the dangers of the ordinary people giving up their power. On the other side of the token, there were the framers who would achieve an added benefit from having a centralized government, which may be why they advocated so heavily in favor of a federal government. Some of the Founding Fathers owned paper securities that were depreciating themselves almost to nothing due to the war and America 's inability to repay her debts. By creating and enforcing a centralized government who would pay off debts, their paper securities would be back on the rise and of course increase their wealth at the expense of others (Countryman 169). Although the Anti-Federalists were able to obtain almost all of what they asked for between the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the most important thing – a small local government – was now forgone in favor of the federal
The delegates, also known as the Framers of the Constitution, didn't exactly agree on how to create a new system of government, with two sides emerging both with contrary, but comparable motives on how to keep their country running efficiently. First there were the Federalists, who favored a stronger national g...
Madison speaks of the problems of the present attempts at a new government saying “our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and over-bearing majority”.
All of the framer of the U.S. Constitution had one thing in common, they all felt that the government didn't have enough power. At the same time they didn't want to give the government to much power. They all knew if there was power to be held someone was going to hold it and over use it The framers didn't want to create a system like Britain or England.
2. Roche, John P. "The Founding Fathers: A Reform Caucus in Action". American Politics. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, MA. 1999. (Pages 8 -- 20).
Many complaints focused on the lack of a bill of rights in the Constitution, stating the inalienable rights of an American citizen. In Thomas Jefferson’s Jefferson Writings (Doc. C), he states that no government is entitled to omit such an important part of a country’s makeup. The reason a constitution is made is to protect the rights the people fought for during the Revolution, not limit them. Another concern is the balance of power between social classes and the governmental branches, which was a big issue with the Articles of Confederation. Even with checks in place so no branch of government could become to powerful, there was always a risk. In the “Brutus” and “John DeWitt” papers (Doc. D) it states that this unbalance of power could lead, disastrously, to one group dominating over all others, most likely the aristocrats. Some people, such as Patrick Henry during his Speech to Virginia State Constitutional Ratification Convention (Doc. F) even became heatedly anti-federalist, stating that the Constitution endangered to sovereignty of the states entirely. But even with these various concerns and arguments, the Constitution was ratified by all thirteen states in
In the Constitution, central and state governments received power that was shared and split in a federalist system, preventing tyranny of one over the other. Madison put forward his idea of federalism in Federalist Paper #51. “...the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments...The different governments will each control each other, at the same time each will be controlled by itself” (Doc. A). A Venn diagram derived from the Constitution shows that the central government controlled national affairs such as war, foreign trade, and foreign relations, and states controlled internal affairs such as establishing public services and regulating in-state businesses. The shared powers included taxes, loans, and laws. Despite Madison’s bias towards the federalist system (rarely does one truly attack one’s own political treatise within it) in his quote, the apportioning of powers shows that neither the central or st...
Following the failure of the Articles of Confederation, a debate arose discussing how a centralized government ought to be organized. The prevailing opinion ultimately belonged to the Federalists, whose philosophy was famously outlined in The Federalist Papers. Recognizing that in a free nation, man would naturally divide himself into factions, they chose not to remedy this problem by stopping it at its source; instead, they would limit its effects by placing strict structural safeguards within the government's framework. The Federalists defined a facti...
By the late eighteenth century, America found itself independent from England; which was a welcomed change, but also brought with it, its own set of challenges. The newly formed National Government was acting under the Articles of Confederation, which established a “firm league of friendship” between the states, but did not give adequate power to run the country. To ensure the young nation could continue independently, Congress called for a Federal Convention to convene in Philadelphia to address the deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation. While the Congress only authorized the convention to revise and amend the Articles the delegates quickly set out to develop a whole new Constitution for the country. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the new Constitution called for a national Executive, which was strongly debated by the delegates. There were forces on both sides of the issue trying to shape the office to meet their ideology. The Federalists, who sought a strong central government, favored a strong National Executive which they believed would ensure the country’s safety from both internal and external threats. The Anti Federalists preferred to have more power in the hands of the states, and therefore tried to weaken the national Executive. Throughout the convention and even after, during the ratification debates, there was a fear, by some, that the newly created office of the president would be too powerful and lean too much toward monarchy.
During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms. Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused. The “lackluster leadership” of the critics of the new constitution claimed that a large land area such as America could not work for such a diverse nation.
The American Revolution stirred political unity and motivated the need for change in the nation. Because many Americans fought for a more balanced government in the Revolutionary War, they initially created a weak national government that hampered the country's growth and expansion. In the Letter from Abigail Adams to Thomas Jefferson, Mrs. Adams complained about the inadequacy of power that the American government had to regulate domestic affairs. The Articles of Confederation was created to be weak because many had feared a similar governing experience that they had just eliminated with Britain. The alliance of states united the 13 local governments but lacked power to deal with important issues or to regulate diplomatic affairs. Congress did not have the power to tax, regulate trade, or draft people for war. This put the American citizens at stake because States had the power to refuse requests for taxes and troops (Document G). The weakened national government could not do anything about uprisings or small-scale protests because it did not have the power to put together an army. The deficiencies of the confederation government inspired the drafting of the American Constitution. The document itself embodied the principle of a national government prepared to deal with the nation's problems. In James Madison's Federalist Paper, he persuades the American public to adopt the Constitution so that the government can protect humans from their nature and keep them out of conflicts.
In early American government there were two emerging political views that were blatantly obvious in the new states; federalists and anti-federalists. In this paper two main topics of interest for each of the parties will be discussed, the role that government should have according to the differing views and the subject of foreign policy.
After winning the Revolutionary War and sovereign control of their home country from the British, Americans now had to deal with a new authoritative issue: who was to rule at home? In the wake of this massive authoritative usurpation, there were two primary views of how the new American government should function. Whereas part of the nation believed that a strong, central government would be the most beneficial for the preservation of the Union, others saw a Confederation of sovereign state governments as an option more supportive of the liberties American’s fought so hard for in the Revolution. Those in favor of a central government, the Federalists, thought this form of government was necessary to ensure national stability, unity and influence concerning foreign perception. Contrastingly, Anti-Federalists saw this stronger form of government as potentially oppressive and eerily similar to the authority’s tendencies of the British government they had just fought to remove. However, through the final ratification of the Constitution, new laws favoring state’s rights and the election at the turn of the century, one can say that the Anti-Federalist view of America prevails despite making some concessions in an effort to preserve the Union.
Even before the Constitution was ratified, strong argument were made by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison in the Federalist Papers urging the inclusion of a federal form of government to replace the failed confederation. In Federalist Paper No. 9 Hamilton states, “This form of government is a convention by which several smaller states agree to become members of a large one, which they intend to form. It is s kind of assemblage of societies that constitutes a new one, capable of increasing, by means of new associations, until they arrive to such a degree of power as to be able to provide for the security of a united body” (Usinfo.state.gov). The people of the United States needed a central government that was capable of holding certain powers over the states.