The constitution is one of the most valued documents in history. The typical American believes that the Constitution was a successful conclusion to the American Revolution. However, this is false. The Framers of the Constitution were dreamers who congregated together, originally to amend the Articles of Confederation, in Philadelphia in the early Fall of 1787 at the Constitutional Convention. The creation of the constitution was a result of the American Revolution in which delegates fashioned a manual that established a national government, essential laws and granted natural born rights to certain citizens. They wanted to establish strong fundamentals that would guide the newly free nation into a prosperous future. The document is believed …show more content…
Many people, such as John Roche and Alfred F. Young, argue that the delegates were fighting for a government which supported all Americans. However, it is obvious that yes, the constitution does allow the people to have a voice, but it only allows voice through representatives, and the majority of citizens were not granted the right to vote through the constitution. The Revolution was a war that was fought to allow freedom for America and equality for Americans. However, through the 3/5 clause, it is self-evident that the framers believed all white men were equal, but black slaves were only 3/5 of a person. The framers also did not equally secure unalienable rights of African Americans by allowing slavery. The delegates derived their powers from the permission of the governed, but failed to ask for consent of women, African Americans, indentured servants, Native Americans and other workers who did not own land, who were all government by the same body as the white land owning males. The revolution which was fought to establish democracy and equality, was betrayed by the framers and a constitution which condoned inequality in order to benefit the wealthy class of people. Although, John Roche, author of The Founding Fathers a Reform Caucus in Action, argued that the Framers created a compromise between large and small states of the union and that even though the authors of the Constitution had many biases towards their own ideologies and states, they were willing to compromise their views for what was the “greater good” (Roche). John Roche believed that the framers were doing what they felt was best for the country, even though it was them who benefited most from the creation of the Constitution. This document was created by colonial elitist who created a government which put
The Texas Constitution is a document that describes the structure and purpose of the government in Texas. It took effect in February 15, 1876 and is amongst the longest state constitutions in the United States. It is the sixth constitution since claiming their independence from Mexico in 1836. Texas joined the United States under the Constitution of 1845 with provisions. Those provisions included allowing Texas to enter the union and begin the first U.S. statehood constitution. In 1861 Texas amended to transfer their statehood to the Confederacy. After the Confederacy was defeated Texas was required to adopt a constitution if they wanted to rejoin the union. The 1866 Constitution Convention emerged with a document but it did not last very long.
The roman republic constitution was a set of guidelines and principles passed down through precedent, the roman republic instead of creating a democracy such as that the Athenians created, a monarchy which was previously being used by previous roman rulers and an aristocracy which Sparta used, the Constitution combined elements of all three of these governments to create a combined government known as “Senatus populusque que romanus” (S.P.Q.R) this meant “the senate and the roman people”. The Roman magistrates were elected officials during the period of the Roman kingdom, the ‘king’ (although the Romans preferred not to be called a king and instead a rex) of Rome was the principal executive magistrate, his power was absolute similar to that of a tsar
Throughout the American Revolution, the colonists were completely resentful towards their British 'king'. They yearned for their own government, and to finally set themselves apart from George III's rule and his legislation. When the Articles of Confederation were mandated, the expectation was to provide the colonies with a stable government. The Articles were then replaced by the Constitution, which had corresponding values. Essentially the document was written to salvage and improve the new government. The Constitution did many positive things for the nation, and was the perfect remedy for the failures of of the Articles. However, it is manifest that the authors of the document were not as honorable as they may have been assumed to be. How they drafted the document and the bias they have put into it is still greatly effects us. The Constitution is a counter-revolution because it contradicts the fails of the Articles, and is evident that some authors had more self-beneficial and narrow mindsets.
For many years, the question of how adaptable and flexible the constitution is in Australia has been widely debated. As of now the atmosphere of verbal confrontation on protected change, has restored enthusiasm toward the issue in exploring whether the constitution is versatile and adaptable in meeting the needs of the nation following 100 years in being embraced.
The Articles of Confederation was America’s first constitution. The Articles of Confederation failed to create a strong central government, however. With the demise of the states in sight, the need for a stronger and more structured central government became apparent. An invitation was sent to all thirteen states in February 1787 by the Confederation Congress to resolve the matter. The events that took place over the next several months would create the United States Constitution. Going down in history as a revolutionary form of government, the U.S. Constitution would give life to a country that is still running strong over 200 years later.
The constitution was a document that embodies the fundamental laws and principles by which the U.S is governed. The constitution states basic rights for its citizens. Delegates signed the constitution on September 17, 1787. There is a total of 27 constitutional amendments. The reasoning for writing it was for a stronger federal government - legislative, executive and judicial. The constitution was a break with a past of ‘unfair’ taxes, wars and ‘unfair’ treatment.
Why was the Declaration of Independence written? The Declaration of Independence was written in 1776. We all know that day as Independence Day. It was accepted on July 4, 1776. On that day, the United States had freedom. There was a long, hard process to get the Declaration of Independence where it needed to be. It took several people, and several reviews to get it just right.
The U.S Constitution is recognized as a document that secures basic rights for citizens and structures the American national government. Before the Constitution, the states had all the power and the national government was very weak. Therefore, the creation of the Constitution was necessary to grant the national government power. Even though, the Constitution was signed in 1787, there was still debate in that the Constitution gave the national government too much power. Some of the individuals whom opposed the Constitution where Patrick Henry and George Mason. Patrick Henry became the leader of the opponents, because of his strong legal and rhetoric skills. On the other hand, George Mason was a patriot during the American Revolution, whom believed in the inalienable rights of the people. These two man were important figures that argued the dangers ratifying the Constitution would bring and that the Constitution would give too much power to the national government.
The Founding Fathers accepted that the basic rights of individuals, rights to life, liberty, and private property, were not arranged by the government, and so when the Founders composed the Constitution, they were not surrendering new rights to people. It was just to create a steady form of representative republican government that would assure that the basic rights of mankind were less likely to be compacted upon. The objective of the Framers was not to make a extreme form of “democracy” (which the Founders reviled for its strong inclination to throw off the rule of law) in which everybody had the equal kind of say in government or in which nobody felt as if they were in a minority.
One major criticism of the details of the Constitution stems from its inclusion of slavery. William Lloyd Garrison, a Massachusetts abolitionist and writer of The Liberator, argued that the Constitution was in fact written as a pro-slavery document. Citing the three-fifths clause, Garrison contested that the Constitution was invalid from its origin, since the initial compromise put aside morals and humanities for the sake of politics (385). Garrison argued that the founders were “sinful,” “weak,” and “trampled beneath their feet their own… Declaration, that all men are created equal” in proclaiming slavery legal and including it in the Constitution (385). In Garrison’s view, including slavery in the Constitution directly contradicted the rights to life, liberty, and property it promised. Since Garrison opined that the Constitution itself was invalid, he offered to his readers that a Union with slavery was not worth preserving, for if the South were to secede, it would be a weak government that could be easily overthrown by slaves, su...
The Second Amendment has always been met with much debate on whether gun control is constitutional or unconstitutional. The framers of the Second Amendment have left many people with different opinions on what its true intent was. Charles L. Blek Jr. and Joseph Sorban have two different views with many over lapping ideas and use court rulings, Second Amendment history, and past events in their articles to help support their positions.
Throughout the past decade or so the Second Amendment rights issues have arisen with the demand of individuals rights to keep and bear arms. The constitution states the “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” In the court case upheld in the Supreme Court Columbia vs. Heller, the ongoing debate of this interpretation of the Second Amendment. Heller, a special officer in Washington D.C., was denied the right to being able to register a handgun to keep at home. This case was taken up to the Supreme Court due to Heller’s argument stating that the government of the nation’s capital must obey the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because these texts are the supreme law of the land. Heller’s belief of injunction was certain, “at least one of the founding fathers said that there will be times when the State or Federal Government will overstep its bounds and will need to be put back into its place.” There has not been any lower court cases or any true precedent case besides Columbia vs. Heller for Drake vs. Jerejian. Drake vs. Jerejian seeks an end to the unjustified denial of carry permits by the State of New Jersey; and the unreasonable restriction for concealed carry permits citing “justifiable need” or “urgent necessity” for the issuance of a permit. Constitutional rights are protected under the law and may not be denied by government officials because of perceived “need” or “necessity.” The Second Amendment should not only guarantee this right to possess firearms to members of militia but also to those who may grant this privilege, as well that it’s a right in our constitution. An individual’s Second Amendment right should se...
On further analysis, most of the issues within the document were due to vast cultural, racial, and economic lifestyles that our country did and will continue to support, as unintentional as it may be. This document lessened some of those issues and attempted to accommodate the requests of all states. However, Elitist framers manipulated the idea of a constitution in order to protect their economic interests and the interests of their fellow white land and slave owning men' by restricting the voices of women, slaves, indentured servants and others.
A constitution is the system of fundamental principles according to which a nation is governed. Our founding fathers created the US Constitution to set specific standards for our country. We must ask ourselves why our founding fathers created the Constitution in the first place. America revolted against the British due to their monarchy form of government. After the American Revolution, each of the original 13 colonies operated under its own rules of government. Most states were against any form of centralized rule from the government. They feared that what happened in England would happen again. They decided to write the Articles of Confederation, which was ratified in 1781. It was not effective and it led to many problems. The central government could not regulate commerce between states, deal with foreign governments or settle disputes. The country was falling apart at its seams. The central government could not provide assistance to the state because there wasn’t a central army. When they realized that the Articles of Confederation was not up to par, they held a convention, known as the Constitutional Convention of 1787. As a result of t...
The purpose of a revolution is to bring forth change in government and political standing. There has been revolutions happening throughout the course of history. The opposite of a revolution is a counter-revolution. A counter-revolution is revolution against a government recently established by a previous revolution. One particular culprit to the counter revolution is the United States' Constitution. This document is debated to be counter-revolutionary while still keeping the fundamental principles of the American Revolution alive. There is definitely proof for both arguments. Therefore, the U.S. Constitution was both a counter-revolutionary document and an extension to the American Revolution.