Robert Dahl states his opinion towards the Constitution in his novel How Democratic is the American Constitution? He goes through multiple subjects such as our government compared to other countries, the framers of the constitution, and what is stated in it that can be improved or should remain unchanged. Dahl makes several intriguing cases about laws that our outdated, and things that should be changed because they might not be accurate or modern. This was an enjoyable read and on many topics Robert A. Dahl and I seem to have similar views. I believe the American Constitution is not democratic. The Framers of The Constitution The novel begins with the people who created the document at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. After reading, …show more content…
Such as, there are two senators for each state. But there are states that have a higher population than others, but still only represented by two senators. Since, there are places that have a smaller population, their vote towards the senate or for certain ideas is much more impacted. For example, if a state has ten people living it compared to a hundred then the being in the state with ten people is more beneficial. Your voice is heard and placed into the votes that the senator takes to the Senate. Whereas, if you are in a state with one hundred people, your voice is less likely to be heard and will have less of an impact. This is what Dahl is trying to share with us throughout the novel. I began to understand that we need more representation in the Senate close to Chapter …show more content…
When it comes to the Constitution, I believe it should be updated every couple of years, because our world and technology is changing. By having the same laws, we are not moving on from the past and advancing. We do need more equal representation when it comes to Senate, and we need more rights for women, Native Americans and African Americans. Since the Constitution is outdated and was mostly written by a group of men in 1787 that were mostly republican, it is seen as more of a republican document than a democratic
In the book, “How Democratic Is the American Constitution”, Robert A. Dahl takes us deeper into the complexities of demonstration of American majority rule government were surrounded. An intriguing part of this book is the examination with different popular governments as far and wide as possible. His tables and graphs in the book are helpful for the situation. The book also given an idea of majority rules system in the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland.
Throughout the second chapter Levin states that there is a very small turnover in Congress and each time that election time comes into play, most of the same people are elected for position (Levin 19-32). He believes that while term limits are not enough to balance the power of the governing systems it is a step in the right direction and are necessary and a critical building block (Levin 22). In his next chapter Levin proposes an amendment that is to restore the Senate (Levin 33). This amendment would repeal the seventeenth amendment and make it to where all Senators are chosen by their state legislatures as prescribed by Article I (Levin 33). Prior to the seventeenth amendment the Senate had been chosen by legislators of each state (Levin 34). Throughout the chapter he goes on to talk about how the Framers of our nation intended the Senate to be chosen and also how we have branched away from that. He discusses several different people’s opinions on how it should be ran and also how it should be managed. He states that John Dickinson made a notion that the Senate should be chosen by the state legislatures (Levin
The book begins with a prologue dated March 4, 1865, on the day of Abraham Lincoln’s second inauguration, a photographer is preparing for the event and in the background, the capitol building is under construction. A man is watching, unsatisfied with the events
For five years after Revolutionary war each state basically governed themselves. Although there was national government in place, it held little power over the states. It soon became apparent that the Articles of Confederation needed to be readdressed to combat the increasing problems that were brewing in the country. The first attempt to redress was dismissed by many of the states. Nevertheless, a second attempt produced results with twelve of the states sending delegates to redress the Articles of Confederation. Several delegates submitted plans for consideration that would strengthen the national government two such plans were the Virginia and the New Jersey Plan. Despite much of Virginia’s plan being accepted, if a compromise had not been reached the New Jerseys plan would have been more workable because it offered: equal representation of the states, provided operational means to congress, and was not a radical departure from the Articles of the Confederation.
Gabriel Kolko is one of American historians and authors. He wrote a book named “The Triumph of Conservatism: A Re-interpretation of American History, 1900-1916”, and “Meat Inspection: Theory and Reality” is an article in that book. It introduced about Meat Inspection Act in Progressive Era: the main reasoned why it happened, how it affected on legislation, and how government- especially president Roosevelt- executed the new law. Through this article, Kolko also showed his opinion about supporting “free market” and condemning “political capitalism”.
Larry Sabato author of “A More Perfect Constitution” implies the United States Constitution could use some revision. Written over two hundred years ago, I do not think this concept is astonishing. I believe the founding father were aware of potential flaws, allowing for amendments or changes. Sabato book proposes some changes and the “calling for a twenty-first-century constitutional convention.” This book review will look at four of Sabato suggestions; reforming the Senate, balancing the budget, a six-year presidential term, and the Electoral College. These four recommendations were of greatest interest and intrigue. Although I do agree with all his ideas, I do feel there is more to improvement in our constitution and commend his efforts is awakening the American people to a need for reform.
As I stated earlier each state wanted to be represented according to different factors. The states with bigger populations wanted representation to be based solely off of population. The states with smaller populations wanted there to be a fixed number of representatives per state, regardless of size or population. The Connecticut Compromise resolved this issue by forming the two houses that we have today.
The United States' Constitution is one the most heralded documents in our nation's history. It is also the most copied Constitution in the world. Many nations have taken the ideals and values from our Constitution and instilled them in their own. It is amazing to think that after 200 years, it still holds relevance to our nation's politics and procedures. However, regardless of how important this document is to our government, the operation remains time consuming and ineffective. The U.S. Constitution established an inefficient system that encourages careful deliberation between government factions representing different and sometimes competing interests.
Robert Dahl's book How Democratic is the American Constitution, reminds us that the American Constitution wasn't the only possible base for a democratic system in America. In this book Dahl explains some of the democratic and undemocratic aspects of the American constitution. He also explains what should be changed to improve it.
The Constitution, which was written in 1787, is a democratic plan of government. A democracy is a government in which the people either directly or through elected representatives are in control. . One reason the Constitution is democratic is that it gives the people the rights of expression in the Bill of Rights. Another reason the Constitution is democratic is because overtime while it was being amended, there were more democratic ideas added to it, such as the abolition of slavery, voting rights, and the changes of the election of Senators. The last reason is that all elected terms have intervals in which the person is either reelected or a new person is elected for the position. Since there are so many democratic elements in the Constitution, it makes it a democratic plan of government.
Upon the opening words of the Constitution, "We the People do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America," one must ask, who are these people? While the American Constitution provided its citizens with individual rights, many members were excluded. Elite 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. Therefore, the Constitution cannot truly be considered a "democratic document." However, because it is a live document, malleable and controllably changeable according to the interest of congress, it has enabled us to make reforms overtime. Such reforms that have greatly impacted America, making us the free, independent nation that we are today.
The United States is the oldest yet also the shortest in the world (National Constitution Center). Despite the fact that we’ve had the same Constitution for over 200 years, many Americans still are not very familiar with its contents. In a study in 2011, 70% of Americans couldn’t answer the question “What is the supreme law of the land?” and only 38% could name all three branches of the U.S. government (Hentoff). Completely rewriting the Constitution every 19 years would only worsen this existing problem. If most Americans are that illiterate about the Constitution in its current form than it would be really difficult for them to be literate about it if it were rewritten regularly. As soon as people began to be familiar with its contents, the entire system of government would
The United States of America is a republic, or representative democracy. Democracy, a word that comes to us from Greek, literally means the people rule (Romance, July 8). This broad definition leaves unanswered a few important details such as who are the people, how shall they rule, and what should they rule on (July 8). Defining the answers to those questions means defining a model for a democratic system. William E. Hudson defines four such models in his book American Democracy in Peril: the Protective, Developmental, Pluralist, and Participatory models of democracy (Hudson, 8-19). Of these models, perhaps Participatory comes closest to an ideal, pure democracy of rule by the people (16-19). In practice, however, establishing a stable ideal democracy is not entirely feasible. In a country the size of the United States, it quickly becomes unwieldy if not impossible to have direct rule by the people. To overcome this, the compromise of the representative system allows the people to choose who will rule on a regular basis. The political culture that defines American politics shows that despite this compromise, America is still very much a democratic society.
I believe the Constitution was such a great document necessary for achieving American Democracy. This document was very concise in its expressed powers. In the words of James Madison, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” This was from Federalist #51 and states the only way government wouldn’t be needed is if we all were perfect angels and we wouldn’t need rules. The Declaration of Independence means to me that all men and women join freely together to make an equal government for the U.S. This is basically said in the preamble by a famous quote: "All men are created equal." The ideal of our government have remained true over 225 years.
Robert D. Kaplan’s article “The Coming Anarchy," is best summarized by the following quote, which identifies the different factors that he evaluates throughout his article, “To understand the events of the next fifty years, then, one must understand environmental scarcity, cultural and racial clash, geographic destiny, and the transformation of war.” (Kaplan, 1994) This is the framework that he uses to make his supporting arguments and thus this summary will be broken down into these four main parts.