More handpicked essays just for you.
The importance of a constitution in a democracy
The evolution of American constitutional democracy
The evolution of American constitutional democracy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The importance of a constitution in a democracy
In writing the Constitution, the Framers were aiming to rectify the states’ inadequate attempt at establishing a democratic government. They wanted to create a stronger government while simultaneously keeping it a democracy and protecting the Peoples’ power within it. Wary of monarchy, they intended to constrain their envisioned government’s power by creating checks and balances between and within its branches. Did they do a good enough job? In Section I, we see the Framers’ intentions for the legislature’s lower chamber to be the government’s source of democracy. Section II reveals the absence of an essential check on the legislative branch, and how leaving the legislature unchecked in regard to its own elections threatens democracy in the Framers’ government. Section III shows how my amendment creates the necessary checks to address this threat, and thus protects democracy and the People in the Framers’ government. I. The Constitution’s ‘Democracy Heart’: The House of Representatives The Framers shaped a government almost entirely untouchable by the People. The Judiciary is appointed by the President, who is chosen by “electors” selected by each state legislature. The Senate (also selected by state legislatures) was designed as a check …show more content…
But the government’s heart can be sapped by incumbents. This threat shows that the Framers failed to create a necessary check on the legislative branch to prevent incumbents from manipulating the districts of voters for self-gain. Hence, my amendment is necessary to protect the government’s democracy-heart. If politicians choose their voters rather than the other way around, is the United States still a democracy at all? Or is it simply a governmental tin man with no
The U.S government has operated for about 200 years on the basis of Constitution written in 1787 and since then, there have been several debates as to whether the framing of this document was an elitist or democratic process. The framers, collectively were an elite, but the reason for why they wrote the Constitution is not fully known. John P. Roche suggests the Constitution was written upon the idea to establish an effective and controlled national government that would overcome the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation and not so much to limit the power of popular majorities and protect their own property interests.
Since its very conception, the Constitution of the United States has while holding great reverence, been a great topic of debate amongst the political scholars left to analyze it in all its ambiguity. Two such scholars, John Roche and Charles Beard, in their analyses of the Constitution aim to tackle a layer of the uncertainty: how democratic the Framers truly intended the Constitution to be. John Roche speaks in unquestionably high regard of the Framers in advocating that they so evidently compromised their own values in order to create a democratic document that would strengthen the US as a whole. Charles Beard conversely insists that as the economic elite of their time, the Framers were influenced primarily by their private interests to
Checks and Balances. Checks and balances is a system that is a part of out U.S. Constitution. This system was put in to place so that no part of government would have too much power. The three branches: judicial, legislative and executive are constantly granting and checking the other branches actions, this is to make sure no one person can gain an excessive amount of control in government. For example according to ," the legislative branch is in charge of making laws. The executive branch can veto the law, thus making it harder for the legislative branch to pass the law. The judicial branch may also say that the law is unconstitutional and thus make sure it is not a law.The legislative branch can also remove a president or judge that is not doing his/her job properly. The executive branch appoints judges and the legislative branch approves the choice of the executive branch. Again, the branches check and balance each other so that no one branch has too much power".
James Madison once said,” All men having power ought to be distrusted.” Through these words, Madison made the statement that not all government officials use their authority for good; some abuse that power and use it to gain more for themselves rather than vesting it within the people. This issue may lead to tyranny. Tyranny is when all powers belong to only one person or group. In May of 1787, the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia to draft a better constitution. One of the topics that concerned many was how the constitution would guard against tyranny. Madison and the other delegates wanted a Constitution that would be strong enough to unite the states and the people together without letting there be one person or group gain too much power. They achieved this in several ways. Today, the U.S. Constitution guards against tyranny by including a separation of powers, federalism, and the fair representation of states.
The worries of yesterday Eventually, we will have a tyranny without a strong, trustworthy constitution. We do not want to recreate exactly what the colonists were trying to avoid and escape from, which was tyranny. Tyranny refers to when a person has a lot of power, and has a lot on their hands, having complete control, and total control. In 1787 a group of delegates from 12 of the 13 states goes together to try to better the country.
The United States of America is one of the most powerful nation-states in the world today. The framers of the American Constitution spent a great deal of time and effort into making sure this power wasn’t too centralized in one aspect of the government. They created three branches of government to help maintain a checks and balance system. In this paper I will discuss these three branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, for both the state and federal level.
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.
Continuing the metaphor of faction as a disease, Madison labels “[a] republic” as “the cure for which we are seeking”. Madison notes that a republican government differs from pure democracy in that the delegation of the government is smaller and can thus achieve efficient action. Another contrast lies also in the extent to which a republic has influence over a “greater sphere of country”. The passing of public views “through the medium of a chosen body of citizens” allows for refinement of ideas due to the influence of elected officials’ wisdom and is “more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves”. To protect against the caprices of wicked men, the number of representatives of the people will be a quantity that stymies the influence of the few but is able to, as Madison states, “guard against the confusion of a multitude”. Madison then references his belief in the common sense and good will of men in that “the suffrages of the people” is likely to result in the election of men most deserving and fit for their roles as representatives and lawmakers. Madison presents an avowal that counters one of the Anti-Federalists’ major grievances: “[t]he federal Constitution forms a happy combination” with “the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures”; Anti-Federalists feared that a stronger
The United States of America is often touted as the guiding beacon of democracy for the entirety of the modern world. In spite of this tremendous responsibility the political system of the United States retains some aspects which upon examination appear to be significantly undemocratic. Perhaps the most perplexing and oft misunderstood of these establishments is the process of electing the president and the institution known as the Electoral College. The puzzle of the Electoral College presents the American people with a unique conundrum as the mark of any true democracy is the citizens’ ability to elect their own ruling officials. Unfortunately, the Electoral College system dilutes this essential capacity by introducing an election by
In this excerpt from Democracy in America Alexis Tocqueville expresses his sentiments about the United States democratic government. Tocqueville believes the government's nature exists in the absolute supremacy of the majority, meaning that those citizens of the United States who are of legal age control legislation passed by the government. However, the power of the majority can exceed its limits. Tocqueville believed that the United States was a land of equality, liberty, and political wisdom. He considered it be a land where the government only served as the voice of the its citizens. He compares the government of the US to that of European systems. To him, European governments were still constricted by aristocratic privilege, the people had no hand in the formation of their government, let alone, there every day lives. He held up the American system as a successful model of what aristocratic European systems would inevitably become, systems of democracy and social equality. Although he held the American democratic system in high regards, he did have his concerns about the systems shortcomings. Tocqueville feared that the virtues he honored, such as creativity, freedom, civic participation, and taste, would be endangered by "the tyranny of the majority." In the United States the majority rules, but whose their to rule the majority. Tocqueville believed that the majority, with its unlimited power, would unavoidably turn into a tyranny. He felt that the moral beliefs of the majority would interfere with the quality of the elected legislators. The idea was that in a great number of men there was more intelligence, than in one individual, thus lacking quality in legislation. Another disadvantage of the majority was that the interests of the majority always were preferred to that of the minority. Therefore, giving the minority no chance to voice concerns.
The scenes in creation being intellectual, the put together of constitutional democracy was very empirical. The Constitutional Convention was convened to formulate the constitution. What had to be clear was that the only way to assure a functioning constitutional democracy was the public's discussion. In philadelphia the delegates compromised. The outcome was to integrate states with large populations and states with small populations with a bicameral legislative branch. Also compromises that guaranteed say from both slave owning states and non-slave states could be listened to. The Bill of Rights
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.
Anastaplo, George. The Amendments to the Constitution: A Commentary. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1995. Print.
“While the authors of the United States Constitution are frequently portrayed as noble and idealistic statesmen who drafted a document based upon their conception of good government, reality is that the constitution reflects the politics of the drafting and ratification process. Unfortunately, the result is a document that is designed to produce an ineffective government, rather than a government that can respond to issues in a timely fashion.” In support of this conclusion, the issues of slavery, The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, and the civil rights struggle keenly demonstrate the ways in which our constitution hinders the expediency and effectiveness of America’s government. The constitution’s provisions towards voting eligibility and separation of powers proved to be the most significant obstacle in the path to emancipation for slaves in the 19th century. The way in which federalism is laid out within the constitution played a monumental role in the communication barriers that arose during the 1906 earthquake, delaying assistance to thousands of Californians. Lastly, a number of constitutional provisions, including voting rights and the 3/5 compromise, impeded the struggle for civil rights in the 20th century, again exemplifying that lack of efficiency that the constitution produces.
The Need For Constitutional Reform No government in modern times has ever been elected with such a commitment to reforming the constitution as the Labour administration that won office in May 1997. Within months of its election, Scotland and Wales were on the road to devolution. Within a year, although in a very different context, the framework had been set for a devolved, power sharing government in Northern Ireland. A year after that the process was well under way for reform of the House of Lords, eliminating, in the first instance, peers whose place in the legislature was by inheritance.