More handpicked essays just for you.
Grievances of shays rebellion
Women constitution and political rights essay
Women constitution and political rights essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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 elite opted to prevent rebellions which voiced the opinions of disregarded members of society such as women, slaves, indentured servants, and men who didn't own land, by intervening and taking them into their own hands because they wanted to preserve their power. In 1780, Shay's rebellion, led by Daniel Shay, a veteran of the Battle of Bunker Hill, allowed farmers who were unable to pay their mortgage, to speak out. Creating chaos amongst the peaceful streets of Springfield, armed farmers were stopped by state militia. Shay's rebellion led way to the Philadelphia Convention in which fifty-five men representing twelve states congregated on 1787, in proposal of drafting a new constitution. Through the occurrence of the American Revolution, they were aware of the power that their people were able to execute and wanted to stabilize the government by creating a new Constitution.... ... middle of paper ... ...his Union a Republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence." Considering the Constitution excludes the four groups which make-up a majority of America during the time; women, slaves, indentured servants, Native Americans and men who have no land, how can one regard the constitution as a democratic document? Although the Constitution excluded a majority of its citizens and was founded by elitist framers, because it is a document that depends solely on the interpretation of its reader, it has progressed overtime. As Madison notes, it is our diversity that unites us as a nation. Without the Constitution, perhaps I wouldn't even have had the opportunity to write this essay and question my country's Constitution.
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.
Zinn goes into detail how proletarian unrest, namely Shays’ Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion, caused unease amongst the wealthy. The solution, according to James Madison in Federalist #10, was a unifying Constitution. Madison believed that it would be easier to quell uprisings and dissent if the government was much larger; instead of unruly residents solely dealing with a state’s governing body, they would have to deal with the entire country (156).
Throughout the entirety of his analysis, Roche consistently reiterates what he feels to be the greatest testament to the political excellence of the Framers: their unrelenting ability to compromise. While this could serve to potentially benefit his analysis had he cited with it specific constitutional evidence supporting these democratic values, Roche mainly relies on storytelling tactics of the struggles of the Framers to compromise instead. Indeed, perhaps Roche’s analysis can best be summarized in his assertion that “however motivated… [the Framers] demonstrated their willingness to compromise their parochial interests [for the sake of the nation]” (Roche, 15). This is to say that because Roche spends such vast amounts of his analysis of the Constitution on the sacrifices of the Framers with no real relevance to the actual wording of the Constitution itself, his argument about the democracy reflected in the constitution simply becomes lost within his “Founding Fathers” rhetoric. Beard, however, in citing specific constitutional features (including the Electoral College, the general means of representation for citizens, and the ratification of the Constitution) as anti majoritarian in nature successfully supports
In the Summer of 1787, fifty-five delegates representing 12 out of the 13 states in Philadelphia to fix the Articles of Confederation. They met in philadelphia because the Articles of Confederation was too weak. Shay’s rebellion was the end of the Articles of Confederation bringing down the whole network calling for a change of government. They did this to prevent a tyrant or tyranny. A tyrant/tyranny is when someone or a group abuses their power.
The beginning of the Constitution provides a basis for one to question the righteousness of the Framers intentions. The Constitution starts by saying, “ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This was not a true statement. That phrase excluded black people, women, and men who lacked wealth. Government under the British did the same thing; all the power was made accessible to only the rich. The American Revolution was aimed at acquiring equal and fair representation in government for everyone. Next, the Constitution established a Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was a group of selected people who would make major legal decisions for the country. These people were not elected or chosen by the people, they were chosen by the government. This placed a form of power over the people of the United States that had been held by King George. The Supreme Court had the power to ma...
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.
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 Articles of Confederation was the first government of the United States. The Articles had created a very weak national government. At the time the Articles were approved, they had served the will of the people. Americans had just fought a war to get freedom from a great national authority--King George III (Patterson 34). But after this government was put to use, it was evident that it was not going to keep peace between the states. The conflicts got so frequent and malicious that George Washington wondered if the “United” States should be called a Union (Patterson 35). Shays’ Rebellion finally made it evident to the public that the government needed a change.
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.
The Founders built certain protections for individual rights into this country's founding documents. The United States Constitution was one such document. In particular, such protections guard Americans who hold minority viewpoints from those who side with the majority. For example, the First Amendment protects the right of free speech to ensure that people who hold unpopular views have just as much freedom to express those views as do people who tend to agree with the majority. The United States Constitution, therefore, was intended to protect the individual rights of Americans from a tyrannical government and majority. However, today, the Electoral College does not represent the vibrant democracy into which the United States has grown.
In creating the Constitution, the states had several different reactions, including a rather defensive reaction, but also an understanding reaction. As a document that provided the laws of the land and the rights of its people. It directs its attention to the many problems in this country; it offered quite a challenge because the document lent itself to several views and interpretations, depending upon the individual reading it. It is clear that the founders’ perspectives as white, wealthy or elite class, American citizens would play a role in the creation and implementation of The Constitution.
Constitution, written by the “Framers of the Constitution”, was written to establish three branches of the federal government for the country to establish responsibilities and limitations without overpower. It also contains the Bill of Rights and articles which went into effect as supreme law. There are multiple important details the writers have implemented within the Preamble and the Bill of Rights to directly communicate the country as a whole and the application to the citizens. Like the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble of the document carries fluidity since this can be applied to any reader no matter the period of time or group. Such that the reader is involved as he or she reads it and create the feeling that he or she isn’t excluded. For example, the Preamble states “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” (1-7). With the Statement, “We The People”, it contains the endless possibilities of representation upon the diversity of people, which can apply to all genders, ages, groups, races, all sexaulities and etcetera. The Bill of Rights is a list of amendments or rights that the citizens are connect to and rules which makes everyone’s stance equal and true. In the
Earlier this year, we studied how the Constitution was formed and the interests it sought to protect. The founders identified “tyranny of the majority” as an inherent danger of a “majority rule” democracy. Through a separation of power into three branches, the Constitution attempted to assure that an imperfect majority that ignored the needs of a minority and exercised poor judgment, would not be able to hijack the government. Democracy partially relies on people being well informed, when people blindly listen to misinformation a democracy will not succeed.
Nowadays, the legal order and the rule of law within the state system play a forefront role in the developed democracies. Undoubtedly, the notion of democratic state itself is closely associated with the high standards of legal system in it. However, in order to define what the high standards of legal system actually mean, it is important to answer the question what one would perceive as the real democracy. Although, we used to describe the democracy as the will or voice of majority in general terms, there are many more other factors of the modern democracies such as the separation of power, for instance. Based on this, we may assume that a constitution is a way of organizing all these into a single universal binding document to reach, and subsequently retain, those principles within a society. There is a broad concept that modern democracies cannot operate without a constitution to protect and implement democracy and legal rights of their citizens. On the opposite side, others insists that the constitution is absolutely useless since it is widely adopted in the numerous autocratic states, and used to retain the power and authority in hands of current government. Basically, those debates reflects the controversial nature of statecraft. My paperwork is intended to consider the role of the constitution and constitutional court in democratic society.
A major rebellion took place, in August, the year of 1786, over fifteen hundred farmers started a rebellion because of Massachusetts tax policy, after defeat in January 1787, the state soon freed most of the rebels because many agreed with the rebels and their cause. As many thought the policy would improve the state, in the end, people such as these rebellions showed how many felt. In fact, Shays's rebellion showed weakness in the Confederation government. This is very important because the Constitution will eventually make a law that is the wrong decision in the view of the people and people will fight to prove it. Daniel Shays led hundreds of men in a forced shutdown of the Supreme Court in Springfield, Massachusetts, and this provides evidence that citizens will stand for what they believe.(history book) In conclusion, the Constitution may prohibit certain concepts, but people will still defy and will fight for what they believe