An Article On American National Government Course Essay

In the book Framed Sanford Levinson discussed the current state of government and the Constitution. He discusses many aspects of the Constitution, including all of its flaws, offering solutions to fix these, and even suggesting that we are overdue for a new one.

“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

‘Transformed beyond recognition from the vision of the Founding Fathers.’ Discuss this view of the modern US constitution.

In the making of the United States, there were many events that are important. This paper intends to highlight a few of those events including; Magna Carta, Mayflower Compact, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and the Federalist Papers. Many events in America’s history helped to establish the United States as a free and independent country. The Declaration of Independence in particular explains the rights and freedoms that Americans. Each document is like a stepping stones that leads to the next and building upon the pervious document.

The ratification of the US Constitution in 1787 sparked a ferocious and spiteful debate between two large groups of people, those who supported the ratification and those who did not. Both sides were very passionate about their ideas yet they were so divergent, as one believed that the ratification could create a more powerful, unified country, while others worried about the government gaining perhaps too much control. The supporters and opponents equally had various strong reasons in their beliefs regarding the ratification of the US Constitution, the most common for the supporters being that the current government was heading badly, and a ratification would fix all the mistakes made originally and set the course for a successful government. On the other hand, the biggest concern for the opponents was that the ratification would give the government too much power, and there would be no controlling force to keep the government in its place.

I am here by writing this essay to explain, how these organizations in the United States such as the MADD, LULAC, and NAACP can educate and help our fellow citizens of America change laws that might well need to be changed. As well as explaining the common interest these groups are concerned with.

This book emphasizes the alternative interpretations offered by Americans on the origins of the Constitution. Holton’s purpose with this book was to show that the framers interests involved making America more attractive to investors. In order to do so, they purposefully made the government less democratic with the writing of the Constitution. However, with the addition of the Bill of Rights, one could argue the Framers had at least a slight concern for the American people and their civil liberties.

Upon considering whether the Constitution in its current form should be ratified, four main points of consideration come into focus: the four main arguments determining the future for the United States and its people. Under the current form of government, the Articles of Confederation, a question of whether a stronger central government is needed is asked. This question is followed by if the United States would be more prosperous under a confederation of loosely governed states, and if a powerful national government consolidates the states. Next, the question of whether the Constitution provides a fair, honest system of representation for all classes of people, and finally, whether the document supports natural and

The foundations of the American government were forged during the colonial period because America’s founding fathers based most, if not all, laws and ideas on the premise of the nations that colonized America. Every nation that helped to colonize and make the New World known has had some impact on what is established in their respected jurisdiction. The Enlightenment also had a major impact on how the American government would decide to rule its people. Since the Enlightenment began shortly before the Revolution of America, the idea that philosophy could act as a legitimate source of authority was fairly new (Princeton.edu), any nation who implemented this would have been greatly influenced by the colonists. Devotion to England and her people also helped mold America into what it soon became.

Short afterwards, Hamilton begins to address some concerns that the public has expressed towards the adoption of a new Constitution. The most formidable opponent of the Constitution, as mentioned by Hamilton, are the “interest[s] of a certain class of men in every state to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument and consequences of the offices they hold under the state establishments” (Hamilton 723-24). Hamilton does not try to avoid the discussion of how those in power will perceive the adoption of a new Constitution, but rather directly cites their apprehensions in order to make the point that “the perverted ambition of another class of men…will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire…than from its union under one government” (Hamilton 724). His statement highlights the key difference between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, being that the Confederation created a system in which the nation was divided into states and the Constitution would create a more unified government (“Comparison of Constitution and Articles of Confederation.”). Hamilton uses the concerns of the people to emphasize that the Constitution inherently does not create an environment in which a great transition of power would occur, thus debunking the fears of those who possess public power.

People have their own perspective of a government that they envision for their people. Thomas Jefferson has been the president of the United States and ruled under a monarch. Jefferson couldn’t tolerate the abuse from a monarch, so he rebelled against the British crown. In 1776, Thomas Jefferson wrote The Declaration of Independence, and declared the colonies were free from British rule. Before he became the author of The Declaration of Independence, Jefferson was established “ as an ardent republican and revolutionary” (Jacobus 77). Jacobus states Jefferson is, “one of the most versatile Americans of any generation” (Jacobus 78). In The Declaration of Independence, Jefferson and the founding fathers envisioned a government that would

The question posed by both Madison and the Framers in the 85 “Federalist Papers” and Dahl in his book How Democratic is the American Constitution? is how effective the Constitution is at promoting the ideals of a democracy. For Dahl, there are several issues surrounding the Constitution, from its drafting, to its ideology, to its relevance. By analyzing Dahl’s critiques of the Constitution in terms of the parallels that exist between factions and the two-party system, the issue of unequal representation, and the necessity for the Framers to compromise on their ideals to ratify the Constitution, Dahl defined a clear argument based in his general disapproval for the Constitution. However, by combining Dahl’s critiques with potential rebuttals from the opinions and perspectives of Madison and his fellow Federalists, it is evident that both Dahl and the Framers believed that if the constitution was completely successful, then the lives of the American people would be enhanced. While Dahl believed that the Constitution, ultimately, has not fully protected the rights of all persons, he, like the Framers, focused on the particulars of government that must be improved such that the American life is bettered.

The American government is known to promote democratic values throughout the world. Though the ideals America was fighting for during the Cold War, the government still managed to participate in the overthrow of democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. Mossadegh threatened to nationalize Iran’s oil in 1951 and later gained the support of the Iranian government. The British companies had many investments in Iranian oil. It is with the approval of nationalization that the economies of both British and Iran were ultimately harmed. The British government requested the help of the US so that they could perform a coup to overthrow Mossadegh. With suspicions of Mossadegh supporting communism, and being supported by the Tudeh Party, the United States government was willing to sacrifice their democratic ideologies and credibility in the region for the insurance of an anti-communist leader. This would prove to cause problems that still resonate in today’s political and military negotiations in this region.

Is the United States Constitution a sacred and absolute document? Dahl (2001) argued that the Constitution is not perfect or permanent in his book, How Democratic is the American Constitution. He stresses that his main aim is not to propose that the Constitution must be amended, but to facilitate readers in changing how they think about the Constitution. In order to help people rethink the Constitution, Dahl (2001) explained the limitations of its Framers and the Constitution’s not widely known undemocratic aspects. The strengths of the book are its ethos or reputation of the author that establishes his credibility, informal writing style that can appeal to more people, its consideration of a number of undemocratic aspects of the

The debate over the method of constitutional interpretation has passionate and convincing rhetoric from both sides of the aisle. On one side, contenders of a loose interpretation argue that our understanding of the Constitution adapt with our society today and new developments that have been formed since it was first written. Conversely, strict constructionists argue that the interpretation of the Constitution must be based off of what is plainly written in the Constitution- nothing more and nothing less. The purpose of the Founding Fathers in 1787 was to construct a document that they believed would help pave the way for the American government for as long as the country stood. Many argue that it must be respected for the way it was