Corrupt Nature of the Founding Fathers

The founding Fathers also tried to make the representation equal in the two houses of legislature. However, the makeup of the senate doesn’t agree with this because large states and small states had the same amount of representation rather than the house that has representatives equal to the ratio of the people. While John P. Roche gave his argument that the founding Fathers were best suited for their position, he never gave concrete evidence to support his statement. On the contrary, Howard Zinn gives his opinion that the founding Fathers were not democratic reformers; rather, they were making decisions that protected their power.

When writing the Constitution, one of the most prominent arguments focused on whether America should be considered a Democracy. A large percentage of the founding fathers feared the term “Democracy” because they strongly believed that if the people had control, then there would be disorder and violence. As James Madison stated in Federalist No. 10,

When the United States first gained its independence from England in 1776, most people believed that it would fail. This most likely would have been true, had it not been for the founding fathers that held our fragile country together. Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson are only a few of the many political figures that helped rule the United States in the 18th and 19th centuries, helping turn this country from an oppressive monarchy to a solidified republic in only a few decades. In the eyes of many, these three supposed geniuses were similar to gods. However, just like every single person that has ever been born, they had flaws that made them different from everybody else; these flaws heavily influenced almost every decision that they made, for better or worse. For example, Alexander Hamilton was very arrogant and egotistical, contributing to his brash and seemingly aggressive personality. In addition, John Adams was very stubborn and stuck in his ways when it came to listening to others; however, he was the complete opposite, very easily swayed, when it came to listening to his wife. Finally, Thomas Jefferson was an idealist, which in many cases, contributed to him being somewhat of a hypocrite. All three of these important political figures were obviously very influential in our country’s history, but like all humans, they had their flaws.

The founding fathers may have been smart but they were lacking of important human qualities. Compared to some of the world leaders we have today, that's no question. Despite being that smart, you would think they would try not to be hypocritical, when writing one of the most important document in the history of the United States. The constitution's preamble is hypocritical, it was then and it is now, but more so in 1789. The Preamble was hypocritical in 1789 because of the voting system that the US had, when the Preamble says “Insure domestic Tranquility”, and when the Preamble says “We the people.”

Abigail Adams was the wife of John Adams and was vital for his successes. Before she became his wife she was part of a “picture perfect nuclear family” (Biography), with her father being a minister; she was “early introduced to public service and civic responsibility” (Biography) and was self-educated. Even though John Adams wanted to be too because he didn’t get enough from schooling, he eventually went into law. She was an advocate

The Federalist papers as a whole are a defining piece of American history that can never be forgotten. It marks the debate that the founding father s had after the failed articles of confederations about whether our new government should be a strong national government or continue with the states holding the most power. Predominantly written by alexander Hamilton the papers make arguments to the people and opponents on why they should elect to have a strong national government. Without these papers discussing the possible options the founding fathers are leaning towards the general public would not have known what is going on and therefor these are one of the first examples of how the founding fathers really tried to fix their mistakes of the failed articles of confederations and make a viable government that this nation can grow and develop under. Papers 78 and 81 talk about the judicial branch, more specifically paper number 78 focuses on the structure of power and jurisdiction, focusing on the method of appointing judges and the tenure by which they are to hold their office. Paper number 81 focuses on the judiciary authority between different courts and what type of court is the Supreme Court.

What are the flaws of our founding fathers and may have led them to shape our country?

Colonial Americans balanced the desire for individual liberty with the needs of collective society. The Framers structured the Constitution to protect the nation while upholding the rights of the individual. The Constitution’s preamble states what the government’s fundamental purpose is “promote the general welfare”. The first three words of the Constitution’s preamble, “We the people”, set the tone for establishing a government that would derive its power from the people. Forming a democratic state was essential for achieving a balance between the nation and it’s people. Democracy focuses on the rights of the people, instead of the government right to control people. Article I of the Constitution forms Congress, the legislative branch of government, as a bicameral body. The creation of a bicameral body upholds a system for

After the death of his father Deacon Adams at the age of seventy due to the epidemic flu, Adams began courting Abigail Smith. Eventually, Adams would be married to Abigail on October 25, 1764. This would lead to becoming the most important decision of Adams life, as Abigail would play an equal part of her role to helping Adams become the true politician in his life. Abigail Adams was very influential over her husband during his time as a politician.

Therefore, American politics today does not uphold the goals and values the founding fathers set forth for America during its creation because of national debt, freedom of the press, and current foreign affairs.

I think it is of high importance to understand a little more about the personal lives of our country’s Founding Fathers. Understanding the peculiarities of their lives gives us a greater understanding of why they developed our Constitution the way that they did. It also gives us an excellent insight as to what was developing in their minds as they worked to develop a set of rules and standards that sets us apart from other developing nations during the same time period. I feel that delving into their psyche, so to speak, gives us a better understanding of the controversies we have today because we can form a more rational basis as to why our country was conceived in the way that it was. I have attempted to take a more formal role in our various political spectrums, and books such as this one has helped me to do so. As I pursue a Master’s of Science degree in Vocational Rehabilitation, this book sets my mind up to understand the sophisticated views and philosophies that our nation was framed under.

The vision of Abigail Smith Adams is global and has transcended the limitation of age. The foresight and thinking of Abigail Adams made her a modern female. In the nineteenth century, patriarchal society, women did not need to get too much education. However, Abigail knew the poetry, literature, philosophy and politics. In American colonial period, Abigail Adams was a rare example of becoming talented through self-education.

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.

Medications: Amantadine 50mg BID, Trazadone HS,Intuniv ER 3mg. 1tab PO. Hs, Remeron 15mg 1 tab P.o Hs, Risperdal 0.1 tab BID, Vyvanse 40mg 1 cap, Po QAM, Loratadine 10mg tab,Flovent Inhaler, DDVAP 01mg QOD and Pediasure 006g.

it being the interest as well as intention of the people, to have a fair and equal representative.” Many of the founding fathers supported this line of thought. For instance, Thomas Jefferson had so much faith in this concept that he stated, “The result of our experiment will be that men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master.” Since the ratification of the United States Constitution, which occurred June 21, 1788, representing the people has always been essential to the American government. Despite the House of Representatives originally being the only branch elected, any form of representation is a drastic difference from common government forms of the late eighteenth century.