Framing The Constitution Charles A Beard Summary

In Charles A. Beard’s “Framing the Constitution”, we see some really good arguments. The first argument we come across is him saying how there was two great parties at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. He goes into detail by saying that one party lays an emphasis on strength and efficiency. While the other focuses on its popular features. He goes into detail saying that the men with good moral who led the revolt were the boldest and most radical thinkers.

The reasoning behind the Constitution of the United States is presented as 'based upon the philosophy of Hobbes and the religion of Calvin. It assumes the natural state of mankind in a state of war, and that the carnal mind is at enmity with God.' Throughout, the struggle between democracy and tyranny is discussed as the Founding Fathers who envisioned the Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787 believed not in total democracy, but instead saw common man as selfish and contemptuous, and therefore in need of a 'a good political constitution to control him.' Being a largely propertied body, with the exception of William Few, who was the

Chapter one of The American Political Tradition by Richard Hofstadter is centered on the Founding Fathers. The very beginning of the chapter says that the Constitutional Convention was trying to create a government that would pay debts and avoid currency inflation. The Democratic ideas that the Founding Fathers were so against appealed mostly to less privileged classes, and not at all to the higher classes. This chapter says that the Founding Fathers thought that if no constitutional balance were achieved, one specific class or would take over others. Three advantages of a good constitutional government were listed in this chapter as well. One: keep order against majority rule. Two: a representative government. Three: aristocracy and democracy

Charles Beard’s suggested that the Constitution was a document that was only created to protect the framer’s wealth. Beard believed that the reason why the rich framers wanted to protect against majority rule was to prevent the majority to overthrow the rich. Beard did manage to fit most of the framers under “rich” categories such as lawyers, landowners, and merchants. But, he failed to realize that the framers limited majority rule to protect the rights of minorities, also.

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.

The US Constitution states “We The People of the United states in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for more common defense, 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.” The main purpose of the U.S Constitution is to establish the basic rights of all American Citizens. This follows that every United States Citizens have equal rights. Belonging to a minority group because of culture, religion or race does not assert that one is unconstitutional. In times of war, evacuation of minority groups only in NOT constitutional; however, evacuation of ALL United

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.

The concept of theory versus reality is a constant in everyday life. Every person has experienced a situation in which the idea in their head was much better than the outcome. All actions have consequences, and sometimes those consequences are worse than others. In the case of the Federalists vs. The Anti-Federalists, was the drafting of the Constitution actually worth it in the end? When the colonists first came over seas from Great Britain there was one thing that was vastly agreed on—a change in how government works and runs was necessary for the future of America. Two major groups eventually formed behind this way of thinking, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists were under the impression that the formation of a constitution and a strong federal government was needed. On the opposite political end there were The Anti-Federalists, were opposed to the idea of a constitution because they worried that the government and the people running it would become too corrupt and powerful. They also believed that a smaller central government was needed with larger governments at the state levels. This smaller central government would be similar to what was formed under the Articles of Confederation. Both sides bring very good arguments, and it is impossible to truly know whether one side’s plan of government would have been better than the other. But when looking at the facts of where our country came from, and where our country is

First off, many of the founding fathers were wealthy, came from good families and were well educated. Howard Zinn states that the founding fathers based the Constitution off of their own personal experiences without considering the past experiences of the average citizen. That does not mean that they were completely selfish and based the whole Constitution around them, it just means that many of their economic interests were reflected in the Constitution itself. He goes on about how economic interests were seen in the clauses of the Constitution and the founding fathers had a direct economic interest in forming a strong central government. According to Zinn, the founding fathers thought factions came from inequalities in wealth. Further into the reading he said that the Constitution was meerly the work of certain groups trying to maintain their privilages while giving enough rights and reason to the people to get a majority to support them.

Charles Beard has argued that the Framers of the Constitution were no more than privileged men eager to protect the interests of their class. The participants of the Constitutional Convention were wealthy, property-yielding men that would gain the most from the laws they were invoking (such as property rights, public securities, trade and shipping, and free enterprise)There is evidence that would support Beard's claim of hierarchy in the writing

“The Constitution devotes the national domain to union, to justice, to defense, to welfare and to liberty” (Maier 154). This quote, stated by William Henry Seward, displays the strength and stability that the Constitution had over the nation, and the liberty and justice it supplied for all of its citizens. Although the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation have similarities, they have many differences, which proved that the Articles of Confederation were a weaker document in comparison. It can be said that the Articles were the “rough draft” to the final living document, which significantly influenced and “ruled” our government, as it still does today.

The plan to divide the government into three branches was proposed by James Madison, at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. He modeled the division from who he referred to as ‘the Perfect Governor,’ as he read Isaiah 33:22; “For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; He will save us.” http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

Our history has always been about doing this differently. It has been our desire since the infancy of our nation to create the most uniquely successful geographical brotherhood that had ever been witnessed. This began with the “city on a hill”, was fueled by the American Revolution, but was culminated by the United States Constitution. Years in the making, the product of a successful war but a failure known as the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution has been the pride and joy of our nation since its creation. However, America has changed much in 235 years. The Internet has come to not only exist but encompass many aspects of our daily life, muskets have made way to weapons that can be hidden in clothes and disperse over a dozen

According to Scott (2008), the Constitution of America has undergone several translations within the history of America because they found it to be unclear. Whereas it appears discrepant that the unclear Constitution could be useful, the disagreement is the case (Robertson, 2005). Americans regard the Constitution to be helpful for the reason that it allows for diverseness of views. In the history of America, a variety of thoughts would develop with alarming and formidable support through various factions (Robertson, 2005). Today, the main political arguments are presented from the Republican group or Democratic group. During the early periods of the American government, arguments on politics were made by Thomas Jefferson

Certain interests do not change over time in our society. Over 200 years ago, the prominent concern that led to the framing of the Constitution regarded the establishment of a government that was “for the people and by the people.” The framers of the Constitution, with concern of an over powering central government in mind, provided a basis for the structure of the federal government of the United States. The powers of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government are laid out strategically in a way that no one branch can have more power than the other. The national concern of maintaining a legitimate government has not shifted since the initial days of the framers. Although the capacity of the government has grown over time, the system of checks and balances that was adapted in the framing of the Constitution allows for the structure and powers of the federal government to remain in order today. Other than providing a structural map for how the government will operate, however, the additional aspects of the Constitution fail to administer practical framework for addressing 21st century interests. This document was written over 200 years ago and it has not been altered substantially since then (Lazare). While certain Amendments have been added to assist the Constitution in staying relevant, such as the abolishment of slavery and the addition of women’s right to vote, there has been practically nothing added to help in applying the framers’ intentions