Gordon S. Wood Constitution

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

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.

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

David O. Stewart, by profession, is a lawyer with a resume that includes everything from arguing appeals at the Supreme Court level to serving as a law court to the acclaimed Junior Powell. But in writing The Summer of 1787: The Men Who Invented the Constitution (specifically, I read the First Simon & Schuster trade paperback edition May 2008, copyrighted in 2007), he uses that experience in law to prove himself a gifted storyteller. Two hundred sixty-four pages long, this United States history nonfiction book does indeed have the substance to engage the reader throughout. It has special features that include two appendices featuring the elector system and the actual constitution of 1787, author’s notes, suggested further reading, acknowledgments and an index (which escalate the total length of the book to three hundred forty-nine pages long).

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.

He starts the chapter by saying that the Constitution at first glance seems like a cold, formal document and it gives no special property qualifications on any office- but if one analyzes the events that lead up to the creation, it paints a different narrative. He then goes on to analyze several different documents and histories from the time period such as the well known Federalist Papers to come to the conclusion that “Enough has been said to show that the concept of the Constitution as a piece of abstract legislation reflecting no group interests and recognizing no economic antagonisms is entirely false. It was an economic document drawn with superb skill by men whose property interests were immediately at stake; and as such it appealed directly and unerringly to identical interests in the country at large”

Viewing the Constitution of the United States of America – one of America’s oldest documents - as another great beloved American classic may be demanding for almost anyone to do. Because of its old age and “unrelatable” content, the American Constitution remains a difficult thing for people of all professions, races, religions, and political views to read and enjoy just as much as any other novel. Thanks to the renowned Akhil Reed Amar, the average person’s perspective of the United States’ Constitution is altered and their knowledge of the work is expanded through the explanations provided in America’s Constitution: A Biography. By explaining not only the mentality of those who dreamed, drafted, and voted for the Constitution but also the desires of the founding fathers when creating a democracy as their choice of an ideal government for their country in a world full of monarchies, Amar is able to give readers insight on a piece that was not only relevant when it was created but is able to expand as society does. Amar creates a biography perfect for those who desire to know more about the foundations America was built on and its ability to adapt and evolve throughout the

In late eighteenth-century America, the ideal form of government was widely contested. When the American colonies were under British rule, they were subject to the almost-tyrannical British government, in which they were not fully represented. After the colonies achieved independence, two main political factions emerged: the Republicans and the Federalists. The Republicans, scarred by the overbearing British government, advocated for a weak federal government with individual state governments, which prevented the concentration of power in a single party and promoted a form of more direct representation. However, this system proved to be ineffective, for the federal government’s lack of power was dangerous and inefficient. The Federalists, on the other hand, supported a strong federal government. Cognizant of the negative implications of local state governments, the Federalists published a series of essays during 1787 and 1788 that supported the stronger national government that resulted from the Constitutional Convention. In “Federalist no. 51”, James Madison, a key component of the Federalist movement, described the role of government and its relationship with the people. He wrote,

The contrast between British political agencies and American Congress are the three parts that function interdependently, but especially the fair elections of Congress representatives. The interdependence of the American government is what will, eventually, make it so unique. The fact that the states were able to rebuild a central government and legislation amidst a war, reveals the discernment of its innovative

Two hundred twenty-five years ago, on September 19th, 1789, the Constitution of the United States of America took on the responsibility of becoming the supreme law of the newly founded United States. As one of the most unique documents ever penned by man, it established a government “Of the people, by the people and for the people,” with “equal justice for all.” 1 The document makes no hesitation to establish power, as the first three words state “We The People,”2 thus placing the supreme power of government not in the hands of those elected, but in the peoples’ hands.

The idea of representative government is deeply rooted in America's history and tradition. It began as far back as the voyage of the Mayflower. The spirit of freedom, self-reliance, the common law, and an understanding of representation, were brought by the settlers from their home. Though many of our ideas about representative government developed from the English model of Parliament, the American tradition of representative government actually began in Jamestown with the “great charter of 1618”and the First Representative Assembly of 1619 and continued on with the Virginia House of

This fresh, new foundation came in the form a document that outlined the way the government would work. Unlike the way Europe was governed before the Enlightenment period, Americans, since they had recently liberated themselves from the British throne, wanted to establish a government in such a way that would prevent tyrannical monarchy. By this time, they still were faced with the challenge of a republican self government. But again, we see the influence of Locke’s ideas from his Treatise, where he proposed that people had the right to establish their own government for their own protection of their natural rights. As a result of this idea, the preamble to the Constitution was created. This section provided analysis as to what the whole Constitution was about; improvement on the current government (to ensure that they are just) and protection for its citizens.

The Constitution of the United States poses several disadvantages. As a document written many years ago, it has been interpreted in different ways, which makes it a living document. “The proper role of the Supreme Court, it is said, is to interpret the Constitution, not rewrite it” (Shaman, 2001). As a living document “We the People” attempt to use the words of the constitution to benefit us,

The focus of the paper is to learn what led to the formation of the U.S. Constitution. First, it’s important

The development of a constitutional arrangement can be seen as committed to reason if one takes the Charters of Freedom. The Charters of Freedom are The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and The Bill of Rights. In particular, this commitment to reason is reflected in a catalogue of rights that every citizen can claim against the state. Indeed, the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights provides a ground for developing of a community that is based on articulated reason at both individual and systemic levels. The catalogue of rights not only provides people with the protection of the rights that they deem valuable but also provides them with a tool to order their political affairs. In Preamble, for example, “good