How Democratic Is The American Constitution Dahl Summary

It is generally understood that the United States is built upon the principles of democracy, in which the majority consensus of the citizens helps to define the shape of issues or elections. However, in assuming that the Constitution - the document upon which such practices are founded – is inherently democratic is only partially accurate. Indeed, it has been frequently argued that the U. S. Constitution is representative of the rule of law from a federation as opposed to a pure democracy; in a federation, elections occur among the majority of the citizenry but this process results in elected officials who then determine the direction of the country. In short, a federation

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.

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”

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).

America has been acknowledged as being one of the world’s leading democracies, but to continue implementing the use of the Electoral College creates some distortion to that title. The out of date system does not accurately portray democracy. Theoretically, a democracy is government system that is ruled by the people. In reality, an individual’s vote may not matter depending on the state they reside in. Robert Dahl, a Democratic Theorist stated, “every member must have an equal and effective opportunity to vote, and all votes must be counted as equal.” Political equality is important to the distribution of power. Even if a person is wealthy and of power their vote should be counted the same as someone in poverty.

After the failure of the Articles of Confederation, the founders believed it was necessary to hold a National Convention to revise it in order for it to become the Constitution. After the signing of the Constitution, two groups were created. The Anti-federalists who composed a series of essays one known as An Old Whig V (1787) suggests that an inclusion of a Bill of Rights would be more effective in clarifying the limits of the government, while others, the Federalists, opposed to it. To understand the effects of ratifying a Bill of Rights in the Constitution, both sides must be analyzed. This paper examines An Old Whig V’s arguments against the Federalist, mainly letters from Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, to propose that the inclusion of a Bill of Rights allows citizens to verbalize their right of protection in regards to the occasion of being shown in the Constitution.

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

Liptak points out the dysfunctionality of the constitution using the fact that the constitution strongly protects the Right to Bear Arms, but it is weak when dealing with other rights. Some of the rights that are not strongly protected by the constitution include travel rights protection, presumption of innocence, entitlement to food, education and health care. Liptak recognizes the significance of the constitution and understands the important role it played in this country becoming America. But he also understands that the constitution was created because the Articles of Confederation did not give the government enough centralized power and the constitution was the best option. The outcome of this has created a strong urge to preserve and not change the

In the article, “Framed Up What the Constitution gets wrong” written by Hendrik Hertzberg, Robert Dahl’s perspective on the United States Constitution, he is in favor of the “American system does a better job than the democratic alternatives, and quite a

Rhetorical Analysis: The primary audience for this paper includes every citizen aged eighteen and above eligible to vote in the United States. The proposed topic mostly concerns these individuals due to the fact, they are affected by presidential voting institutions. Throughout this paper, I will be arguing in favor of the Electoral College, with an end goal of persuading my audience of the benefits of the system.

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.

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

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

Of the 11,539 constitutional amendments proposed in the last 227 years, only 27 went on to alter our nation’s most fixed document, the Constitution of the United States (Senate 2013). Our Founding Fathers purposefully installed this resistance to change in order to prevent rash, semi-permanent decisions, which could cause cataclysmic effects on the country. Yet one notion for amendment has drawn popular support since the 1960s, with 62 percent of Americans in agreement today: a direct national election for the executive branch (Gallup 2011). Garnering more proposals for constitutional amendments than any other

Robert Dahl's book How Democratic is the American Constitution, reminds us that the American Constitution wasn't the only possible base for a democratic system in America. In this book Dahl explains some of the democratic and undemocratic aspects of the American constitution. He also explains what should be changed to improve it.