How Democratic Is The U.s. 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

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

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.

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.

few reasons to believe that it does a worse one” (Hertzberg, 2002). Robert Dahl's main perspectives on the United States Constitution are the Framers of the Constitution are the ones who created the constitution. The framers perception was delineated by the things they know such as their falsely ideas of what they actually know. Although the framers have an idea of what they knew, there is always something that pause between their ideas such as the “political necessities of a particular movement”

The founding fathers of the United States Constitution wrote it to be a national law to the whole country; however, research has shown that the founding fathers have stated on several occasions that the Constitution should be revised from time to time in order to better suite the current time period. In “A More Perfect Constitution,” Larry Sabato discusses twenty-three new proposals and revisions that would benefit today’s government. Given these facts, it is a necessary development as America begins the 21st century to call together a constitutional convention in order to discuss Sabato’s new proposals to the Constitution. There are three major revisions that will most benefit the national

In the book How Democratic Is the American Constitution written by Robert A. Dahl, it shows us a deeper understanding of how the complexities of when and how the ideals of the American democracy were framed. This book also shows us that this amazing document was created in a way that many of us wouldn’t have thought of. Throughout the book Dahl takes us on an incredible adventure through America’s beginning years, as far back as the Constitutional Convention in 1787. One of the first things that is mentioned in the book is that the democracy that we have is not a static system but rather it has been changed and still continues to change to this day over the years since it has been completed. Many of the authors that helped to contribute to completing the Constitution also had a change of views as the years went by after the document’s completion. For example, Dahl mentions that James Madison, who was thirty six years old at the time, had not fully finalized his ideas for the constitution, mainly towards suffrage and majority rules. Due to this, couple of years later Madison published a series of multiple essays that contain ideas and steps to take that could help overcome the possible threats of political parties. In 1821 Madison wrote “The right of suffrage is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions” (Dahl, 2001, p. 35). This book is a great read for a better and deeper understanding of early political science that is written in a great style that is

Founding Fathers - a group of American politicians, who played a key role in the founding and development of the American state, namely, in the conquest of independence and the establishment of the principles of a new political system. In a broad sense, the term is used to refer to the representatives of the thirteen British colonies in North America, which organized and conducted the American Revolution and created the United States. Trying to escape the Kings of England tyranny, Founding Fathers created a democratic state where everybody can have a vote and be free; However, the system was very different compared to what we know now. So can we call the newly established government democratic? Moreover, was the Constitution a democratic document or an anti-democratic document?

Is the United States Constitution undemocratic? After reading this text by Robert A. Dahl, I reflected on the history and present day of the United States. I pondered over whether we truly live in a democratic society which ensures our say as the people. Although there are infinite definitions to what a democracy is, I have concluded that the constitution contains flaws that prove it to be undemocratic. In this paper, I will discuss the constitution’s failure to be democratic through exhibiting slavery, suffrage, and the electoral college.

An unlimited amendment power collapses the distinction between constitutional-making and constitutional-amending. Consequently, it can also extinguish the people’s primary constituent power. If amendment powers were unlimited, what would be kept for the people?9 But amendment powers are not unlimited, and this unamendability limits only governmental organs – those authorities delegated with the competence to amend the constitution – rather than the people themselves.10 The people retain the primary constituent power; and through its exercise they may amend and establish the political order and its fundamental principles.11 Primary constituent power is manifested through a democratic appearance of popular sovereignty in extraordinary constitutional

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.

Dahl discusses alternative systems of representation and presents viable solutions to making the United States a stronger democracy. In the beginning, Dahl gives background history on the Founding Fathers, which he calls “the Framers”, and asks why we should uphold our constitution. The typical American patriot response to this is: “Its always been this way since it was written in 1787 by a group of intelligent well-to-do white men and ratified by the majority of conventions in all the states.” Later on, Dahl speaks on the founder’s ignorance about the many topics on which the Constitution is written.

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

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

What the framework of our constitution can do is organize the way in which we argue about our future. All of its elaborate machinery – its separation of powers and checks and balances and federalist principles and Bill of Rights – are designed to force us into a conversation, a “deliberative democracy” in which all citizens are required to engage in a process of testing their ideas against an external reality, persuading others of their point of view, and building shifting alliances of consent.