Naked Preferences And The 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

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.

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.

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.

Charles Beard lived in a time when a vast majority of politicians and economists considered the views of the founding fathers to be infallible. In fact, many people nowadays still believe that to be the case. Beard, however, held a different opinion in regards to their writing of the Constitution. Whereas most people believe that it was written entirely due to the pressing issues concerning the economic state and unity of the country, Beard believed that it was at least in part due to those same politician’s selfish economic interests since all of them were wealthy men. He argued in An Economic Interpretation of the Constitutionthat the way the Constitution’s system of power and representation “were devices for keeping power in the hands of the rich” [1]. He makes an interesting case in his highly controversial book, but one

Typically, a government or political organization that is in power places these restrictions formally or covertly on oppressed groups so that they may be exploited and less able to compete with other social groups. The oppressed individual or group is devalued, exploited and deprived of privileges by the individual or group which has more power" (Barker, 2003).

In modern America, many citizens hold to the notion that the Constitution was adopted unanimously, without debate or disagreement. Not only is this not the case, the debate and disagreement that took place during the institution of the governing articles for the newly formed country are ultimately responsible for the system we have in place today as the concerns and counterpoints raised in the discussion were more crucial to the successful continuance of stability in the nation than any unanimous decision. Given the apparent import of such discussion, it is therefore prudent to examine the original points of contention to determine their merit and to further ensure that the concerns originally raised have been addressed sufficiently.

The balance between the duty of the government, both on a state and federal scale, and the citizens’ view of freedoms has been a continuous struggle throughout the readings. Although many members of America’s youth believe that their participation in politics is aimless, public opinion and voting are very important aspects of shaping the government. Without certain civil rights being granted by the government, these important rights of expression and suffrage would not exist.

As in Alexander Hamilton’s “Farmer Refuted” and John Adams’s “Thoughts on Government,” the Virginia Declaration begins from the premise that men are by nature “equally free and independent.” Government by consent arises through a contract protecting the enjoyment of those rights and the subsequent “happiness

Such implied rights are only applicable if they are “plainly arising from the text of the Consititution, rather than assumptions upon which it is based, but which is does not express”. This supports a more recent trend to a purposive approach to interpretation of the constitution.

“Power relationships are shaped by people’s mental biases and beliefs about individuals in other groups” (pg. 108 Social Inequality). Despite the creation of new groups,

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.

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

In discussing the Madisonian Dilemma, one must first ask, “How do you give government enough authority to preserve social order and communal values, but not so much that it places unfair and inappropriate limits on individual freedom of choice?” (Bond & Smith 2013, p. 111) This delicate balance between governmental rights and individual freedoms has been a source of much contention and debate. James Madison, a primary framer of the Constitution and author of 30 of the Federalist Papers, believed that the only way this balance of power could be achieved was through controlling the effects of factions through a representative government, fragmenting the power of that government and creating a system of checks and balances within, and

The Federalist Papers provide priceless insight into the spirits of both human government and human nature. In fact, The Federalist Papers repeatedly acknowledge a basic truth of human existence: humans are naturally selfish, hostile, and full of such characteristics that hinder the continuation of peaceful, harmonious existence. The corruption of the human race permeates even the strongest governments, as history has shown time and again. Ironic as it is, governments must take precautions to guard themselves, even from their very own members, from the very thing that all governments are meant to remedy: the shortcomings of human nature. The means by which The Federalists