1. Purpose of Book The main purpose behind the book Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution, by Woody Holton is to demonstrate the authors view on the true intent of the Framers when writing the Constitution. Although at first glance the book may seem to uphold the idea that the framers wrote the Constitution in order to protect civil liberties, Holton has a different opinion. To avoid a one sided book, the author not only looks at the framers intent, but the struggles facing the American people.
Furthermore, the Constitution is not the result of one perspective or intent but of many, and the fact that there are more sources than just the Constitution to be considered (for example, the Federalist papers) means that it contradicting opinions can be located. These contradictions make relying solely on textual interpretation is problematic.
A constitution is a written document that sets forth the fundamental rules by which a society is governed. Throughout the course of history the United States has lived under two Constitutions since the British-American colonies declared their independence from Great Britain in 1776. First in line was the Articles of Confederation (1789-1789) followed by the Constitution of United States of America (1789-present). The Articles of Confederation was the first formal written Constitution of America that specified how the national government was to operate. Unfortunately, the Articles did not last long. Under the words of the Article’s power was limited; Congress could make decisions, but had no power to enforce them. Also the articles stated
here were many ways that the Constitution helped to change the weaknesses of the United States. It helps by making the laws easier to pass and more fair, along with different documents. The Articles of Confederation were obviously a flawed document if they needed to be changed into the Constitution, thus the Constitution is helping.
Charles Beard’s Interpretation The Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States by Charles Beard was published in 1913. Beard argues that the founding fathers prepared the constitution of the United States to protect their personal financial interests. He also argues that the constitution was written by an “elite” who were only concerned about protecting what they owned and their status. In his interpretation he states, “ The Constitution was not created by the “whole people” as the jurists have said; neither was it created by “the states” as southern nullifiers long contended; but it was the work of a consolidated group whose interests knew no state boundaries and were truly national in their scope.
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 few reasons to believe that it does a worse
Ever since the constitution had been created in 1787, there have been multiple disputes on how it should be interpreted. The federalist, such as Alexander Hamilton, believed it should be interpret loosely; if it didn’t say anything about on the constitution, it never said not to do it. On the other hand, democratic – republicans like Thomas Jefferson, how thought that it should interpreted strictly; that if it doesn’t say anything in the constitution it should not be allowed.
There is no doubt that the U.S. Constitution is one of the most politically intricate pieces of work in the world. It is astounding that a country has been able to continue to follow the guidelines that were provided in this document centuries later. The American Constitution and Bill of Rights was written with 18th century values and beliefs that are very different than the ones we hold today. However, it is the vague language that leaves room for interpretation and our government that has been essential for the original Constitution to continue to be successful.
Felix Amza Professor Omowale POS1041 Due 06/23/2015 Project – Question Nr. III One of the main problems with the constitution is what some may argue that the role of the president was not very thought of and linked to the constitution, therefore jeopardizing the nation to a dysfunctional and dangerous presidency. Throughout the history of
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
When the Federalist party was organized in 1791, those people who favored a strong central government and a loose constitutional interpretation coagulated and followed the ideals of men such as Alexander Hamilton. The first opposition political party in the United States was the Republican party, which held power, nationally,
Introduction 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
According to Antonin Scalia there are two types of approaches to interpreting the Constitution: originalist and living. Which approach do you believe the Court should take? Why? How does this approach affect the policymaking process? I prefer to the approach of living when interpreting the Constitution. I think the majority of
To summarize, the approach to constitutional interpretation employed in the early years of American government: an interpreter is to begin with the words of the document in their ordinary popular usage and understand the in light of their context. That context includes the words of the provision of which it is a part, but also extends to the much broader context of the document as a whole. The deeper assumption underlying these early rules of interpretation was a fairly traditional realist epistemology: that the constitution has a fixed, determinate meaning intelligible to those who give it a fair reading. Under modern assumption, a constitution is unavoidably made up or created by interpreters, to a greater of lesser extent, as they go along. The framers of the constitution, on the contrary, looked at the constitution as an intelligible fixed standard that made possible a republican rule of law, rather than of men.
Traditional Originalism led the court as the method of constitutional interpretation until the late nineteenth century. Judges were compelled to interpret the Constitution based on the original meaning of the provisions. The Originalism view interprets the constitution line by line exactly as the founders would have found it. Later, during the early twentieth century, progressives in the legal community proclaimed that due to the changing social environment as time goes on in the nation, the political system needed to be reconfigured. They thought that the political system needed increased national government authority and a modern administrative state. They also thought that the increased national authority and modern administrative state wouldn’t work well with the traditional Originalism interpretation of the constitution. After long political battles in and out of the court, they won the argument and the Constitution would be adapted without formally amending it. Debates were waged over whether or not the Constitution could be changed through interpretation instead of the originalist requirement of amendment, and over whether or not the Constitution was to be viewed as living. The notion of a “living constitution” was developed, and slowly set precedent as landmark cases made their way through the supreme court, and the interpretation of the constitution was put to the test.