The Constitution By Charles Beard Summary

In Charles A. Beard’s “Framing the Constitution”, we see some really good arguments. The first argument we come across is him saying how there was two great parties at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. He goes into detail by saying that one party lays an emphasis on strength and efficiency. While the other focuses on its popular features. He goes into detail saying that the men with good moral who led the revolt were the boldest and most radical thinkers.

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

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

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).

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.

Charles Beard has argued that the Framers of the Constitution were no more than privileged men eager to protect the interests of their class. The participants of the Constitutional Convention were wealthy, property-yielding men that would gain the most from the laws they were invoking (such as property rights, public securities, trade and shipping, and free enterprise)There is evidence that would support Beard's claim of hierarchy in the writing

In the book “A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution” by Carol Berkin she explains the constitution from start to finish from how it all began, to the debates inside the convention and finally the end product. Berkin takes the reader and puts him directly in the middle of the convention of 1786; throughout the book you can feel the excitement, the frustration, the tensions between delegates and the overall commitment to making a new government work for all.

The Constitution enormously fortified the national government to the detriment of the states. This article looks at how our Founding Fathers planned the Constitution, analyzing discoveries on the political and monetary components behind the procurements incorporated into the Constitution and its approval. The article talks about the perspectives of Charles Beard and his pundits and spotlights on late quantitative discoveries that clarify the making of the Constitution. These discoveries recommend that individual hobbies of the Founding Fathers, and in addition constituents' hobbies, assumed an imperative part in drafting the Constitution. They additionally recommend that financial and different hobbies assumed vital parts at the sanctioning

He ultimately concedes that “some of the most avid supporters of the Constitution were not creditors but debtors” (Holton, Unruly Americans, 230). While the debtors may have been supportive of any proposed plan with tax relief, this support suggests the Framers were willing to provide economic relief indiscriminately, not just to opulent speculators as Holton suggests. Perhaps farmers and debtors were less frustrated with mistreatment by the government as they were disappointed in the economic turmoil caused by speculators under the Articles of Confederation. In mentioning the approval by debtors, Holton undermines his own argument because it is incomprehensible that citizens would support a document that severely reduces their democratic input in society.

The beginning of the United States constitution was the preamble. The preamble states a brief summery of the contents of what the constitution will hold. Before the constitution was thought upon, there was something called the articles of confederation. This document served as the first constitution for the newly independent country. The Articles of Confederation stated that each state could do as they pleased inside their state lines. The people took advantage of this newly found freedom. They decided in each state to have their own language, currency, and prices for imported and out ported goods. This, however, did not work for when a merchant came to sell goods, in a different state, he would sell

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

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

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.

In engendering the Constitution, the states had several different reactions, including a rather defensive reaction, but supplementally a construal reaction. As a document that provided the laws of the land and the rights of its people. It directs its attention to the many quandaries in this country; it offered quite a challenge because the document lent itself to several views and interpretations, depending upon the individual reading it. It is pellucid that the founders’ perspectives as white, affluent or elite class, American citizens would play a role in the engenderment and implementation of The Constitution.