The Constitution: a Democratic Document?

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

The constitution reflects both the elite democracy perspective as well as the popular democracy. It reflects the elite democracy in the way that it was written by the federalist who were founders of the elite and therefore shared elitist views. The anti-federalist were not okay with the constitution being ratified because it was taking power from the states and local government, it was also being written by the elite. The constitution then takes part in popular democracy by adding the bill of rights and afterwards, amendments that reflect the popular democracy view.

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.

When writing the Constitution, one of the most prominent arguments focused on whether America should be considered a Democracy. A large percentage of the founding fathers feared the term “Democracy” because they strongly believed that if the people had control, then there would be disorder and violence. As James Madison stated in Federalist No. 10,

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.

It seems implausible the word democracy isn't written in the United States Constitution, or in the Constitution's Preamble, or even in the Declaration of Independence. One would assume a concept so paramount to modern American culture would surely be derivative from one of it's oldest and most endeared documents. Alas, it is not. The Constitution only specifically mentions two entities, the government and “We the People”. Defining government is an easy enough task, but who are “We the People”? From originally consisting of only white male property owners, to eventually adding in other races, income classes, women, and astonishingly, corporations, the definition of “We the People” has evolved numerous times. The word corporation is another key term the architects of our government failed to define for us, perhaps that is why it found it's way into the phrase “We the People”. A grave dilemma lies in this fallible defining of terms. Granting corporations person-hood legislatively shifts the power of democracy from human interests to corporate interests. This corrosion of human interest can clearly be noted when examining the grasps for corporate power highlighted in the court cases of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, Citizens United v. Federal Election, and United States v. Sourapas and Crest Beverage Company.

The Founders built certain protections for individual rights into this country's founding documents. The United States Constitution was one such document. In particular, such protections guard Americans who hold minority viewpoints from those who side with the majority. For example, the First Amendment protects the right of free speech to ensure that people who hold unpopular views have just as much freedom to express those views as do people who tend to agree with the majority. The United States Constitution, therefore, was intended to protect the individual rights of Americans from a tyrannical government and majority. However, today, the Electoral College does not represent the vibrant democracy into which the United States has grown.

The plans for settling and governing the Northwest Territory under the Articles of Confederation were based on the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Congress designed a system for distributing public lands to colonists. Settling the lands according to the Land Ordinance of 1785 required them to divide land into townships, each township being six square miles. Each township was then subdivided into 36 sections which were 640 acres, each acre sold for 1 dollar. The government governed the lands according to the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Congress would first appoint a government led by a governor, secretary, and three judges. By this ruling, people were religiously free; they had the rights of common law, trial by

The Constitution of the United States of America was the solution to fix the weaknesses that Articles of Confederation had caused the United States. The Constitution not only helped the United States gain more power but it also unified the states and creates a sense of nationalism. The Constitution eradicated any justification that the United States was weak and inferior. However, there are some constituents of the constitution that suggests that the constitution is not as honorable as it may seem. To what extent is the Constitution of the United States a “repressive” document? Certain aspects of the constitution exhibit how the authors of the constitution

Professor Holton purports in Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution that the Framers’ creation of the Constitution represented a “slur on the capacity of ordinary citizens” to govern themselves by placing the power of the National Government into the hands of the opulent few (Holton, Unruly Americans, 278). Is Holton’s interpretation of the Framers’ intentions equitable, or has he treated the delegates unfairly in neglecting the democratic elements of the document and the Framers’ distrust of tyranny? Section I argues Holton unfairly characterizes the Framers’ actions as malicious and villainizes them, failing to accept into account different historical perspectives. Section II analyzes democratic elements the

Democracy, as most people think of it today, did not exist during the first few decades of U.S. history.

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

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

It is generally considered that codified constitutions are an essential element of democracy in that by clearly setting out the functions of each branch of government and their relations with each other and their citizens, this prevents an over powerful executive developing and ensures rights of citizens are protected. However, I believe that codified constitutions are not an essential element of democracy as there are examples of robust democracies which have uncodified constitutions and at times codified constitutions are more of a hindrance than a help to the democratic process.