The Constitutional Convention: The Role Of Democracy In The United States

This is a thoroughly incorrect assumption to make. Madison makes a point of highlighting two ways in which a pure democracy differs from a republic. The power to rule in a republic is delegated to a small number of citizens elected by the people, whereas a democracy delegates the power to rule directly to the people. As it is “the people” who compose factions, this creates a greater susceptibility to the invasion of factious sentiment. An intermediary is necessary in order to halt the progress of poisonous factious effects. A republic provides for this intermediary in the form of electors, elected by the people.

Establishing an effective system of government has proven to be an obstacle for centuries. Fortunately, the Founding Father recognized the common flaws of governments, as did many common men in the colonies. Consequently, the ratification of the constitution was vital for a healthy governmental system, though it did bring about much debate and persuasion. There were two main positions which people took during the ratification, those being the Anti-Federalist and the Federalist. The Anti-Federalist were a diverse assembly involving prominent men such as George Mason and Patrick Henry, and also the most unlikely of individuals, those being Farmers and shopkeepers. The chief complaint about the Constitution was that it confiscated the power from the sates, thereby robbing the people of their power. Oppositely, the Federalist believed in removing some control from the states and imparting that power to the national government, thus making America partially national. Throughout this debate, many letters were shared between the two sides, and eventually, it led to the federalist winning over the colonies.

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,

Hamilton created a financial system and national bank that solved the countries debt problem. The Anti-Federalists held the opposite views. They were a diverse coalition of people who opposed ratification of the Constitution. The party mostly consisted of farmers who lived in the south. They objected the new powerful central government, the loss of prestige for the states, and saw the Constitution as a potential danger to personal liberties. They believed that the greatest threat to the future of the United States lay in the government's potential to become corrupt and seize more and more power until its monarch rule completely dominated the people. Jefferson believed that the Federalists’ acted as monocrats (Doc 5). The Anti-Federalists strongly supported state rights, but were opposed to a national bank because they didn’t want a strong central government (Doc 2). Local control was crucial to Antifederalists’ concept of democracy. The differences in political parties and philosophies led to the opposing opinions on government issues. Disagreements between Hamilton’s and Jefferson’s viewpoints involving a national bank, constitution interpretations, and social differences led to the rise of political parties.

     A democracy is a system of government controlled by the people, not by one certain group or individual. In the Declaration of Independence it states that “all men are created equal,” an idea which leads to the concept that all citizens should have the same rights, responsibilities, and influence in the governing of their country. In writing the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson was trying to break his ties with the harsh and non-democratic rule of the British and begin a new, equal society and government for America.

When people gather together for form a society, they will automatically need a fundamental law (constitution) that will be above everything and everyone. Constitution is what actually regulates a country. It provides rights and set up obligations for everyone. The United States constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written. It provides liberty, prosperity, equality, more importantly huge freedom. However, the ratification of the U.S. constitution was not an easy task. The farmers had trouble to agree on several issues such as the representation and distribution of political powers; how to prevent excessive democracy; and the protection of individual liberties, etc.

In May 1787, the Founding Fathers, who were made up of 55 delegates from one of the 13 states besides Rhode Island, met in Philadelphia for what would come to be called the Constitutional Convention [BRE]. When they met they intended to fix the consitution that was already in place, which was called the Articles of Confederation. This document had many weaknesses which ultimatly led to its downfall: it only had a legislative branch, so it could not hold trials or enforce laws, it could not raise taxes (it was able to raise money, however to do this the legislative branch had to ask the states for funds), it could not draft an army, so the federal government would have to use state militia, it could not control interstate or foreign commmerce,

In 1787, the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia in hopes of revising the Articles of Confederation before the new, established country would become unsustainable. The Articles of Confederation had failed the country as the central government was not strong enough to uphold the country and protect the people’s rights. They were then abandoned and the Founding Fathers began to draft a new government system, what we now know as the US Constitution. At the time the dilemma was, should the Constitution be ratified? The Constitution should be ratified considering that it averts abuse of power, is effective in regulation, and is in the interest of the people.

Since the ratification of the Constitution, more than 11,000 amendments have been proposed. The Constitution of the United States of America was Officially ratified in 1789. This makes the document over two-hundred years old. Since the time of its writing and eventual ratification, the document has been amended and interpreted in many ways. Whether it be prohibition to the abolition of slavery. The Constitution has been constantly updated over time. It has not laid stagnant with the time. The Constitution has remained the document off of which we have based our country for many years. A major question that has been posed is, why do we as a country still feel bound to this document written so many years ago? The reasons are fairly simple. The Constitution of the United States can and has been over many years amended, the laws and thoughts of a people can be expressed through the Constitution, and the constitution has functioned, with a few bumps in the road, fairly well over the last two-hundred years. The people of the United States should still stand behind this Constitution because it infact still serves us well today in many ways. A few being that it can be amended and “Fixed”, and another being that it does still protect our rights as citizens.

During the Revolutionary War, colonists believed that they needed a sense of unified government, so this led to the creation of the Articles of Confederation, the first written constitution of the United States (history.com). Although the Articles of Confederation had its strengths, such as allowing the central government to create treaties and maintain military, it had many weaknesses, such as preventing the central government to levy taxes and regulate trade. It also could not be changed unless there was a unanimous decision and it lacked a stable currency. Since the creation of the Articles of Confederation had many issues and weaknesses, the Continental Congress rewrote the Articles into what is now known as the U.S Constitution. The Constitution established a national government, guaranteed basic rights for the colonists and revised almost everything that was wrong in the original Articles, such as the sovereignty that resided primarily in the states and the lack of power from the national government. The Constitution was later ratified by all 13 states in May 1790, with the support of the Federalist Party. [A] Federalists believed in the commitment to a strong national government and in the practice of a separation of powers. However, Anti-Federalists had the opposite view which was the opposition of a strong national government, the support for small landowners, and the representation of rights of the people. Anti-Federalists believed that a strong national government

The writers of the federalist papers addressed this issue and many more. They knew that the newly formed union was in danger of breaking apart, and it needed a firm and fair central government to keep it intact. Knowing that the federalist and anti-federalist were largely supported by two different groups and different interests, the federalist papers included the idea to set up a system of checks and balances that we still see in today constitution. Opposing interests both economically and politically could be worked out by using a representative form of congress. There legislation could be vetoed by judicial review and presidential veto, thus setting up our current three branches of government. The system that the federalist wanted to place also helped anti-federalist see the good that could come from a new constitution. Checks and Balances would set up clear powers of what the federal government could and could not do while protecting states rights and individual rights. Madison also had a plan for the Bill of Rights included in the federalist papers, but it would not be passed until

In the year 1787, early America, officials and delegates came together to form a constitution that would restore the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation was the attempt at creating a government for the newly independent America. But, it soon became clear that the document was not strong enough to govern America. Therefore, delegates who came to be known as Federalists and Anti-Federalists issued major arguments on the ratification of the U.S Constitution. Federalists were individuals who wished to unify the 13 states in negotiation, and

The Articles of Confederation were seen by the Anti-Federalists as a solution to finding a government binding document instead of the Constitution. Although the Articles of Confederation could draw up treaties, borrow money, and produce money they could not enforce treaties, repay the money that was borrowed, and it could not stop certain states from the attempts of issuing their own money. These were just some of the reasons the Federalists believed that the Articles of Confederation could no longer be used to run a country. The Constitution was believed to solve all of these problems with the states as a whole but also give the states the power that they longed for. In order for all of the power to be divided, three branches of government were made; executive, legislative, and judicial.

The last half of the 18th century was very important for the United States. During this era, the nation was founded following the Declaration of Independence and drafting and ratification of the Constitution a decade later. The 1787 constitutional convention and ratification debate was very important in the making of the US Constitution. The dynamics, antagonism, considerations, process and the eventual consensus regarding the Constitution can be explained by discrete theories in political discourses. However, there are theories that fit best within this historical context and help better explain the process of the constitutional convention and ratification. This paper will talk about pluralist theory as a theoretical perspective that best explains the workings of the 1787 constitutional convention and ratification debate, as opposed to power elite theory. This will be achieved by looking at the premises of pluralist theoretical perspective, and the workings of the 1787 constitutional convention and ratification and then show how pluralist theory best captures the workings.

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