The Framing Of Our Constitution

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.

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

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.

The creation of the US constitution was prompted my many different things going on. What established America’s national government and fundamental laws is the U.S constitution. It also guarantees basic rights for its citizens. The U.S constitution was signed on September 17, 1787 in Philadelphia, Pa. The first document before the U.S constitution was the Articles of Confederation, with that the government wasn’t very strong and the states didn’t act like they do today. In 1787, at the 1787 convention, delegates made a decision to make a stronger federal government that consisted of the executive, legislative, and the judicial branches. That wasn’t it either, it also had a system of checks and balances because they did not want one branch to be able to overpower another branch. The ten amendments of the Bill of Rights guarantees protections for people like religion and freedom of speech. In total, there are twenty-seven constitutional amendments.

The framers of the Constitution did many things to limit the power of the president such as creating a system of checks and balances, establishing a process of impeachment, and requiring congressional approval for many presidential decisions; however some believe the president was given too much power by the framers by allowing executive orders and court packing. Through trying to limit the power of the president, the framers also set requirements to become president. These include being least 35 years old, living in the U.S. for consecutive 14 years, and natural born citizen of the United States of America. The framers of the Constitution did enough to limit the power of the President. This was done by creating a process for impeachment,

Framers believed the government should give citizens protection, liberty and justice for all. After their triumph against the British tyrant the Articles of Confederation was considered to weaken the government, thus framers wrote a more effective document, the Constitution. They knew it had to be flexible, but how and to what extend. Jefferson believed, “Each generation should give the constitution a complete makeover…"(Built to Last?). On the other hand Madison argued that there was no need, frequent changes would impair it.

Charles Beard’s article, Framing the Constitution, alleges the members of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia were “disinterested” in providing basic rights for citizens. He stated that the framers of the Constitution of the United States were only concerned in improving their own economic well–being and personal agendas. Therefore, providing information of the events that led up to the Philadelphia Convention and an overview of the Constitution will dismiss his statements, and state his article was a self-serving, conspiracy theory.

Before the publication of Federalist, Hamilton attended the Annapolis Convention and returned disgruntled. The failures of the Articles of Confederation were evident, yet none of the delegates in attendance proposed worthwhile replacements, frustrating Hamilton. The product of his frustration was Plan For Government. Consisting of eleven points marked by roman numerals, Hamilton outlines the beginning of an American democracy. While none of the systems from Plan for Government make it into the Constitution or are implemented in any way, there are themes that are still prevalent in government today.  Hamilton’s outline of government is for the people, but by the elite (Plan for Government). The

The Political Compromises The constitution was made to solve most issues to spread justice, make living easier and more safe. Throughout the history of the United States of America, there had been some political disagreements over few political issues. However, there are three specific issues that had led the government of the United States to make compromises about them to provide justice and prevents civil war. In 1787, after the war of independence, the American Union from all of the states had met in Philadelphia for a convention called the constitutional convention regarding some issues they face and make compromises about them so that they do not get divided, because it was likely to occur since the government had weakened of the war of the independence. (Buzzle).

Our history has always been about doing this differently. It has been our desire since the infancy of our nation to create the most uniquely successful geographical brotherhood that had ever been witnessed. This began with the “city on a hill”, was fueled by the American Revolution, but was culminated by the United States Constitution. Years in the making, the product of a successful war but a failure known as the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution has been the pride and joy of our nation since its creation. However, America has changed much in 235 years. The Internet has come to not only exist but encompass many aspects of our daily life, muskets have made way to weapons that can be hidden in clothes and disperse over a dozen

In the wake of the American Revolution, people were struggling for economic stability and national unity. American instituted the Articles of Confederation, which provided for strong state governments and a weak national government. Under the Articles of Confederations, Americans suffered through poverty, inflation and high unemployment. Americans struggled with issues of taxation and diplomatic relations with foreign governments. The new Constitution should not be ratified because it creates a strong central government that would have a lot of power and affect the rights of citizens.

Certain interests do not change over time in our society. Over 200 years ago, the prominent concern that led to the framing of the Constitution regarded the establishment of a government that was “for the people and by the people.” The framers of the Constitution, with concern of an over powering central government in mind, provided a basis for the structure of the federal government of the United States. The powers of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government are laid out strategically in a way that no one branch can have more power than the other. The national concern of maintaining a legitimate government has not shifted since the initial days of the framers. Although the capacity of the government has grown over time, the system of checks and balances that was adapted in the framing of the Constitution allows for the structure and powers of the federal government to remain in order today. Other than providing a structural map for how the government will operate, however, the additional aspects of the Constitution fail to administer practical framework for addressing 21st century interests. This document was written over 200 years ago and it has not been altered substantially since then (Lazare). While certain Amendments have been added to assist the Constitution in staying relevant, such as the abolishment of slavery and the addition of women’s right to vote, there has been practically nothing added to help in applying the framers’ intentions

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?

The major debate in the formation of the Constitution was regarding the abuses in the British representation of the colonies and how colonist could be equally represented. The events prior to 1776 were pivotal moments that led to the Independence in 1776. The major event that shaped distain for the British was the French and Indian war (1756-1763). Before the French and Indian war the colonist under the British rule had been left alone to govern themselves. Directly after the war is when the British forced political and economic control on the colonies. There was great debate over who should pay off the war debt. Britain was forcing the colonist to pay for the war debt, “Britain’s motive and her interest was not attachment, Britain did not protect from our enemies, we protected hers” (Paine 107). As a result, the British passed taxation acts on goods, such as the Sugar Act and the Stamp Act. The colonist tried to push back on the British control. Colonist began boycotting goods imported into America. Boycotting became a major role in defiant actions against Britain. Compared it to being s “slave”

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.