The United States Of America Is Governed By An Oligarchy.

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,

The Federalists and the Anti - Federalists played an indispensable part in the establishment of the American Constitution. Federalists were supporters of the constitution, while Anti federalist were against the ratification of the Constitution. Federalists believed in the idea of a larger heterogeneous republic whereas anti federalists wanted a small homogenous republic. Famous federalists like James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton are responsible for giving us paramount pieces of historic documents in the form of “the Federalist papers”. The Federalist papers were 85 documents urging the ratification of the US Constitution. Anti federalist side included people like Samuel Adams, George Mason and Patrick Henry, and they believed the Articles of Confederation should be altered rather than completely changed in the form of the Constitution. Concurring with the Federalist side, it is imperative to see that the Federalists’ argument was more viable, due to the fact that larger republics and “checks and balances” are useful tools in controlling a democracy. We can’t compare ourselves to the way Sparta and Athens operated. Our country would thrive more under a stronger national government rather than a stronger state government.

The ratification of the US Constitution in 1787 sparked a ferocious and spiteful debate between two large groups of people, those who supported the ratification and those who did not. Both sides were very passionate about their ideas yet they were so divergent, as one believed that the ratification could create a more powerful, unified country, while others worried about the government gaining perhaps too much control. The supporters and opponents equally had various strong reasons in their beliefs regarding the ratification of the US Constitution, the most common for the supporters being that the current government was heading badly, and a ratification would fix all the mistakes made originally and set the course for a successful government. On the other hand, the biggest concern for the opponents was that the ratification would give the government too much power, and there would be no controlling force to keep the government in its place.

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.

The United States is no longer the democracy it stands for. Democracy stands for a government controlled by the majority of the population. The United States is no longer controlled by the majority. America is controlled by the powerful corporations and rich elite. The combination of an uninformed, disinterested public, a flawed election process, and an economy controlled by 1% of the population have all led to the formation of the American Oligarchy.

The Federalist Papers established the definition of a Republic that would govern by the representation of the people and the interest of the society. Based on the principles of Democracy, the Federalist Papers established the acquisition of power by the decision of the population to “choose a body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of the country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be at least likely to sacrifice it to temporary and partial considerations”, the principle of democracy established on the Federalist Paper advocated for the recognition of power given by the popular decision of the people to attend the interest of the whole community. The principal development of the Republic was distributed in

All this together gives grounds to say that the adoption of the U.S. Constitution was a historic event and played a major role in the development of democracy in the USA, as well as throughout the world. According to one of its founding fathers and the third U.S. President Thomas Jefferson, “The Constitution of the United States is the result of adding the wisdom of our country”.

In debate of the ratification of the Constitution, the Federalists and the Anti- Federalists agreed on several things: the necessity of some form of national government, the preservation of the right to vote, and the need to secure our liberties. The Federalists wanted a strong central government, whereas the Anti- Federalists wanted more power reserved to the state government. The right to vote is important for both sides, but they hold conflicting views on the amount of involvement through the power of the vote. Finally, individual rights is something that they both strongly agree upon, but where it should be officially held in our documents presents a huge conflict. Between Federalists and Anti- Federalists, there is an understanding in the importance of these matters, however each side has different interpretations in mind.

The early years of the Constitution of the United States were full of political strife. The two prominent political ideals were complete opposites. The Jeffersonian Republicans were focused on giving power to the people and maintaining a pastoral economy, while the Federalists supported the control of the government by the elite class, and maintaining “positive” democracy. Both parties feared the influence and effect the other party would have on the public. In Linda K. Kerber's article, “The Fears of the Federalists”, the major concerns Federalists held in the early 19th century are described. Ever since the war with and separation from England, the citizens of America were seen to be continually drive to “patriotic rebellion” as a way to

Democracy, as defined in American Government: Power and Purpose, is “a system of rule that permits citizens to play a significant part in the governmental process, usually through the selection of key public officials.” In the centuries before and since its founding, the United States has indubitably had undemocratic elements. In colonial times, the thirteen colonies’ government derived most of its authority from the elites, depriving many of those residing in lower socioeconomic classes from a voice in government. During the time of the American Revolution,

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 the 1700s when the United States had detached itself from British rule it was then seen as a plutocracy. The U.S established as a democracy; a government of the people and by the people. However, this establishment was in favor of the rich, educated, and powerful and anyone who was categorized or known as elites and it has remained in favor of these people ever since. Yes we can say we have witnessed variations and seen a semi-democratic rise in the past two centuries, but we have remained a plutocracy hidden behind the word that people use to cover its true identity, democracy. Those like the framers, the public opinion role, interest groups, and money all portray our hidden plutocracy.

Federalist papers were a series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison and were publish with the pen name “Publius”. They were first written to urge the citizens of New York City to support ratification of the proposed United States Constitution. This paper will analyze the problem of tyranny of the majority in both society and the government by using Madison’s Federalist Papers No.10 and 51. It will also discuss how the republican government and separation of powers provide remedies.

This debate greatly contributed our understanding of our national government and provided for stronger protections and the addition of a bill of rights. Although the Constitution did ultimately get passed, this did not necessarily prove the Federalists right in every instance and the Anti-Federalists wrong. This is particularly is proven in the evidence of the many predictions of the Anti-Federalists that have come true and the change of opinion on several essays from "The Federalist" that the authors later changed their opinion on. The decisive reason for the Constitution's eventual ratification and the alleged failure of the Anti-Federalist can be pinpointed to several key issues, some of which are the lack of an cohesive opinion of the Anti-Federalists, the absence of a worthy alternative, and a weaker argument to be debated. This is notably portrayed in the Anti-Federalist dissention of the Constitutions clauses for the office of the President and reveals similarities to the failures they suffered in their position against Constitution as a whole.