When Beard Went Too Far Analysis

He interprets the Constitution mainly one sidedly throughout the book and gives account to the phrase, “Separation of Church and State” by claiming it was never used in the Constitution. I agreed with most of his teachings about the founding fathers having religious backgrounds and influences on establishing the country. The founders in his opinion believed that having religion built in the foundation of our country would only impact it in a positive way. I believe that the intentions of the founders’ opinions of how America should be ran is all in the Constitution through the rules and regulations they all came to an agreement on. Barton settled on the points of if one wanted to know the true intent for the country through the founding fathers’ visions, he suggests to look at factual excerpts from their letters they wrote. Barton realizes how America has changed over the years and requests that it returns to its “original intent” from the founder’s intentions. He sees how the country has evolved into a more secular world and its original fundamentals are now gone. He believes the problem’s source is the citizen’s since we have evolved away from the founder’s true visions they had for America. I agree on barton’s view of America evolving into a new society far from the original intentions the founder’s had. I see America becoming a country who is controlled by its people but, with no control and no restrictions. Which can lead to a fall of a country when there are no set of rules. Even though Barton was one sided on some points in the text and how he interpreted it, he gave recognition to other views from others and cited them. I believe that Barton’s analysis of the Constitution and its part in religion was insightful. It gave a thoughtful look to the founder’s design they had for the

In Federalist 10 by James Madison, he addresses key issues like factions and democracy, all while focusing on the usefulness of the Constitution and the necessity of a strong central government, to defend his Federalist ideology. Personally, I agree with the foundation of his arguments, especially on the topic of forms of government, as well as the role of representation in our government.

The final stage of American history and progression according to Couvares, was the professional stage. Professional scholars rose to prominence from 1910-1945. These historians believed that modernity, industrialization, urbanization, and class conflict had fundamentally changed society. Charles Beard argued that “the constitution was not the product of wise men intent on balancing liberty and order, but a clique of wealthy merchants and landowners who wanted a central government strong enough to defend their privileges against the unruly masses.” (Couvares 77-2). Beard also thought that many of the major conflicts in society were between economic interest groups. Many critics found flaws in his idealogy, but at the same time it inspired them to find answers to questions that plagued the people.

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.

In the folktale “The Blue Beard” written by Charles Perrault, conforms to both Dworkin’s and Lurie’s representations of fairy tale heroines. Perrault states, “The fatal effects of curiosity, particularly female curiosity, have of course long seen the subject of report” (133). Andrea Dworkin author of “Women Hating” and Alison Lurie author of “Don’t Tell the Grown-Ups” explain their different views regarding the heroines in fairy tales.

In Alfred Young’s essay The Pressure of the People on the Framers of the Constitution reported the actions that took place during the Philadelphia Convention. It was said that the Constitution was designed to last until the end of time. It was proposed that the national government should limit voting to the men of the community that held property in the form of land, a considerable farm or something with equal value. How could this work for the states that already granted suffrage to the people didn’t have these qualifications. What would the state do now, take away their right to vote? The end result was that each state decided that whoever voted in assembly would also vote for the house. Thomas Paine a radical democrat and influential part of the Revolutionary era advocated a democratic government where a single legislative would be at the top, and the executive branch would be elected from small localities by an extensive electorate where they would serve short terms. The original separation of the elitists was caused by fear of a mob and rebellion. Coercion and accommodation were to tactics used to control the threat of democratic majorities in the state. Anti-Federalists were looking to make numerous changes in the frame of the government. This would limit national power over the states, and curb the powers of the presidency while also protecting individual freedoms. Finally we come to the overwhelming opposition

The main purpose behind the book Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution, by Woody Holton is to demonstrate the authors view on the true intent of the Framers when writing the Constitution. Although at first glance the book may seem to uphold the idea that the framers wrote the Constitution in order to protect civil liberties, Holton has a different opinion. To avoid a one sided book, the author not only looks at the framers intent, but the struggles facing the American people.

The concept of theory versus reality is a constant in everyday life. Every person has experienced a situation in which the idea in their head was much better than the outcome. All actions have consequences, and sometimes those consequences are worse than others. In the case of the Federalists vs. The Anti-Federalists, was the drafting of the Constitution actually worth it in the end? When the colonists first came over seas from Great Britain there was one thing that was vastly agreed on—a change in how government works and runs was necessary for the future of America. Two major groups eventually formed behind this way of thinking, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists were under the impression that the formation of a constitution and a strong federal government was needed. On the opposite political end there were The Anti-Federalists, were opposed to the idea of a constitution because they worried that the government and the people running it would become too corrupt and powerful. They also believed that a smaller central government was needed with larger governments at the state levels. This smaller central government would be similar to what was formed under the Articles of Confederation. Both sides bring very good arguments, and it is impossible to truly know whether one side’s plan of government would have been better than the other. But when looking at the facts of where our country came from, and where our country is

First off, many of the founding fathers were wealthy, came from good families and were well educated. Howard Zinn states that the founding fathers based the Constitution off of their own personal experiences without considering the past experiences of the average citizen. That does not mean that they were completely selfish and based the whole Constitution around them, it just means that many of their economic interests were reflected in the Constitution itself. He goes on about how economic interests were seen in the clauses of the Constitution and the founding fathers had a direct economic interest in forming a strong central government. According to Zinn, the founding fathers thought factions came from inequalities in wealth. Further into the reading he said that the Constitution was meerly the work of certain groups trying to maintain their privilages while giving enough rights and reason to the people to get a majority to support them.

Whose side would you have been on in the 1790s, Thomas Jefferson’s or Alexander Hamilton’s? Both of these men served under George Washington in the first presidential cabinet, yet they had very different views of what government should be (Davis 86). My objective in this research essay is to inform the reader of why there was so much controversy between these two founding fathers, and to determine which side had the better views for our newly forming country.

This theory was also carried over into the legislative branch, where the public opinion was foregone in favor of elected and appointed lawmakers (recall that the early Senators were appointed by their respective state’s legislature). Another was the militant nature of their world. Still entrenched in the difficult life of the pioneer era, the Revolution was a sign of a wonderful future but a still exceedingly difficult present, and ensuring the protection of our newborn nation was a huge priority. Though that appears similar to the present-day psychology of a nation at war with terrorists, it is the monumental difference between knowing who was enemy and friend then, and believing anyone can be an enemy today. It is clear that the Framers lived in a completely different world than the modern-day American, but that in and of itself does not prove the obsolescence of the Constitution. The Constitution was inherently designed to last forever. The original Bill of Rights specified freedoms and liberties in a vagueness that, ideally, created a clear-cut definition of any ideological dispute but also left room for evolution. But, were they successful? Is the Constitution a truly timeless document? For the purposes of this particular debate, we will focus on the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution; these three

Certain historical considerations are essential. The words are to be understood by those for whom they were written, and therefore we must know what those understandings where. Christopher Wolfe believes that the framers would tend to give preferences in such cases to the fair reading of the document itself.

“What do you want to do this summer Mr. Beard,” Mrs. Damm said. “Well i think I was feeling like I was going to spend some time at the house, maybe improve it,” “Well I will talk to you later I have to finish up the lesson,” “Ok guys get your workbooks out and turn to page 20. Finish the page and we will go over it.” After that they can get out there books until we leave for the summer. I can’t wait to leave and take a little break from teaching.

We're talking beard maintenance here. Take a quick moment and judge your level of beard care. If you're serious about having a good looking beard you should be taking the proper steps to take care of it.

So if the Constitution was deemed unfair or unjust by two extremely influential figures, then why is it such an important document that acts as the supreme law over society? Whose ideas influenced the creation of the document, and why? Social Contract theorists. Their ideas were extremely influential in the creation and implementation of the Constitution. Beard seemed to think similarly to these theorist such as Rousseau of how rules and regulations SHOULD be enforced. Social contract theorist agreed that people coming together and “joining forces”