Constitution Gets Wrong

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

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.

here were many ways that the Constitution helped to change the weaknesses of the United States. It helps by making the laws easier to pass and more fair, along with different documents. The Articles of Confederation were obviously a flawed document if they needed to be changed into the Constitution, thus the Constitution is helping.

The framers attempted to perfect the constitution by protecting the minority while giving majority some power. The Constitution was drafted by framers that took a lot of time and effort to make a document that has held this nation together for centuries. The

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.

Question: What were the major arguments used by each side (the supporters and the opponents) in the debates over the ratification of the U.S Constitution?

Have you ever wonder the process that the Founding Fathers of America had to go through to create our system of government? One of the vital pieces to establishing this government was the famous document known as the Constitution. The Constitution was a highly argued document, because many people were concerned about if it would protect the newly-separated country of america from the tyranny that they had faced with their previous king. The Constitution ended up being the people's’ savior after the delegates signed it in September 1787, and protected them from tyranny in their country even better than before. All and all, the Constitution guarded the United States against tyranny creating a system

This leads to the primary focus of Dahl’s book. The book was written to encourage the reader to think and question the United States constitution. Dahl states that his “aim in this brief book is not to propose changes in the American Constitution but to suggest changes in the way we think about our constitution” (Dahl, p. 1). Americans should not feel beholden to a document that has been amended from the original that was written made by the Framers so long ago. Dahl suggests that “we begin to view our American Constitution as nothing more or less than a set of basic institutions and practices designed to the best of our abilities for the purpose of attaining democratic values” (Dahl, p. 3).

Michael, I believe that we are sharing the same point of view. I am agree with you that there are several differences between what we are experiencing those day and what our constitution founders experience decades ago. I am sure that if they still alive, they will call for more amendments, which some of them seem rational. Like you said, the constitution has some of the weakness that must be taken into consideration. It is time for our legislators to make some actions that might clear some of our constitution’s ambiguity. Like I mentioned above, everything is changing. For instance, the technology that we use a decade ago becomes updated and beyond now. Something for some laws. They need to be updated as

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.

One of the main problems with the constitution is what some may argue that the role of the president was not very thought of and linked to the constitution, therefore jeopardizing the nation to a dysfunctional and dangerous presidency. Throughout the history of American government, there have been a couple presidencies which have managed to gain high power and disregard the wellbeing of the nation, behave inappropriately and even unconstitutional.

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.

The Constitution should be revised, but it should not be completely discarded. The foundation of the Constitution just needs to be stronger and more stable and it should be revised, because times have changed and are still changing. The Constitution is becoming outdated more and more everyday and it doesn’t address today’s needs anymore. We need to have a better handle on gun control and the use of guns and add some restrictions to the use of guns. Guns should not be illegal, because people use them to protect themselves and for the safety of their families, but if you are using them to harm others, it’s not okay. In the Constitution, it states that African Americans are only ⅗ of a person and it is not like that anymore, because everyone is

According to Scott (2008), the Constitution of America has undergone several translations within the history of America because they found it to be unclear. Whereas it appears discrepant that the unclear Constitution could be useful, the disagreement is the case (Robertson, 2005). Americans regard the Constitution to be helpful for the reason that it allows for diverseness of views. In the history of America, a variety of thoughts would develop with alarming and formidable support through various factions (Robertson, 2005). Today, the main political arguments are presented from the Republican group or Democratic group. During the early periods of the American government, arguments on politics were made by Thomas Jefferson

Aside from these awards, he has authored twenty-three books and textbooks, a number of which are seen as seminal books of modern political thinking (Hertzberg, 2002). Apart from these distinct products on the political science field, Dahl has earned the esteem of his peers. Fred I. Greenstein of Princeton described Dahl as “the premier democratic theorist of our time,” James S. Fishkin of the University of Texas called Dahl "the premier analyst of democratic theory and democratic institutions writing today,” and Theodore J. Lowi of Cornell stressed that Dahl is the “foremost political theorist of this generation” (Hertzberg, 2002). From these impressive honors and esteemed praises, Dahl is argued as someone who knows his expertise. If Dahl thinks that something is wrong with the Constitution, his ethos gives him validity and credibility.