“Knowledge about the inner life of the governmental community of Washington becomes imperative for understanding the political system of the new nation.” ( Young p.108) The Constitutional Framers envisioned a national government that is similar to the concept of Plato's cave which is that it would be "at a distance and out of sight" of the everyday affairs and thoughts of ordinary Americans. The end result, it was anticipated, would be a new form of "national" and "long term" thinking by men of prominence, motivated only by their devotion to a national public interest and legacy. The constitutional framers wanted “The people to elect good men.” (Federal Farmer No.9, p.27) The Washington Community or “the original beltway boys” had an expectation of what it intended to be socially and politically and ended up being something different.
The Washington community helped develop the political community based on the constitutional framers original idea as well as implementing their own self-interest. The elected government ended up being even more limited than the constitutional design had envisioned. The Washington community ended up being a backwater that did not develop properly with few privileges socially and economically, and with limited political presence. The city was not fully developed and it made the elected officials seem that they had the power and they were of significance. Therefore, elected officials in both the House of Representatives and the Senate would not stay around long to serve. The original powers the constitutional framers intended for the elected officials of Washington to have was a separate territory removed from the political carryings of the states and the people that would allow deliberative democracy...
... middle of paper ...
... and thoughts of ordinary Americans. The Washington Community or “the original beltway boys” had an expectation of what it intended to be socially and politically and ended up being something different. The Framers of the Constitution designed the constitution to establish a foundation that would assist the government lead the people and the United States. They hoped that a new form of national and long term thinking by men of prominence and motivated to serve the national public interest. What ended up occurring was that the Washington Community was a backwater with few privileges. The government was not developing properly and there was limited political presence. The national government was deemed insignificant and that was a major problem. The vision that the constitutional framers anticipated was not in actuality carried out by the early Washington Community.
Before the Constitution was drafted, the United States’ budding government, now independent from Great Britain, acted under a dysfunctional constitution called the Articles of Confederation. Although this constitution kept the new nation running, there were still flaws that needed to be fixed. The Articles of Confederation lacked a developed executive or judicial branch and a method for the main government to collect taxes from state governments, according to the background essay of the DBQ Packet. An assembly of fifty-five men eventually gathered for a Constitutional Convention in order to write a new constitution that would better satisfy the people’s needs. The trouble of creating another constitution lied behind creating a document
All of the framer of the U.S. Constitution had one thing in common, they all felt that the government didn't have enough power. At the same time they didn't want to give the government to much power. They all knew if there was power to be held someone was going to hold it and over use it The framers didn't want to create a system like Britain or England.
The United States Constitution is a national government that consist of citizen’s basic rights and fundamental laws. This document was signed on September 17, 1787 in Philadelphia by the majority of representatives. Today, the United States Constitution’s purpose is to supply a strong central government. However, before the United States Constitution was developed, many citizens did not support the constitution due to the fact that they found it contradicting and detached from the original goals of the Declaration of Independence. These citizens were known as anti-federalists. Fortunately, George Washington was a supporter of the constitution and had an enormous impact in the public support of the constitution. With a few adjustments, some
One argument that the Anti-Federalists had against the forming of a new constitution was that they claimed it would “lead to a new consolidation system of government” and the leaders of Philadelphia intended “such a system and that the consolidated system would in the end destroy republican government and individual liberty as well as the independence of the states.” (Lewis 2) The Federalists feared that the government would have so much power it would be abused. They were constantly speculating about what would happen to the Unit...
After the creation of the United States Constitution, George Washington was elected as the first president. During Washington’s two terms, two political parties emerged: the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. In determining the catalyst for these parties surfacing, it is important to look at the viewpoints each group held in areas including the economy, politics, and foreign affairs. Political parties rose in the 1790s as contrasting opinions on economic plans and foreign affairs ultimately led to opposing political perspectives.
In 1789, the Confederation of the United States, faced with the very real threat of dissolution, found a renewed future with the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. This document created a structure upon which the citizens could build a future free of the unwanted pitfalls and hazards of tyrannies, dictatorship, or monarchies, while securing the best possible prospects for a good life. However, before the establishment of the new United States government, there was a period of dissent over the need for a strong centralized government. Furthermore, there was some belief that the new constitution failed to provide adequate protection for small businessmen and farmers and even less clear protection for fundamental human rights.
The U.S government has operated for about 200 years on the basis of Constitution written in 1787 and since then, there have been several debates as to whether the framing of this document was an elitist or democratic process. The framers, collectively were an elite, but the reason for why they wrote the Constitution is not fully known. John P. Roche suggests the Constitution was written upon the idea to establish an effective and controlled national government that would overcome the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation and not so much to limit the power of popular majorities and protect their own property interests.
The legislative branch of government is a complex system that is separated into two branches, the House of Representatives and the Senate. Both which have different tasks. The favored branch of the public is the House of Representatives because the people feel that they can relate more with their congressmen then their senators. This is another important aspect of the role that congressmen have, representing their constituents. Congressmen are elected to be the voice of their constituency and people rely on them to get their issues heard and resolved. In the book, Lee Hamilton speaks of a gentleman named Wilbur Mills, who is a powerful legislator from Arkansas. As they were walking in D.C he spoke of how he was going to some small town in Arkansas to hold a public meeting with about twenty people. He told Hamilton, "Lee, don't ever forget your constituents. Nothing, nothing comes before them." (p.53) It is very important for congressmen to keep in touch with their constituents, not only are they the people that are keeping them in office but also they are the people that are counting on him/her to voice their thoughts and concerns.
...ared that the ratification was not going to be achieved. For instance, John Jay wrote a letter to George Washington in 1786 explaining how at least during the American Revolution all people were united for the same goal, but now their objective is unclear and chaotic, (Document D). All together majority of the people demanded a full presentation within the government, “yet if it is deficient in this essential principle of a full and just representation of the people, it will only be a painted sepulcher,” meaning that without a solid list of rights protecting people and balance within the branches of government everything will collapse, (Document F). The main doubts created by the writing and ratification of the United States Constitution evolved from the between the federalists and the antifederalists, who had different visions of how the government should be run.
This past summer, when I lived and worked in Washington, DC—first as a U.S. Senate Page and then as a Congressional Intern—I gained invaluable experience and insight to the American political system. It is amazing how much one can learn from simply overhearing the conversations of Members of Congress on a daily basis. Working on the floor of the Senate and then in the back rooms of a Congressional office were two entirely different experiences, each teaching me in a distinctive way about how our political system functions. While I most definitely became aware of how bureaucratic and slow our democratic system can be, I also discovered that with a commitment to unity and prosperity for the common good, great feats are attainable through government.
By the late eighteenth century, America found itself independent from England; which was a welcomed change, but also brought with it, its own set of challenges. The newly formed National Government was acting under the Articles of Confederation, which established a “firm league of friendship” between the states, but did not give adequate power to run the country. To ensure the young nation could continue independently, Congress called for a Federal Convention to convene in Philadelphia to address the deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation. While the Congress only authorized the convention to revise and amend the Articles the delegates quickly set out to develop a whole new Constitution for the country. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the new Constitution called for a national Executive, which was strongly debated by the delegates. There were forces on both sides of the issue trying to shape the office to meet their ideology. The Federalists, who sought a strong central government, favored a strong National Executive which they believed would ensure the country’s safety from both internal and external threats. The Anti Federalists preferred to have more power in the hands of the states, and therefore tried to weaken the national Executive. Throughout the convention and even after, during the ratification debates, there was a fear, by some, that the newly created office of the president would be too powerful and lean too much toward monarchy.
During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms. Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused. The “lackluster leadership” of the critics of the new constitution claimed that a large land area such as America could not work for such a diverse nation.
The American Revolution stirred political unity and motivated the need for change in the nation. Because many Americans fought for a more balanced government in the Revolutionary War, they initially created a weak national government that hampered the country's growth and expansion. In the Letter from Abigail Adams to Thomas Jefferson, Mrs. Adams complained about the inadequacy of power that the American government had to regulate domestic affairs. The Articles of Confederation was created to be weak because many had feared a similar governing experience that they had just eliminated with Britain. The alliance of states united the 13 local governments but lacked power to deal with important issues or to regulate diplomatic affairs. Congress did not have the power to tax, regulate trade, or draft people for war. This put the American citizens at stake because States had the power to refuse requests for taxes and troops (Document G). The weakened national government could not do anything about uprisings or small-scale protests because it did not have the power to put together an army. The deficiencies of the confederation government inspired the drafting of the American Constitution. The document itself embodied the principle of a national government prepared to deal with the nation's problems. In James Madison's Federalist Paper, he persuades the American public to adopt the Constitution so that the government can protect humans from their nature and keep them out of conflicts.
In early American government there were two emerging political views that were blatantly obvious in the new states; federalists and anti-federalists. In this paper two main topics of interest for each of the parties will be discussed, the role that government should have according to the differing views and the subject of foreign policy.
Even before the Constitution was ratified, strong argument were made by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison in the Federalist Papers urging the inclusion of a federal form of government to replace the failed confederation. In Federalist Paper No. 9 Hamilton states, “This form of government is a convention by which several smaller states agree to become members of a large one, which they intend to form. It is s kind of assemblage of societies that constitutes a new one, capable of increasing, by means of new associations, until they arrive to such a degree of power as to be able to provide for the security of a united body” (Usinfo.state.gov). The people of the United States needed a central government that was capable of holding certain powers over the states.