Elements Of A Justified Constitution

745 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Essays on how African Americans earned the right to vote

A Justified Constitution The 1787 Constitution instilled, by design, an outline that would establish a federal government whilst ensuring a balance of equal power amongst itself in order to create a “just” system. In pursuance of a government in favor of justice, it would need to relay the ideals of being equitable and impartial for the benefit of the common good. Though this was not always an achievable goal, in which case African Americans composed around one fifth of the population in America, but only were accounted for as three fifths of a person in the Constitution under the Three Fifths Compromise. This was seen as a massive design flaw. However, taking into consideration the era in which the Constitution was drafted, it sufficiently …show more content…

It was the Federalist’s intentions that the people’s voice would heavily influence what the constitution would inquire. It was upon these terms in which the foundation of a just constitution was based. As stated in Federalist No.43, “The State will no doubt provide in the compact for the rights and the consent of the citizens inhabiting it.”, highlighting the inclusion of consent of the governed. If the representation were to ever lack in its position, it would be the right of the governed to overthrow this government, strictly enforcing the empowerment of the people’s voice. Without the democratic appeal of the every man’s vote, power would soon begin to shift and elitism would slowly overturn the republic. For the sake of justice, this was not implemented in the United State’s …show more content…

In the interest of constructing a constitution that would incorporate fair policies, framers assembled Article 5 which granted the right to alter the constitution. This was to certify that progression was being made in government, and that regulations could be modified if not seen fit. If the capacity to adapt the constitution were lost, it would no longer suitably preserve the rights of the people to participate in their government based on consent. The implication of a necessary two thirds vote from both houses to amend the constitution secured majority rule and impartially represented its people. As Article 5 of the Constitution states, “No state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”, thus guaranteeing an equitable system in which the people could rely

Show More
Related

  • What Was The Difference Between Roche And John Beard

    1581 Words  | 4 Pages

    Since its very conception, the Constitution of the United States has while holding great reverence, been a great topic of debate amongst the political scholars left to analyze it in all its ambiguity. Two such scholars, John Roche and Charles Beard, in their analyses of the Constitution aim to tackle a layer of the uncertainty: how democratic the Framers truly intended the Constitution to be. John Roche speaks in unquestionably high regard of the Framers in advocating that they so evidently compromised their own values in order to create a democratic document that would strengthen the US as a whole. Charles Beard conversely insists that as the economic elite of their time, the Framers were influenced primarily by their private interests to

    Read More

  • Federalist 10 Pros And Cons

    614 Words  | 2 Pages

    This passage places emphasis on one of the three arguments James Madison makes in Federalist 10. Madison explicates the deficit of factions specifically factions that could cause nothing but “mischief” for the United States. In this particular passage, he explains how factions are inevitable in our country, however, controlling the effect of factions would diminish their “mischievous impact.” Thus, prohibiting factions assists in reducing the probability of “[a] weaker party or an obnoxious individual” from gaining power over the minority. These smaller factions that Madison hopes to avoid are a direct result of “pure democracy” that he accounts as have “general[ly]…short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” Therefore, this particular fragment from federalist 10 serves as the precedent to the introduction of a mixed Constitution of a democracy and republic, in this case, a large republic.

    Read More

  • Constitution Dbq

    863 Words  | 2 Pages

    After the American Revolution, America had earned it’s freedom from Britain. In order to govern this new country the Articles of Confederation was created. This document was flawed by the colonists fear of putting too much power into a central government. Knowing the document needed to be fixed a constitutional convention was called. The document created at this convention has been our constitution ever since. But even the Constitution was meet with criticism. One major concern when writing the constitution was how to protect the citizens rights. The Constitution did this through the preamble, the legislative process, the limit of presidential terms, the judicial branch, and the bill of rights.

    Read More

  • Understanding the Controversies of the US Constitution

    1132 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Constitution of the United States is one of the most iconic and important documents of all time. However, when it was first generated, its writing and ratification caused some major concerns. The purpose of the Constitution was to address the great number of issues of a new nation. To be more specific, the Constitution was meant to resolve the political, economic, and social problems of the country. Nevertheless, the document spurred much discussion and concern over people’s rights, the economy, and political corruption.

    Read More

  • Articles Of Confederation Dbq Analysis

    841 Words  | 2 Pages

    During and after the turmoil of the American Revolution, the people of America, both the rich and the poor, the powerful and the meek, strove to create a new system of government that would guide them during their unsure beginning. This first structure was called the Articles of Confederation, but it was ineffective, restricted, and weak. It was decided to create a new structure to guide the country. However, before a new constitution could be agreed upon, many aspects of life in America would have to be considered. The foremost apprehensions many Americans had concerning this new federal system included fear of the government limiting or endangering their inalienable rights, concern that the government’s power would be unbalanced, both within its branches and in comparison to the public, and trepidation that the voice of the people would not be heard within the government.

    Read More

  • The New Science of Politics

    813 Words  | 2 Pages

    When discussing the new science of politics laid out in the Federalist papers, it is imperative to understand that proponents of the Constitution had various reasons for writing these papers, not the least of which was convincing critics that a strong central government that would not oppress but actually protect individual freedoms as well as encouraging the state of New York to agree to ratify the Constitution.

    Read More

  • The Ratification of the United States Constitution

    961 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Founding Fathers accepted that the basic rights of individuals, rights to life, liberty, and private property, were not arranged by the government, and so when the Founders composed the Constitution, they were not surrendering new rights to people. It was just to create a steady form of representative republican government that would assure that the basic rights of mankind were less likely to be compacted upon. The objective of the Framers was not to make a extreme form of “democracy” (which the Founders reviled for its strong inclination to throw off the rule of law) in which everybody had the equal kind of say in government or in which nobody felt as if they were in a minority.

    Read More

  • Federalists and Anti-Federalists

    1659 Words  | 4 Pages

    The Constitution, when first introduced, set the stage for much controversy in the United States. The two major parties in this battle were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, such as James Madison, were in favor of ratifying the Constitution. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists, such as Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, were against ratification. Each party has their own beliefs on why or why not this document should or should not be passed. These beliefs are displayed in the following articles: Patrick Henry's "Virginia Should Reject the Constitution," Richard Henry Lee's "The Constitution Will Encourage Aristocracy," James Madison's "Federalist Paper No. 10," and "The Letters to Brutus." In these documents, many aspects of the Constitution, good and bad, are discussed. Although the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had very conflicting views, many common principals are discussed throughout their essays. The preservation of liberty and the effects of human nature are two aspects of these similarities. Although the similarities exist, they represent and support either the views of the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists.

    Read More

  • Democracy In The 19th Century

    1358 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Creation Of The Constitution

    1073 Words  | 3 Pages

    On further analysis, most of the issues within the document were due to vast cultural, racial, and economic lifestyles that our country did and will continue to support, as unintentional as it may be. This document lessened some of those issues and attempted to accommodate the requests of all states. However, Elitist framers manipulated the idea of a constitution in order to protect their economic interests and the interests of their fellow white land and slave owning men' by restricting the voices of women, slaves, indentured servants and others.

    Read More

  • Should The Constitution Be Changed Essay

    1452 Words  | 3 Pages

    In 1787, The United States of America formally replaced the Articles of Confederation with a wholly new governing document, written by the delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. This document, known as the Constitution, has served as the supreme law of our land for the past 228 years. It has stood the test of time and a majority of Americans still support it today (Dougherty). The Constitution was designed in a way that allows for it to be amended, in order to address changing societal needs. Article V discusses the process by which the Constitution can be altered. This feature has enabled it to stay in effect and keep up with current times. The Constitution should not be rewritten every 19 years because it would not only weaken its importance, but it would also hurt foreign relations and continuously rewriting it would give political parties too much power.

    Read More

  • U.S. Constitution: Counter Revolutionary?

    740 Words  | 2 Pages

    The beginning of the Constitution provides a basis for one to question the righteousness of the Framers intentions. The Constitution starts by saying, “ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This was not a true statement. That phrase excluded black people, women, and men who lacked wealth. Government under the British did the same thing; all the power was made accessible to only the rich. The American Revolution was aimed at acquiring equal and fair representation in government for everyone. Next, the Constitution established a Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was a group of selected people who would make major legal decisions for the country. These people were not elected or chosen by the people, they were chosen by the government. This placed a form of power over the people of the United States that had been held by King George. The Supreme Court had the power to ma...

    Read More

  • Anti-Federalist vs Federalist

    2017 Words  | 5 Pages

    After winning the Revolutionary War and sovereign control of their home country from the British, Americans now had to deal with a new authoritative issue: who was to rule at home? In the wake of this massive authoritative usurpation, there were two primary views of how the new American government should function. Whereas part of the nation believed that a strong, central government would be the most beneficial for the preservation of the Union, others saw a Confederation of sovereign state governments as an option more supportive of the liberties American’s fought so hard for in the Revolution. Those in favor of a central government, the Federalists, thought this form of government was necessary to ensure national stability, unity and influence concerning foreign perception. Contrastingly, Anti-Federalists saw this stronger form of government as potentially oppressive and eerily similar to the authority’s tendencies of the British government they had just fought to remove. However, through the final ratification of the Constitution, new laws favoring state’s rights and the election at the turn of the century, one can say that the Anti-Federalist view of America prevails despite making some concessions in an effort to preserve the Union.

    Read More

  • The Founding Fathers: An Age Of Realism Summary

    1855 Words  | 4 Pages

    The men who wrote the American constitution agreed with Thomas Hobbes that humans were naturally evil. Therefore, they agreed that in order to prevent a dictatorship or monarchy, the citizens should have influence in the government. The writers wanted a more ideal constitution, but they realized evil human motives would never change. One of the main goals of the constitution was to create a balanced government that would allow the citizens to prevent each other from being corrupt. The writers wanted to give citizens liberty, but they did not want to give people so much liberty that they would have an uncontrollable amount of power. The writers agreed that a citizen’s influence in government would be proportionate to that individual’s property.

    Read More

  • A Written Constitution

    786 Words  | 2 Pages

    The closest thing the UK has to a bill of rights today is the Human

    Read More

More about Elements Of A Justified Constitution

Open Document