Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Controversy over electoral college
The u.s. constitution essay
The role of the supreme court in us
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Controversy over electoral college
Now that the debacle of the 2000 Presidential election has passed through the annals of United States politics, Daniel Lazare has decided to open the wound of this three ring circus and analyze this example of dysfunctional democracy. In an excerpt from his book, "The Velvet Coup"(Voices, 102), Lazare argues that the Constitution of the United States is an obsolete document that is in dire need of a reality series makeover.
From my understanding, Lazare blames the Supreme Court, the Electoral College, and the Republican Party for that awful display of confusion occurring Election Day in November of 2000. He states, ."..Poland and the Czech Republic can accurately tabulate the results for a dozen or more parties at a time, why did the American system have such inordinate trouble tabulating them for just two."(Voices, 104). Seeing that Poland and the Czech Republic's political system is far more inferior to that of the US, he is poking fun at the system that the Framers laid out in the Constitution. Lazare even goes as far as making the Constitution in desperate need of reform by stating; ."..that any device created by fallible beings is itself fallible and hence prone to breakdown and decay." Could he be suggesting that our beloved Constitution is now like a broken down Ford? That it has seen it's most triumphant days blown by like a summer breeze? That's my guess.
Lazare would like to see the Constitution taken to the incinerator, burned and reformulated to reflect modern times. This to me is too drastic, and if the effort was there, it could be solved by using the power of amending the Constitution. The Framers may not have seen the trouble of changing times, and societal evolution to make perfect every aspect of the Constitution. The Framers put forth tools to solve any ambiguous conflicts with the power to amend this document. It is the fault of modern day politicians that the Constitution is prehistoric. The politicians have the power and the know how to change the Constitution to modern day standards. If any body should be blamed, it should be the politicians. Politics and bipartisan bickering makes our political process a joke to outsiders. Politicians get along as well as an older and younger brother. Pride and egos undo the essence of the Framer's philosophy.
who thought that the constitution would not be able to protect the rights of the people.
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
Madison speaks of the problems of the present attempts at a new government saying “our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and over-bearing majority”.
Larry Sabato author of “A More Perfect Constitution” implies the United States Constitution could use some revision. Written over two hundred years ago, I do not think this concept is astonishing. I believe the founding father were aware of potential flaws, allowing for amendments or changes. Sabato book proposes some changes and the “calling for a twenty-first-century constitutional convention.” This book review will look at four of Sabato suggestions; reforming the Senate, balancing the budget, a six-year presidential term, and the Electoral College. These four recommendations were of greatest interest and intrigue. Although I do agree with all his ideas, I do feel there is more to improvement in our constitution and commend his efforts is awakening the American people to a need for reform.
Through the years many changes have taken place, and technologies have been discovered, yet our Constitution remains. Some say that the Constitution was written for people hundreds of years ago, and in turn is out of step with the times. Yet its principals and guidelines have held thus far. The framers would be pleases that their great planning and thought have been implemented up until this point. However this does not compensate for the fact, that the we the people have empowered the government more so than our fore fathers had intended. Citizens were entrusted with the duty to oversee the government, yet so many times they are disinterested and only seem to have an opinion when the government’s implications affect them. As time has changed so has the American people, we often interpret our freedoms in a self serving manner, disregarding the good of the whole and also the good for the future. Thus there are no true flaws in the Constitution, it appears that the conflict emerges in the individual and their self, and poses question when we must decide when to compromise the morals that our Constitution was founded on, or when to stick to what we know is right and honest.
...framers wrote the Constitution to benefit themselves, it is irrelevant because it hasn't failed yet, and it has kept this country together for a long time and will continue to do so. However, the Constitution works very slowly and inefficiently at the cost of the American people. However, the fact that our government moves slowly is only a minor problem in the grand scheme of the world.
James Madison, an American statesman and political theorist that was present at the constitutional convention. Many of the ideas proposed by Madison are part of the reason that the Constitution has withstood the test of time. Madison was ultimately prepared to deal with one of the biggest problems this new government would face in his eyes, factions. Factions, which as defined by Madison are “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community” (Madison 156). Madison addresses various ways that he sees factions can be cured of its mischiefs such as removing a faction’s causes and also controlling their effects. Madison points out that this is would potentially create an even bigger problem than the factions themselves by stating, “Liberty is to faction, what air is to fire, an ailment, without which it instantly expires” (Madison 156) Madison also stated that the way for a government to remove the cause of faction was either to destroy the liberty that causes factions to exist in the first place or to give every citizen the same beliefs and opinions. Madison deemed this impractical, because it is nearly impossible to give everyone in a given place the same opinions and destroying the liberty would take away the very thing that the colonies fought for 4 years earlier. The fact is Madison knew that the country wouldn’t be able to count on a well-educated statesman to be there any time a faction gets out of hand. Madison knew the only viable way to keep factions under control is not to get rid of factions entirely but to set a r...
People debated on the illegality of the Constitution’s formation. Those who were involved in the public debate about the Constitution considered the creation of the document as an illegal act. Some Anti-Federalists believed that the men sent to the constitutional convention had surpassed the limits of the assignment originally given to them, which was to modestly adjust the Articles of Confederation. Federalists disputed that the articles needed to be eliminated rath...
Hudson, William E. American Democracy in Peril: Eight Challenges to America's Future. Washington, DC: CQ, 2010. Print.
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.
Smith, R. M. “Our Republican Example”: The Significance of the American Experiments in Government in the Twenty-First Century. American Political Thought, 1, 101-128.
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.
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.
The very history of the country, a major contributor to the evolution of its political culture, shows a legacy of democracy that reaches from the Declaration of Independence through over two hundred years to today’s society. The formation of the country as a reaction to the tyrannical rule of a monarchy marks the first unique feature of America’s democratic political culture. It was this reactionary mindset that greatly affected many of the decisions over how to set up the new governmental system. A fear of simply creating a new, but just as tyrannic...
After reading the exchange between Thomas Jefferson and James Madison on the question of central importance to American constitutionalism—whether any Constitution, including the United States Constitution, needs to be positively reauthorized or not by every succeeding generation for it to remain legitimate, I believe that what Jefferson demands in his letter as in all too much else, is ignorance, even rage against the past. His principle on expiring the constitution and laws every 19 years would only result in weak government that offers no social continuity and stability.