Dworkin says that “legislature is not the safest vessel for protecting the rights of policy unpopular groups,” and this is where I can understand some point that he trying to make, because legislature is not the safest vessel for protecting minority groups, the judicial branch is. Waldron, too sates the example, that the most notable philosopher to inspire the constitution, John Locke, wrote about the need for a branch to limit the legislative powers, but was also reluctant to name the judicial branch. This fact remains a mystery to me, but at least Dworkin explains the potential corruption that can come from putting so much power in the hands of the
Hamilton, Madison, and Jay argued that limitations on governmental power were built into the Constitution with a series of checks and balances. The two different parties, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, interpreted the Constitution in a way to support the cause for ratification or rejection. The Federalists saw the new government in a way that would guarantee the rights of the governed. The Anti-Federalists saw it in such a manner that would make no such guarantee. While the Constitution was eventually passed, it was the Anti-Federalists who ensured that it would eventually contain a Bill of Rights to protect individuals, as such Federalists and supporters of the central government as Alexander Hamilton argued that a Bill of Rights was
The idea of a governing body drawing its power directly from its constituents has been undermined by the corrupt nature of modern politics where politicians act out of self-interest. While the Constitution and later amendments had every intention of securing basic liberties, certain limitations later undermined the original intentions of the founding fathers to give power back to the people by placing the larger majority of power in the hands of the state. Federal limitations to certain amendments, known as federal mandates, have taken power away from the masses. To secure democracy and avoid further abuses of power by the judicial courts, an amendment should be made to the Constitution prohibiting the federal government from putting down mandates that directly interfere with the power given to the states by law. Federal politicians use desultory commands as leverage to ensure that the states comply with their wishes.
In fact, it was the founding fathers themselves who warned us that a country under democratic rule would never be able to function properly. They feared a democracy as much as they feared a monarchy from developing. The founding fathers knew that a country based on a democracy would either become too weak or too powerful. If it became too powerful it would lead to tyranny of the majority. This would cause oppression to the small minority groups, leading to a lack of individual freedom, liberty, and rights.
This apparent aversion of strong central government was rooted in the former colonists’ fear of a sequel to their monarchial horror that was England. Some believe that the Articles proved an efficient government for post-Revolution America serving as a successful conclusion to the war. However, while effective in avoiding an executive power, the Articles of Confederation proved ineffective in the successful governing of the United States. By the lack of assistance in solving post-war financial issues, the inability to maintain law and order in events of opposition, along with the disorganization of diplomatic relations exposed the shortcomings and the inadequate nature of the Articles of Confederation. America’s vulnerability can be attributed to the post-wartime economical situation.
Thomas Jefferson was an opponent of the adoption of the original Constitution, believing like many Anti-Federalists, that it gave the Federal government too much power, while depriving powers to the states. Jefferson was also adamant in opposing the emergence of a national bank. He believed that this would deprive the states of power to an even greater extent while further empowering the Federalists and the federal government. Additionally, the Anti-Federalists had adopted a very strict interpretation of the Constitution, and that all powers of the federal government were not legitimate unless specifically stated. Going by this interpretation would mean that a national bank would not be able to be established, as that was not a right of the federal government specifically stated in the Constitution.
Anti-federalists were alarmed by the absence of a bill of rights. Federalists assured them it would be added by amendment. Federalists believed that the three branches of government-legislative, judicial and executive- effectively represent the people. Anti-federalists, on the other hand, opposed the stronger federal government. The felt states had rights, which the central government threatened to trample.
The states had won their freedom but had been unable to form a nation. They fought among themselves, suffered from severe economic depression, and came close to losing the peace they had won in war. These political and economic factors generated pressure for the creation of a new national government and a constitution. In Madison’s view, politics was overrun by different “factions”, which were groups of people who shared the same interests, different from other people or the opinion of the whole. These factions, he thought, prevented the government from its most important task, which in his opinion was to protect the owner’s of the land and property.
Alexander Hamilton 's Federalist Paper #15 called The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union was a primary document that showed the problems with the Articles of Confederation and how it was detrimental to the United States. He is warning the American people that their country could begin to crumble if some issues weren 't addressed. Most of what Hamilton writes about was already popular among the Americans, and he acknowledges this when he writes about how his piece may be "tedious or irksome." Under the Articles, the government did not have enough authority over the states to properly govern. The national government could merely recommend laws, but the states had the final say.
Bobbio offers the observation that politics is contradictory and paradoxical, since it often includes unavoidable broken promises. Postmodern political thinkers like Foucault put forth the idea that power among the hands of the state is both suspicious and dangerous. In discursive political theory, there must be an open communication of ideas and reason between citizens, but many critics, like Schumpeter and Sheldon Wolin, argue that open dialogue in modern democratic practices is vulnerable to fears and concerns of citizens. Inclusionary democracy prevents the tyranny of a few to withhold political rights to citizens and calls for acceptance of rights for various social and racial groups in order for equal representation in the political process. However, various groups have challenged the success of democracy to fully represent citizens’ rights because of its divisive nature.