The United States promotes itself as being based on the principle of popular sovereignty, that is, the people’s capacity for self-government. The latter is secured by the existence of the higher and fundamental law that is the constitution. Indeed, article VI section 2 of the constitution states that it is the «supreme law of the land» by which the judges shall be bound. This fundamental law was «establish[ed] and ordain[ed]» by the people of the United States according to the preamble of the constitution; it thus follows that the people are sovereign. Nevertheless, one has to investigate the device by which it is assumed that the people have, in effect, established the constitution. One can presume, with no great difficulty, that it is not feasible to draft a constitution by concerting every individual of the United States on what should be included in it. The Philadelphia convention of 1787 assembled delegates from all states to discuss the drafting of the constitution. Although the delegates were representatives of their states, it is the process of ratification that substantiated the republican principle of popular sovereignty. Thus, it is the ratification of the Constitution that enables it to be «empowered by the people [and gives it] a truly legal authority» (Paine, 28).
One could initiate a debate on the process of ratification and its true value in assessing popular sovereignty. However, such an argument implies that one further examines the nature of the people, therefore leading us to digress from the purpose of this paper. Hence, one is accepting that the ratification process does account for the manifestation of popular sovereignty, thus confirming that the Constitution was «establish[ed] and ordain[ed] by the peo...
... middle of paper ...
..., we have seen that such a doubt is inherent to the concept of popular sovereignty and the meaning of «the people». On the contrary, it seems that judicial review furthers republican principle, as the Supreme Court is the guardian of the constitution, that is, the fundamental law which accounts for the sovereignty of the people.
Cited Works:
Andreas Hess, “Republicanism,” ch. 3 of American Social and Political Thought: A Concise Introduction (New York: NYU Press, 2000), pp. 28-36
Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, John Jay, and Michael A. Genovese. The Federalist Papers. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. Print.
Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, John Jay, and Terence Ball. The Federalist. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UP, 2003. Print.
Paine, Thomas, and Philip Sheldon Foner. The Complete Writings of Thomas Paine. New York: Citadel, 1945. Print.
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
It has long been taught that the first constitution and the idea of a representative government first came into existence with the creation of the United States’ constitution. However, six hundred years prior to that creation, a group of native tribes came together and forged the America’s true first constitution. Through this creation, a powerful nation, known as the Haudenosaunee, or known to Europeans as the Iroquois Nation, became an important part in the shaping of the Americas. The creation of this constitution would serve as a model for the need and creation of the United States’ own constitution. By examining the “why” it was created, the principles held within
The United States Constitution begins with the simple phrase “We the People”. Yet, with three simple words, the ideology it stands for has shaped the entire country (O’Connor et al., 2011). The short phrase signifies that the document, and thus, the government, is based upon the people themselves. The Constitution reflects the culture and ideologies of its citizens. Similarly, state constitutions reflect the people, albeit in a more specific locality. The key differences between the United States Constitution and that of local states are due to the distinctions between the scope and characteristics of the people they govern.
The year of 1776 was a time of revolution, independence, and patriotism. American colonists had severed their umbilical cord to the Mother Country and declared themselves “Free and Independent States”.1 The chains of monarchy had been thrown off and a new government was formed. Shying away from a totalitarian government, the Second Continental Congress drafted a document called the Articles of Confederation which established a loose union of the states. It was an attempt at self-government that ended in failure. The Articles of Confederation had many defects which included a weak central government that lacked the power to tax, regulate trade, required equal representation and a unanimous vote to amend the Articles, and had only a legislative branch. As a result the United States lacked respect from foreign countries. These flaws were so severe that a new government had to be drafted and as a result the Constitution was born. This document remedied the weak points of the federal government and created one that was strong and fair, yet still governed by the people.
The delegates, also known as the Framers of the Constitution, didn't exactly agree on how to create a new system of government, with two sides emerging both with contrary, but comparable motives on how to keep their country running efficiently. First there were the Federalists, who favored a stronger national g...
While the government of the United States owes its existence to the contents and careful thought behind the Constitution, some attention must be given to the contributions of a series of essays called the Federalist Papers towards this same institution. Espousing the virtues of equal representation, these documents also promote the ideals of competent representation for the populace and were instrumental in addressing opposition to the ratification of the Constitution during the fledgling years of the United States. With further reflection, the Federalists, as these essays are called, may in turn owe their existence, in terms of their intellectual underpinnings, to the writings of the philosopher and teacher, Aristotle.
The United States' Constitution is one the most heralded documents in our nation's history. It is also the most copied Constitution in the world. Many nations have taken the ideals and values from our Constitution and instilled them in their own. It is amazing to think that after 200 years, it still holds relevance to our nation's politics and procedures. However, regardless of how important this document is to our government, the operation remains time consuming and ineffective. The U.S. Constitution established an inefficient system that encourages careful deliberation between government factions representing different and sometimes competing interests.
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.
The Constitution was the first stepping stone in the national sovereignty of the United States. It is the supreme law that has been valued and upheld since its ratification in 1787. It holds the rights and freedoms of all Americans and gives structure to the government. To uphold this structure, the judiciary branch was established, alongside the legislative and executive, by the Constitution. However, the judicial branch did not always have the power and influence it does today. Because of the 4th Chief Justice, John Marshall, the Supreme Court eventually gained the power and ability to become coequal to the legislative and executive branches. John Marshall’s establishment of Judicial Review in the Supreme Court and his strong federalists
In creating the Constitution, the states had several different reactions, including a rather defensive reaction, but also an understanding reaction. As a document that provided the laws of the land and the rights of its people. It directs its attention to the many problems in this country; it offered quite a challenge because the document lent itself to several views and interpretations, depending upon the individual reading it. It is clear that the founders’ perspectives as white, wealthy or elite class, American citizens would play a role in the creation and implementation of The Constitution.
constitutions of most of our states assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they
Who has the greater legitimacy to represent the people? The president or the legislatures. In comparing the Chilean 1970 Presidential Election to 1979 Spanish appointment of Adolfo Suirez as Prime Minister, Linz notes “Allende received a six-year mandate for controlling the government even with much less than a majority of the popular vote, while Suirez, with a plurality of roughly the same size, found it necessary to work with other parties to sustain a minority government”. Linz supports the fusion of the executive and legislative branches because it forces a sense of cooperation. He points out that “presidential systems may be more or less dependent on the cooperation of the legislature; the balance between executive and legislative power in such systems can thus vary considerably” Linz admits that “presidential elections do offer the indisputable advantage of allowing the people to choose their chief executive openly, directly, and for a predictable span rather than leaving that decision to the backstage maneuvering of the politicians.” but qualifies it by stating that it is only and beneficial if the majority of the people of spoken. In Scott Mainwaring and Matthew Shugart’s critical appraisal of “The Perils of Presidentialism” they offer counter arguments when they suggest that a bicameral parliament can just as easily have dual legitimacy issues as a President and legislative body. It should be recognized that Linz does not address the checks and balances that allows for a more regulated government ensuring that power is not concentrated in the hands of one group. Nor does he address that elections
ruled by a similar group to that of our Supreme Court because, the members of
The first step of the Constitution was undemocratic. No popular vote was taken either directly or indirectly on the proposition to approve a convention (Beard 14). The group of men who wanted the convention was skillful in getting it approved in that their proposal of it was a surprise. This gave the Federalists an upper hand. Their opponents, the Anti-Federalists, could not refuse to a discussion of possible, and perhaps necessary, reforms. By refusing, they could lose the support of the public very easily (Roche 18).
Dahl conducted his study on the decision making of the Supreme Court and whether the Court exercised its power of judicial review to counter majority will and protect minority rights or if it used the power to ratify the further preferences of the dominant “national law making majority.” From the results of Dahl’s study he builds numerous arguments throughout his article, “Decision-Making in a Democracy: the Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker”. In what follows, I will thoroughly point out and explain each of the arguments that Dahl constructs in his article.