Constitutional Interpretation Essay

‘Transformed beyond recognition from the vision of the Founding Fathers.’ Discuss this view of the modern US constitution.

In his essay “Framing the Constitution,” Charles Beard believed that the Constitution was written for economic reasons. He claimed it was a document written by the rich and powerful whose only aim was for their wealth and property to be protected. Beard states “The men who were principally concerned in this work of peaceful enterprise were not the philosophers, but the men of business and property and the holders of public securities.” He supposed that there group of men who created the document were rich and greedy, and

The main purpose behind the book Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution, by Woody Holton is to demonstrate the authors view on the true intent of the Framers when writing the Constitution. Although at first glance the book may seem to uphold the idea that the framers wrote the Constitution in order to protect civil liberties, Holton has a different opinion. To avoid a one sided book, the author not only looks at the framers intent, but the struggles facing the American people.

The Federalists Papers were written in the eighteenth century by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay in an effort to persuade New Yorkers to ratify the new U.S. Constitution. These papers are said to be the key that unlocks the true interpretation and meaning of the Unites Sates Constitution. One of the controversial topics relating to the Constitution that the Federalists Papers help to straighten out, is the practice of judicial review by the Supreme Court. In this essay, I will point out many of the examples Alexander Hamilton gives in Federalist No. 78 that support the idea of the Supreme Court having power of judicial review over all levels of

After the failure of the Articles of Confederation, the founders believed it was necessary to hold a National Convention to revise it in order for it to become the Constitution. After the signing of the Constitution, two groups were created. The Anti-federalists who composed a series of essays one known as An Old Whig V (1787) suggests that an inclusion of a Bill of Rights would be more effective in clarifying the limits of the government, while others, the Federalists, opposed to it. To understand the effects of ratifying a Bill of Rights in the Constitution, both sides must be analyzed. This paper examines An Old Whig V’s arguments against the Federalist, mainly letters from Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, to propose that the inclusion of a Bill of Rights allows citizens to verbalize their right of protection in regards to the occasion of being shown in the Constitution.

In modern America, many citizens hold to the notion that the Constitution was adopted unanimously, without debate or disagreement. Not only is this not the case, the debate and disagreement that took place during the institution of the governing articles for the newly formed country are ultimately responsible for the system we have in place today as the concerns and counterpoints raised in the discussion were more crucial to the successful continuance of stability in the nation than any unanimous decision. Given the apparent import of such discussion, it is therefore prudent to examine the original points of contention to determine their merit and to further ensure that the concerns originally raised have been addressed sufficiently.

A Constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. (McCulloch V. Maryland)

The debate over the effectiveness of the Articles of Confederation has been a long lasting one. In order to create a document that would adequately protect the American people and their interests’ the Founding Fathers embarked on a journey to create a document that would address all of the discrepancies found within the Articles of Confederation Therefore, the purpose of this paper is threefold. First, to compare and contrast the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of 1787. Second, to analyze the drafting of the Constitution. Third, to compare and contrast the debate over ratification of the Constitution between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.

During his opening statement, Scalia employs rhetorical questions in order to elucidate that Americans’ lack of knowledge of the government forces judges to firmly abide by the United States’ unparalleled Constitution. He postulates, “How many of you have read the Federalist Papers?” The reality that “never more than about 5%” of his audience, who are “interested in the law,” has delved deep into the document portrays them as ignorant. With this concern, Scalia expounds upon his originalist ideals and encourages rivaling judges to alter their opinions of a flexible Constitution. Scalia credits his argument through the Framers who illustrated the significance of the Constitution in the Federalist Papers. Due to the fact that Americans are incapable of thoroughly interpreting the government, he attests that judges must abide by the precise words of the Constitution. Scalia advises his audience to

Daniel Hoover Professor Jack Citron/ Joseph Warren Political Science 1 September 22nd, 2015 The Constitution is not a Democratic Document The U.S. Constitution revolutionized the American political system, and shaped world history by inspiring other states to imitate its protection of civil liberties in the later adopted Bill of Rights, checks and balances between branches within the federal government, and guarantees to state governments. For the purpose of this paper, it is essential to analyze the Constitution in its early form because it established the conditions from which our federal republic has evolved. In addition, the Constitution of December 15th, 1791, the date when the promised Bill of Rights was added, best reflects the intentions

The American Constitution was questionable from the earliest starting point, as thoughts were separated between backers - an answer for all the country's issues, and commentators - a depravity of its republican standards. The supporters trusted that the Constitution augmented their republican thoughts, adding another level to the chose government, while the faultfinders trust the republicans worked in little political units, for this situation the states. The most effective method to separate the force between state governments and focal government was in this way a principle contention while the Constitution was composed furthermore later in time, remaining a vital issue until today.

In engendering the Constitution, the states had several different reactions, including a rather defensive reaction, but supplementally a construal reaction. As a document that provided the laws of the land and the rights of its people. It directs its attention to the many quandaries 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 pellucid that the founders’ perspectives as white, affluent or elite class, American citizens would play a role in the engenderment and implementation of The Constitution.

Two of the most important documents in United States history, are the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. The Declaration of Independence was a catalyst that helped to shape America to what it is today: a nation where its core values are still defined, and where life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness still thrive in the American people. The rights that people possess are called natural rights, these were the standards for a human life and were not dependent of any government or a culture. After four years of American triumph in the Revolutionary War, to make another contract for overseeing the stabilization of the country, representatives “established delegates in the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention” (Carey 40). In drafting the Constitution, the greater part of the Founding Fathers trusted that the defenses composed into it would secure the privileges of Americans. When the Constitution was sent to the states in 1787 for confirmation, an incredible thunder of dissatisfaction went up. Different Americans from various states requested that a Bill of Rights be added to the Constitution. Various states approved the Constitution just restrictively. They would favor the Constitution just on the chance that it was changed to incorporate these rights (Carey 40). After reading Krugman’s “The Death of Horatio Alger,” Cox’s and Alm’s “By Our Own Bootstraps,” and Dalmia’s “Long Live the American Dream,” these articles inform the reader and give a

According to Scott (2008), the Constitution of America has undergone several translations within the history of America because they found it to be unclear. Whereas it appears discrepant that the unclear Constitution could be useful, the disagreement is the case (Robertson, 2005). Americans regard the Constitution to be helpful for the reason that it allows for diverseness of views. In the history of America, a variety of thoughts would develop with alarming and formidable support through various factions (Robertson, 2005). Today, the main political arguments are presented from the Republican group or Democratic group. During the early periods of the American government, arguments on politics were made by Thomas Jefferson

This debate greatly contributed our understanding of our national government and provided for stronger protections and the addition of a bill of rights. Although the Constitution did ultimately get passed, this did not necessarily prove the Federalists right in every instance and the Anti-Federalists wrong. This is particularly is proven in the evidence of the many predictions of the Anti-Federalists that have come true and the change of opinion on several essays from "The Federalist" that the authors later changed their opinion on. The decisive reason for the Constitution's eventual ratification and the alleged failure of the Anti-Federalist can be pinpointed to several key issues, some of which are the lack of an cohesive opinion of the Anti-Federalists, the absence of a worthy alternative, and a weaker argument to be debated. This is notably portrayed in the Anti-Federalist dissention of the Constitutions clauses for the office of the President and reveals similarities to the failures they suffered in their position against Constitution as a whole.