Us Constitution Dbq

David O. Stewart, by profession, is a lawyer with a resume that includes everything from arguing appeals at the Supreme Court level to serving as a law court to the acclaimed Junior Powell. But in writing The Summer of 1787: The Men Who Invented the Constitution (specifically, I read the First Simon & Schuster trade paperback edition May 2008, copyrighted in 2007), he uses that experience in law to prove himself a gifted storyteller. Two hundred sixty-four pages long, this United States history nonfiction book does indeed have the substance to engage the reader throughout. It has special features that include two appendices featuring the elector system and the actual constitution of 1787, author’s notes, suggested further reading, acknowledgments and an index (which escalate the total length of the book to three hundred forty-nine pages long).

This book emphasizes the alternative interpretations offered by Americans on the origins of the Constitution. Holton’s purpose with this book was to show that the framers interests involved making America more attractive to investors. In order to do so, they purposefully made the government less democratic with the writing of the Constitution. However, with the addition of the Bill of Rights, one could argue the Framers had at least a slight concern for the American people and their civil liberties.

Voting in the early 1800’s was limited to white landowning males who paid taxes; neither women, African American slaves, nor the non- landowning/ non-taxpaying white males had the right to contribute to the

2. What are the fundamental values of American democracy? How are these values show in the

The ratification of the Constitution in 1787 brought forth many changes in everyday life for many of the citizens. The Constitution and even more famously, the “Bill of Rights” was one of the most influential and somewhat disputed pieces of the government during these times. Furthermore, these disputes are the key reason of political change, governmental parties, and even social change during this time period and beyond. George Washington was elected president without debate or political status, he was unanimously chosen to run the country and continue the democracy. This obviously caused some controversy seeing as how many people didn’t want the country falling into another tyranny, so many people started to trust the government less.

On May 29, 1790, the American Constitution was ratified. According to constitutionality.info, the main purpose for this constitution was to accomplish two things, form a federal government and delegate certain powers to this government. The Constitution exists today mainly due to the failure of the Articles of Confederation. According to usconstitution.net, the Articles of Confederation failed due to some major faults.

The electoral college was meant to give small states a fair voice in presidential elections. However, by giving these smaller states a bigger voice, it undermines the voices of the rest of the people. One of Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s points in how women are treated inferior to men

With a Presidential election year upon us, the United States’ national election process will once again take its place at center stage of American politics. 200 years after the Electoral College’s creation, it still serves its intended purpose, but the increasing social and political awareness in America has caused a need to look at reform in this process. The question that should be asked by every citizen as they participate in the vote next year is if the Electoral College enables the wishes of the people to be truly represented? Reforming the practice of choosing the American President, though, would have Constitutional implications and the political philosophy of our country would be subject to much discussion. Through analyzing the

Charles Beard’s article, Framing the Constitution, alleges the members of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia were “disinterested” in providing basic rights for citizens. He stated that the framers of the Constitution of the United States were only concerned in improving their own economic well–being and personal agendas. Therefore, providing information of the events that led up to the Philadelphia Convention and an overview of the Constitution will dismiss his statements, and state his article was a self-serving, conspiracy theory.

In the beginning, when our founders created the constitution, there was a struggle not only between race and color but also between male and female acknowledgement. The Year is 1776 and having land, being over 21, and in some state policies, having a religious affiliation, disqualified many individuals from casting their thoughts into so young a government. Starting with only 6% of the population having the capacity to vote, our country was founded. It has been 237 years and 11 amendments since, and we are still struggling with suffrage. It is 2014, January 15 and while poll taxes and literacy tests are not around to suppress voters, there are still wide spread methods that are being placed into action by political parties to ensure that

Donald Trump, several months after his presidential victory, appropriately summed up the presidential elections in the U.S. by saying, “I ran for the electoral college. I didn’t run for the popular vote” (Terkel). In the time since he was elected president by winning the electoral college but losing the popular vote, the debate surrounding the effectiveness of the electoral structure has arisen once again. This system, created in 1787, has a long but controversial history among the American people, and it is also often one of the most misunderstood aspects of our government. While some people believe the electoral college should be abolished or reformed, a further dive into its workings reveals that the system is working just fine. In the vast majority of elections, it has done its job appropriately, so nothing needs to be altered.

During the 1790’s, not too long after this country was founded, only white male, property owners, the age of 21 or older were permitted to vote (Pearson Education, 1). Unfortunately, that restricted working men, all women, and all other races from this small piece of freedom. By 1850, the government could see this limitation as a hindrance to the voting participation and eliminated property ownership and tax requirements from the qualifications to vote. As stated before, the right to vote is not directly written in the Constitution, which gave the states’ the freedom to put their own restrictions on whomever they thought should not be able to vote. On that account, in 1855, Connecticut adopted the nation’s first literacy test for voting; meaning any white man without the ability to read or write would not be able to vote. This test was implemented to discriminate against the white Irish-Catholic immigrants coming to America. Two years later, Massachusetts also implemented the same test. These literacy tests, along with poll taxes and even religious tests, were also used in other states to inhibit immigrants, some for fourteen years, before being able to vote (Pearson Education, 1). This journey for white men to gain voting freedom was not as long as some, yet it was still the universal struggle to gain the right to

For instance, Wyoming has as many votes in the Senate as California. This disproportionate representation allows for the rule of the minority. In a Democracy it seems entirely contrary to allow a minority to influence the direction of the country, however, that is where we are at. In Madison’s Federalist 10, he expresses his concern for the rule of factions and also the rule of the minority. It appears that through institutions like the Senate and the Electoral College we have allowed, to a certain extent, the ability of minorities to sway major decisions. Furthermore, because of our attachment to past institutions that at one point provided a certain service which has now become completely arbitrary, we add to the rule of the minority. The Electoral College at one point provided a service to the nation wherein people would vote their conscious if they felt the Republic was under threat, however, this institution has become entirely arbitrary and unnecessary in the modern day. This institution exhibits the diagnosis given in America in Decay wherein the institution has failed to adapt to changing external circumstances. External circumstances pushed the Electoral College to become a mouthpiece to the people’s easily swayed minds. Arguably the Senate did not adapt well to external circumstances as well. External forces pushed the Senate to become more democratic through the 17th

In this article, there is a disagreement between the smaller(or less populated) states, and the larger states. The disagreement is over the Electoral College. Every state gets the same number of Electoral College votes as however many members of congress they have. This increases the impact of small states. Some states have a winner-take-all system, in which the winner gets all electoral votes from that state. Larger states criticize the system of the Electoral College, saying that only a few states have say in the election. They push for a direct popular vote. On the other side, the smaller states say that without the Electoral College, they would be overlooked. Because of this, they refuse to switch to popular vote.

Historically in America, voting has been a relatively discriminatory practice. It has limited and deprived many individuals of many diverse races, ethnicities, and walks of life from casting their votes to select the individual who they feel is most educated, and skilled to represent their interests. Not only has this been proven to be wrong by discriminating minority groups in voting, it also has proved to be a process, which minimizes the largest growing demographics in the country. Furthermore, with millennials growing to become more politically active, minority groups are becoming more politically involved than ever. Taking this into account an important question that is raised by the author William Eskridge in his book “Legislation and Statutory Interpretation” is “Would minorities be better off with more representatives who had to pay attention to their interests because they are a powerful and organized constituency, rather than with a few representatives of minority districts who specialize in protecting only their interests?” (Eskridge,Frickley,& Garrett, 2006, pp.55).