The Constitution: Living Up To Its Promise?

The United States Constitution is a document that was drafted with the intention of enduring. The framers of the Constitution aimed to address the challenges facing the nation at the time, while also establishing foundational principles that would guide the country into the future. The preamble, drafted in 1787, outlines the framers' general goals, including the establishment of a just government, the assurance of peace, and the protection of fundamental freedoms. While the framers believed in majority rule as the best system of government, they also recognized its imperfections and sought to limit populist power. The Constitution has been interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court, leading to landmark decisions that have shaped the nation's laws and protected the rights of its citizens. However, some argue that the Constitution may not be fully aligned with the framers' original intentions, and that it should be improved to better serve the needs of modern society.

Explore related products

The Framers' Intentions: The Myth of the Nonpartisan Constitution

$39.99 $50

Founding Fathers: The Essential Guide to the Men Who Made America

$14.77 $19.99

Founding Fathers

$19 $19.98

Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation

$9.92 $19

America The Story of Us (TV Series)

$2.99

America's Founding Fathers

$14.49 $18.8

The framers' constitution was designed to endure

The framers of the American Constitution were visionaries who designed the document to endure. The preamble, drafted in six weeks in 1787, sets out the intentions of the framers and the purpose of the document. The framers sought to address the specific challenges facing the nation during their lifetimes and to establish foundational principles that would sustain and guide the new nation into an uncertain future. The text of the Constitution reflects this vision, defining fundamental freedoms in general terms, such as freedom of speech, due process of law, and equal protection of the laws.

The framers understood the imperfections of majority rule and knew that political majorities may be tempted to enact laws that serve their interests. They intended for courts to play a central role in addressing these concerns and protecting the rights of minorities. The framers also included provisions to limit populist power, such as prohibiting voters from directly electing the president. Instead, the president would be selected by a body of electors chosen by the states.

The framers tried to insulate Congress from populist pressures as well. Before the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913, senators were selected by state legislators, not directly elected by voters. Additionally, members of the Senate were given longer terms of office (six years) to further insulate them from populist influence. The framers' Constitution has had a significant impact on the Supreme Court's decisions, which have faithfully interpreted and applied the document. These decisions have ended de jure racial segregation, established the principle of "one person, one vote," and upheld the right to due process of law, among other things.

While the framers' Constitution has endured, some argue that it needs to be improved to better serve the needs of today's society. The world has changed significantly since the Constitution was written, and the solutions provided by the framers may not be sensible for a modern nation like the United States. However, the framers' vision of a just government and their establishment of foundational principles have guided the nation and continue to shape its future.

The framers' views on majority rule

The framers of the American Constitution were visionaries who sought to address the challenges facing the nation during their time and establish foundational principles to guide the new nation into the future. They outlined their general goals in the Preamble, which included creating a just government, ensuring peace, providing for national defence, and fostering a healthy and free nation.

While the framers recognised majority rule as the best system of government, they were also aware of its imperfections. They understood that political majorities might enact laws that consolidate their power and that, in times of crisis, people could sacrifice fundamental freedoms and the needs of minorities. To address these concerns, the framers intended for the courts to play a central role, with Thomas Jefferson emphasising the importance of "the legal check" that could be exercised by the judiciary.

However, the framers also took steps to limit populist power and insulate Congress from populist pressures. They designed a system where the president would be chosen by a body of electors selected by the states rather than by direct vote. Additionally, before the 17th Amendment, senators were chosen by state legislators rather than by popular vote, and they served longer terms to reduce populist influence.

In summary, while the framers of the Constitution recognised the importance of majority rule, they also sought to mitigate its potential drawbacks through judicial checks, limits on populist power, and insulation of certain governmental bodies from direct democratic influence. Their vision was for a government that balanced majority rule with the protection of individual freedoms and the rights of minorities.

The role of the judiciary

The framers designed the Constitution to be enduring and to provide foundational principles to guide the nation into an uncertain future. They defined fundamental freedoms in general terms, such as freedom of speech, due process of law, freedom of religion, equal protection of the laws, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment.

The Supreme Court has issued landmark decisions that interpret and apply the framers' Constitution, such as ending de jure racial segregation, establishing the principle of "one person, one vote," and protecting women's reproductive choices. These decisions are based on the text of the Constitution and reflect the framers' vision for the country.

However, some critics argue that judges often project their own personal and political preferences onto the framers' intentions, resulting in disingenuous jurisprudence. There are also debates about the anti-democratic nature of the Constitution, including the fact that voters do not directly elect the president. While the framers sought to limit populist power, some argue that this has resulted in a limitation on citizens' political influence.

Explore related products

America's Founding Fathers (TV Series)

$2.99

Founding Fathers: The Fight for Freedom and the Birth of American Liberty

$14.18 $40

Washington (TV Series)

$2.99

Founding Fathers [DVD]

$8.57 $11.98

Founding Fathers: A Captivating Guide to Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and James Monroe (Historical Figures)

$20.95 $25.22

Mens George Washington Costume Founding Father Costume Adult Hamilton Colonial Revolutionary War Outfit with Wig Hat

$48.99

Anti-democratic provisions

While the Framers of the American Constitution were undoubtedly visionaries, some critics argue that the Constitution contains anti-democratic provisions that limit the political influence of citizens. The Constitution's drafters sought to address the specific challenges facing the nation during their lifetimes and establish foundational principles for the future. However, they also took steps to insulate Congress and the president from populist pressures.

One of the most notable anti-democratic provisions is the Electoral College system for electing the president. The Framers intentionally designed this system to prevent direct election of the president by individual voters, instead opting for a body of electors chosen by the states. This was done to limit the relative political influence of the voting public, which some delegates at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 believed was a source of "evils."

Another way the Framers sought to limit populist power was by granting Congress the authority to quell tax rebellions and prohibiting states from issuing currency or providing debt relief. Additionally, before the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913, senators were selected by state legislators rather than directly elected by voters, and they served longer six-year terms to further insulate them from populist influence.

The Framers also recognized the potential for political majorities to enact laws that entrench their authority or sacrifice fundamental freedoms in times of crisis. To address this concern, they intended for the courts to play a central role in checking majority rule. However, some argue that this has led to judicial interpretation that projects originalist political preferences onto the Framers, resulting in incoherent jurisprudence.

Despite these anti-democratic provisions, the Supreme Court has issued landmark decisions that interpret and apply the Framers' Constitution in a way that protects the rights of citizens. These decisions have ended de jure racial segregation, established "one person, one vote," and upheld due process rights, among other achievements.

The framers' intentions for the president

The Framers of the American Constitution were visionaries who designed the Constitution to endure. They sought to address the specific challenges facing the nation during their lifetimes and to establish foundational principles that would sustain and guide the new nation into an uncertain future. The Framers intended for the courts to play a central role in addressing concerns related to political majorities and the protection of fundamental freedoms.

Regarding the presidency, the Framers had several intentions and goals. Firstly, they wanted to limit populist power and insulate the federal government from political accountability. This is evident in the mechanism for selecting the president, where the chief executive is chosen by a body of electors selected by the states rather than directly by individual voters. The Framers believed that the relative political influence of the voting public needed to be controlled, and they took steps to insulate Congress from populist pressures as well. For example, before the 17th Amendment, senators were selected by state legislators rather than directly elected by voters.

The Framers also wanted to ensure a balance of powers and prevent the abuse of power by the president. They allowed Congress to remove a president before the completion of their term if a sufficient number of lawmakers concluded that the president had committed "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." This provision addressed the dilemma of an insufficiently powerful executive versus an unchecked executive who could undermine national security and civil liberties. The Framers intended impeachment as a tool to strengthen the nation's security and hold the president accountable.

Additionally, the Framers recognised the importance of elections but saw them as insufficient to prevent the rise of an authoritarian leader. They sought to avoid violent outcomes such as assassinations or insurrections that could result from a chief magistrate becoming "obnoxious." Instead, they wanted to provide a legal mechanism for removing a president from office while setting a high standard for what constituted an impeachable offense.

Overall, the Framers' intentions for the presidency reflected their desire to balance power, limit populism, and ensure a stable and secure nation with checks and balances in place to hold the president accountable and protect the interests of the country.

Frequently asked questions