Isabella Carter
In Chapter 1 of Robert Dahl's book, *How Democratic is the American Constitution?*, Dahl explores the democratic and undemocratic aspects of the American Constitution and suggests improvements. He emphasizes that the Constitution is a product of its time, and its creators could only work with the knowledge and social norms available to them. Dahl highlights that the Constitution's framers faced significant challenges in establishing a new government and addressing issues like slavery and federalism. The democratic nature of the government was crucial to the framers, who implemented mechanisms to ensure smooth and democratic processes. However, Dahl notes that the Constitution has not kept pace with the changing definition of democracy and the evolving expectations of Americans. He also points out that the United States' political system, including the election process, is influenced by powerful corporations and a wealthy elite, raising questions about its democratic legitimacy.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Author | Robert Dahl |
| Main argument | The American Constitution is undemocratic |
| Reasoning | The Constitution is a product of its time, and its time was not a democratic one. |
| The Constitution should be more democratic. | |
| The Framers of the Constitution had no example of a democratic system to model the American government on. | |
| The Constitution contains significant antidemocratic elements, including the federal system, the bicameral legislature, judicial review, presidentialism, and the electoral college system. | |
| The Supreme Court is undemocratic. | |
| The original Constitution never articulated a positive right to vote. | |
| The Constitution has not kept up with other nations on issues like economic equality, racial integration, and women's rights. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The legitimacy of the US Constitution
Political scientist Robert Dahl, in his book "How Democratic Is the American Constitution?", starts with the assumption that the legitimacy of the Constitution derives solely from its utility as an instrument of democratic governance. Dahl demonstrates that, due to the context in which it was conceived, the Constitution came to incorporate significant antidemocratic elements. He highlights elements of the American system that are most unusual and potentially undemocratic, including the federal system, the bicameral legislature, judicial review, presidentialism, and the electoral college system.
Dahl argues that the Constitution should be more democratic and that its legitimacy ought to derive solely from its utility as an instrument of democratic government. He acknowledges that the founders of the Constitution were products of their time and could not have produced a document that was more democratic given the social norms of the 18th century. However, Dahl challenges Americans to think critically about the origins of their political system and to consider opportunities for creating a more democratic society.
The US Constitution has been criticized for its lack of democratic accountability, particularly in the selection of the president and Supreme Court justices. In the 2000 and 2016 presidential elections, the winner of the popular vote did not become president, calling into question the democratic nature of the political system. Additionally, while the Supreme Court plays a significant role in interpreting the Constitution and shaping public policy, the justices are nominated by the president and approved by the undemocratic Senate, serving for life and influencing the country long after they may have fallen out of touch with ordinary Americans.
In conclusion, while the US Constitution has been revered for its democratic principles, scholars like Dahl have highlighted its undemocratic aspects and advocated for a more critical examination of the political system. The legitimacy of the Constitution rests on its ability to serve as an instrument of democratic governance, and ongoing reforms are necessary to ensure it remains responsive to the needs and values of a diverse and evolving society.
Sedition Acts: Do They Breach the Constitution?
You may want to see also
The undemocratic nature of the Electoral College
The United States Electoral College system is an 18th-century political institution that has been criticised for its undemocratic nature. The system was designed by the framers of the Constitution as a compromise between large and small states. Small states were concerned that larger states would dominate the presidency, so the Electoral College was designed to give each state a number of votes proportional to the number of senators and House members it has. This means that each state gets one elector for each of its senators and one elector for each member of the House of Representatives. This system gives smaller states an advantage as each state has two senators regardless of its size, while larger states have more members in the House of Representatives.
However, this system has led to several undemocratic outcomes. In the 1824 election, Andrew Jackson received the most popular votes but lost the presidency due to a "corrupt bargain" between two other candidates. More recently, in the 2000 election, George W. Bush became president despite Al Gore receiving around 544,000 more votes nationwide. Similarly, in 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by almost three million votes, yet Donald Trump became president. These outcomes have led to widespread criticism of the Electoral College system, with many calling for its abolition.
The Electoral College also undermines democracy by discouraging voter participation. This is due to the winner-take-all nature of the elections, where the candidate with the most votes in a state receives all of that state's Electoral College votes (except for Maine and Nebraska, which allocate votes at the congressional district level). This can lead to situations where a candidate wins a state's Electoral College votes despite not receiving a majority of the popular vote in that state.
Additionally, the Electoral College system creates the problem of spoilers, who are independent or third-party candidates that take votes away from one major party, allowing the other party's candidate to win. An example of this is the 2000 election, where Ralph Nader's candidacy took votes away from Al Gore, allowing George W. Bush to win.
The Supreme Court's Power: Understanding the Supremacy Clause
You may want to see also
The separation of powers
The legislative branch, or Congress, is responsible for making laws. The executive branch, led by the President, enforces these laws. The judicial branch, headed by the Supreme Court, interprets the laws and ensures that the other two branches do not exceed their powers. Each branch has some influence over the others, creating a system of checks and balances that prevents any one branch from dominating.
The system has been criticised for hindering the people's ability to hold leaders accountable. Political scientist William Hudson has argued that the separation of powers, combined with accountability through separate elections, makes it difficult to hold officials accountable for policy failures. Additionally, the fact that the Constitution is difficult to amend means that it remains influenced by the social norms of the time it was written, which were not particularly democratic by modern standards.
The Constitution and Women: A Mention or Omission?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$23.78 $25.95
The right to vote
The Fifteenth Amendment (1870) was a significant step towards expanding voting rights, prohibiting states from denying the right to vote based on "race, colour, or previous condition of servitude". However, many states employed tactics such as literacy tests, poll taxes, and other barriers to suppress the black vote and prevent African Americans from exercising their newly granted rights.
The Nineteenth Amendment (1920) extended voting rights to women, and the Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964) banned poll taxes, which had been used to discourage poor people and racial minorities from voting. The franchise was further expanded with the Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971), which lowered the voting age to 18 for all elections.
Despite these advancements, the federal government's ability to protect voting rights has been challenged by Supreme Court rulings and congressional inaction. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, a product of the Civil Rights Movement, played a crucial role in increasing voter turnout among African Americans and addressing discriminatory voting practices. However, recent Supreme Court rulings have weakened the Act, making it more difficult for the government to block discriminatory voting practices.
In conclusion, while the right to vote has been expanded and protected through constitutional amendments and federal laws, ongoing challenges and a need for further reform highlight the complex nature of ensuring democratic voting rights in the United States.
Supreme Court's Jurisdiction: Beyond Constitutional Issues
You may want to see also
The influence of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States, established by Article III of the Constitution, which also outlines its jurisdiction. The Court has original jurisdiction over cases between two or more states, cases involving ambassadors, and other public ministers. It also has appellate jurisdiction over cases involving constitutional or federal law, such as those where the United States is a party or that involve treaties.
The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in ensuring democratic principles are upheld. Firstly, it is the court of last resort for those seeking justice. Secondly, through its power of judicial review, the Court ensures that each branch of government recognizes its limits and protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution. This power, established in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), allows the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act unconstitutional.
The Court also sets limits on democratic government to protect unpopular minorities from laws passed by popular majorities that may harm their interests. This ensures that fundamental values such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and due process of law are upheld.
However, the Supreme Court has also been criticized for a lack of democratic accountability. Justices are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate, yet they are insulated from the popular will and hold their seats for life. This can result in decisions that are out of touch with the lives of ordinary Americans.
Historically, the Supreme Court has been dominated by conservative justices, whose rulings have often empowered corporations and favored particular interests. Despite this, the Court has played a role in expanding democratic self-government, such as through its "one person, one vote" decisions and interpretations of the Civil War Amendments, which helped African Americans gain full citizenship rights.
In conclusion, while the Supreme Court plays a vital role in safeguarding democratic principles and protecting civil rights, its lack of direct democratic accountability and potential for ideological bias are points of concern in evaluating the democratic nature of the American Constitution.
When Footnoting: The US Constitution's Unique Status
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Robert Dahl, a political scientist, makes two key points in his review of the American Constitution. Firstly, he acknowledges that the Constitution is a product of its time, a time that was not particularly democratic. Secondly, Dahl asserts that the legitimacy of the Constitution should derive solely from its utility as an instrument of democratic governance.
The American Constitution contains several antidemocratic elements due to the context in which it was conceived. Some of these elements include the federal system, the bicameral legislature, judicial review, presidentialism, and the electoral college system.
The founders of the Constitution were all men and shared a worldview that excluded women's interests from the public sphere. Additionally, they were White and did not consider the interests of non-White individuals, including slaves, free Blacks, and Native Americans.
The interpretation of "We the People" has expanded over time. While initially granting voting privileges to a minority of property-owning White men, amendments to the Constitution have extended the right to vote to people of color, women, and individuals aged 18 and older.
The process of electing the President in the United States has been criticized for not always reflecting the majority vote. For example, in 2001, George W. Bush became president despite Al Gore receiving more votes nationwide. This raises questions about the democratic nature of the country's political system.
