Democratic Views: A Constitutional Conflict?

The US Constitution is considered a remarkable document, a large republic based on popular rule, with no equivalent at the time of its creation. However, critics argue that it is not democratic enough. The constitution has been amended to extend voting rights, but critics argue that the courts still see voting as a privilege, with conditions that restrict access. The system of checks and balances, separation of powers, and the Electoral College can also be seen as anti-democratic, allowing a minority to block legislation and distort the popular vote. The constitution's unique features, such as the federal system, bicameral legislature, and presidentialism, may hinder significant democratic reform. The US's political system has not been replicated, and some argue it has vices without the virtues of majoritarianism or proportional representation. The US's democratic performance has been questioned, with some scholars suggesting a slide towards authoritarianism.

Explore related products

DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION 2E P

$68 $72

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

Democratic Faith (New Forum Books)

$30.7 $37

Towards A Democratic Nepal: Inclusive Political Institutions for a Multicultural Society

$86

Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline

$15.13 $18.99

Citizen Marx: Republicanism and the Formation of Karl Marx’s Social and Political Thought

$27.33 $39.95

The US Constitution is designed to limit direct popular rule

The US Constitution is often regarded as a remarkable step forward for humankind, as it laid out a written constitution for a large republic based on popular rule. However, it is important to note that the US Constitution is designed to limit direct popular rule in several ways. Firstly, the franchise to elect representatives was left to the states and was very limited, with the House of Representatives being the only popularly elected body. This meant that the rest of the government was not directly chosen by the people, and the document was designed to protect the interests of elites and slow down the political process.

The separation of powers in the US Constitution divides the government into three distinct, coequal branches: the executive, legislative, and judicial. This system of checks and balances prevents control from falling into the hands of a single person or group, and makes the government structurally unresponsive to large, sudden changes in popular will. For example, under the original, unamended Constitution, public mood swings needed to be sustained over a long time to elect enough representatives to the House and ensure that enough senators were selected to serve in Congress.

The Electoral College is another example of how the US Constitution limits direct popular rule. The popular vote does not directly determine who becomes president, as seen in the cases of George W. Bush and Donald Trump, who became president despite receiving fewer votes than their opponents. Additionally, the Supreme Court, which makes significant decisions about the constitutionality of laws and regulations, is insulated from the popular will.

While the US Constitution does limit direct popular rule in these ways, it is important to note that it also includes democratic principles. For example, James Wilson, a prominent member of the Constitutional Convention, wrote that "the majority of the people wherever found ought in all questions to govern the minority." The US Constitution, therefore, represents a balance between popular rule and the protection of minority rights, as well as a compromise between various political philosophies of the time.

The US Constitution upholds the principle of 'checks and balances'

The US Constitution is based on the principle of checks and balances, which ensures that no single branch of the government can become too powerful. The Constitution divides the government into three branches: the legislative, executive, and judicial, with each branch having specific powers and limits. This system of checks and balances is designed to guard against tyranny and protect individual rights and freedoms.

The legislative branch, composed of the House of Representatives and the Senate, is responsible for making laws. However, the executive branch, led by the President, can veto those laws. The judicial branch, on the other hand, can declare laws unconstitutional and examine the actions of the other two branches to ensure they are acting within the limits set by the Constitution. This process is known as judicial review.

The system of checks and balances also applies to the powers of the President. While the President can issue executive orders, which are directives to federal agencies, these orders cannot create new laws or appropriate funds from the treasury. Additionally, Congress can override presidential vetoes with a two-thirds majority vote and can impeach members of both the executive and judicial branches.

The idea of checks and balances is deeply rooted in the history of political philosophy. The Greek historian Polybius analysed the ancient Roman constitution, identifying it as a "mixed" regime with three branches: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. This concept greatly influenced later ideas about the separation of powers and the need for checks and balances to ensure a well-functioning government.

The US Constitution's framers, influenced by philosophers such as Montesquieu and John Locke, recognised the importance of checks and balances in preventing tyranny and protecting liberty. James Madison, in the Federalist Papers, wrote, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary... You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself."

In conclusion, the US Constitution upholds the principle of checks and balances by dividing the government into three branches, each with specific powers and limits. This system ensures that power is shared and that no single branch can dominate, thus protecting the rights and freedoms of the people and preserving a democratic form of government.

The US Constitution is interpreted to constrain the federal government

The US Constitution is designed to constrain the federal government and protect the rights of citizens. It establishes a system of "checks and balances" to prevent control from falling into "one person's hands". This is achieved through the separation of powers, dividing the government into three distinct branches: the legislative, executive, and judicial. Each branch has its own set of responsibilities and limitations outlined in the Constitution.

The legislative branch, as stated in Article I, Section 8, holds the power to make laws and is composed of Congress. The Tenth Amendment further emphasizes that any powers not explicitly granted to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people. This limits the federal government's ability to act and protects state power.

The executive branch, led by the President, is responsible for enforcing the laws created by the legislative branch. The President also has the power to veto legislation, which can be overridden by Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both houses.

The judicial branch interprets the laws and ensures that they align with the Constitution. The Supreme Court, as established in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, serves as the highest judicial authority and has the power to declare laws unconstitutional.

The Fourteenth Amendment, enacted after the Civil War, imposed new constraints on the federal government. It prohibited states from violating the fundamental rights of citizens, including equal protection and due process. The amendment also granted Congress the power to enforce these constraints, further limiting state power.

The interpretation of the Constitution has evolved over time to reflect changing social values. For example, in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Court interpreted the Equal Protection Clause to forbid racial segregation in public schools, even though it was not the original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The democratic viewpoint emphasizes the importance of the government being bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making and a right to defend. The Constitution, through its system of checks and balances and federalism, ensures that the government remains accountable to the people and protects their rights and freedoms.

Explore related products

Refounding Democratic Public Administration: Modern Paradoxes, Postmodern Challenges (Cambridge St.in Amer.Lit.&Culture;106)

$106 $183

The Democratic Collapse: How Gender Politics Broke a Party and a Nation, 1856-1861 (Civil War America)

$22.99 $27.95

Damaged Identities, Narrative Repair

$20.1 $34.95

The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government

$13.65 $19

Congressional Government: Deciphering the Inner Workings of American Government: A Scholar's Insight into Congressional Dynamics and the Call for Reform

$1.99 $6.99

Truth Bombs: Confronting the Lies Conservatives Believe (To Our Own Demise)

$16 $16

The US Constitution protects minority rights

The US Constitution is designed to protect both majority rule and minority rights. The principle of "checks and balances" is rooted in the Constitution's design of a national government with three distinct, coequal branches. This prevents control from falling into "one person's hands".

The First Amendment protects the right to free speech for all. People with unpopular opinions can discuss, print, and broadcast them under the First Amendment. They can use the media to argue for their unpopular ideas and make them more popular. A minority can also freely assemble or publicly demonstrate under the First Amendment.

Article V of the US Constitution protects minority rights by requiring more than a slight majority to approve of any change to the Constitution. This makes it difficult to pass amendments, more so than passing laws. For instance, two-thirds of Congress must vote for an amendment, and three-quarters of states must ratify it.

The Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law, has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to forbid racial segregation in public schools. This interpretation reflected a shift in popular values, as racial discrimination had become unacceptable to most Americans after World War II.

In conclusion, the US Constitution protects minority rights through the First Amendment, the requirement of supermajorities to amend the Constitution, and judicial interpretation of amendments like the Fourteenth, which can adapt to changing societal values.

The US Constitution does not always ensure the president is democratically elected

The US Constitution outlines a democratic system of government, with a process for electing the president. However, it does not always guarantee that the president will be democratically elected. The Constitution establishes a democratic framework, but the specific procedures for electing the president are determined by each state's legislature, which may result in variations that impact the democratic nature of the process.

The Constitution states that each state will appoint a number of electors equal to its total number of senators and representatives in Congress. These electors then cast their votes for two individuals, one of whom must not be a resident of their state. The candidate with the majority of electoral votes becomes president, and the other becomes vice president. This system, known as the Electoral College, can sometimes lead to a candidate winning the presidency without securing the popular vote on a national level.

In addition, the Constitution sets eligibility requirements for the presidency, such as age and citizenship, but it does not outline a specific democratic process for selecting the president. The exact methods for choosing electors and casting votes are left to the discretion of each state's legislature. This flexibility can result in inconsistencies across states and potentially impact the democratic nature of the election process.

Furthermore, the Constitution grants the president certain powers and responsibilities, such as the ability to make treaties and appoint ambassadors with the consent of the Senate. While these provisions provide a framework for the role of the executive branch, they do not ensure that the president will be chosen through a democratic process that reflects the will of the majority of citizens.

The US Constitution, with its checks and balances, aims to prevent the concentration of power in a single person's hands. However, it relies on the assumption that those in power will act in good faith and not exert their power to its fullest extent. This assumption can be tested, as seen in recent times, and the democratic nature of the system can be challenged.

In conclusion, while the US Constitution establishes a democratic framework, the specific procedures for electing the president are influenced by each state's legislature and can vary. The Electoral College system can lead to outcomes that do not align with the popular vote. Therefore, it is accurate to say that the Constitution does not always ensure that the president is democratically elected in the purest sense of the term.

Frequently asked questions