Malcolm Rivera
The US Constitution is considered one of the most revered documents in American politics, and for many Americans, it is seen as the foundation and epitome of democracy. However, the original constitution may seem undemocratic by modern standards due to the historical context in which it was written and the intentions of its authors. The process of constitution-making at the time was elitist, with the framers, the elites of their time, meeting in secret. They quickly abandoned their instructions to revise the Articles of Confederation and created an entirely new constitution, violating the law of the land at the time. The original constitution lacked a bill of rights and was criticised for discriminating against southern states, direct taxation, and the loss of state sovereignty. The authors intended for the US to be a Representative Republic and distrusted consensus, which influenced the undemocratic nature of the document.
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The US Constitution was created by elites, for elites
The US Constitution, though enlightened for its time, was created by elites, for elites. The framers, the elites of their time, met in secret to draft the Constitution, quickly abandoning their instructions to revise the Articles of Confederation. They knew that getting approval from all states was unlikely, so they required only nine states to ratify the new constitution. This undemocratic strategy would be unacceptable today, as constitution-making is now a much more open and participatory process.
The US Constitution is one of the main impediments to the country becoming a truly democratic nation. Many of the failures of democracy in the US are built into the Constitution, such as the Electoral College and legislative bodies that grossly misrepresent the public. These undemocratic elements, which currently favour conservatives, must be changed. However, the Constitution gets in the way of this, as it is very difficult to amend. For instance, abolishing the Electoral College would require a change to the Constitution.
The US Constitution was created at a time when democratic beliefs were not as prevalent as they are today. At the end of the eighteenth century, few Americans were ready to concede that the principles of the Declaration, much less democratic citizenship, applied to everyone. It has taken centuries of evolution in democratic beliefs for most Americans to agree that "all persons are created equal".
The framers of the Constitution were not representative of the general population, and they did not intend for the federal courts to participate in making government laws and policies. They met in Philadelphia in 1787 to propose revisions to the Articles of Confederation, but they ended up creating an entirely new constitution. The delegates were state politicians, judges, ministers, and others ineligible to serve in state legislatures.
Photo Arrays: Constitutional Requirements and Their Impact
You may want to see also
The modern constitution-making process is more open and participatory
The original constitution may seem undemocratic by modern standards due to the undemocratic nature of the constitution-making process. The process of constitution-making has evolved since the original constitution was drafted, and it is now a much more open and participatory process.
The framers of the original constitution, the elites of their time, met in secret. They quickly abandoned their instructions to revise the Articles of Confederation and instead created an entirely new constitution. This secrecy helped to prevent potential opposition to the new document. The ratification procedure approved by the framers violated the law of the land at the time. The Articles of Confederation required that any changes made to the constitution be approved by all states. Knowing this was unlikely, the framers only required that nine states ratify the new constitution. Such undemocratic political strategies would be unacceptable today.
In contrast, the modern constitution-making process is more open and participatory. It is no longer an elitist exercise. The process is transparent, and the public is involved in the creation of a new constitution. This involvement helps to ensure that the constitution reflects the values and aspirations of the people it governs.
The modern constitution-making process often involves public consultations and input from a wide range of stakeholders, including legal experts, civil society organizations, and ordinary citizens. This allows for a diversity of perspectives and helps to ensure that the constitution is responsive to the needs and aspirations of the people.
Additionally, the modern constitution-making process often involves the use of new technologies and platforms to facilitate participation and input. Online platforms and social media, for example, can be used to gather input and feedback from a large number of people, allowing for a more inclusive and participatory process.
The evolution of the constitution-making process reflects a broader shift towards more democratic and participatory forms of governance. This shift is characterized by a recognition of the importance of public participation and a commitment to protecting the rights and interests of all citizens. As a result, the modern constitution-making process is better equipped to create a constitution that is more responsive to the needs and aspirations of the people it governs.
Key Elements of the UK Constitution
You may want to see also
The US Constitution lacks a bill of rights
The US Constitution has been criticised for its lack of a bill of rights, which some argue is one of the main impediments to the country becoming a truly democratic nation. The Constitution was drafted in secret by a small group of elites, and its ratification violated the law of the land at the time.
Supporters of the Constitution, known as Federalists, opposed a bill of rights, arguing that it would create procedural uncertainties and that state governments were sufficient guarantors of personal liberty. Madison, for instance, argued that a bill of rights would contain various exceptions to powers not granted, and "would even be dangerous". Hamilton, meanwhile, asserted that the Constitution was "in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, a bill of rights".
Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, argued that a bill of rights was necessary to guarantee personal freedoms and limit the government's power. They believed that a bill of rights would provide explicit protections for freedoms such as freedom of speech, the right to publish, practice religion, and possess firearms.
The debate over the inclusion of a bill of rights in the US Constitution has continued over the years, with some arguing that the lack of a bill of rights contributes to the undemocratic nature of the Constitution. The process of constitution-making has changed since the drafting of the US Constitution, and it is now a much more open and participatory process. The US Constitution's lack of a bill of rights stands in contrast to the constitutions of other advanced democracies, which often include stronger protections for individual rights and freedoms.
Foundations of Freedom: US Constitution Philosophies Explained
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The US Constitution is difficult to amend
The US Constitution is widely regarded as one of the most difficult constitutions to amend. The process of amending the constitution is intentionally difficult and time-consuming. According to Chief Justice John Marshall, the US Constitution was written "to endure for ages to come". The constitution has been amended only 27 times since it was drafted in 1787, with the last amendment being ratified in 1992.
The primary paths for amending the constitution are outlined in Article V. A proposed amendment must be passed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states (38 out of 50 states). Alternatively, two-thirds of the state legislatures can request Congress to call a Constitutional Convention, though this has never happened.
The difficulty of amending the constitution has led to a drought of amendments in recent decades, with only 27 amendments ratified out of 33 passed by Congress and sent to the states. This has generated an expectation that the constitution should change through means other than formal alteration.
The undemocratic nature of the US Constitution, including its elitist and outdated arrangements, has been a source of criticism. The constitution-making process has evolved, becoming more open and participatory, in contrast to the secretive nature of the original constitution's drafting. The framers of the constitution, the elites of their time, were not fully aligned with democratic principles, and their undemocratic political strategies would be unacceptable in modern times.
The US Constitution, with its enduring nature and resistance to change, may hinder the country's progress towards becoming a truly democratic nation.
Grazing Diet: Small Meals, Big Impact
You may want to see also
The US Constitution's original meaning is subject to interpretation
The US Constitution is seen as the foundation and epitome of democracy by many Americans. However, some of its aspects seem undemocratic by modern standards. For instance, the authors of the constitution intended for the US to be a Representative Republic, demonstrating a strong distrust of consensus. The constitution was also written by elites of their time, who met in secret, forestalling potential opposition to the document. The ratification procedure approved by the framers violated the law of the land at the time, as it required only nine states to ratify the new constitution, as opposed to all states.
The original meaning of the US Constitution is subject to interpretation. While some parts of the Constitution are unambiguous and seem to stand outside politics, such as the rules for a bicameral Congress, other parts are more open to interpretation, such as the clauses that set forth fundamental rights. The interpretation of these provisions has evolved as the nation has developed. For example, in the 19th century, congressional commerce power did not include the right to regulate manufacturing or protect employees' rights, but by the end of the 20th century, this power had expanded beyond the Framers' imagination.
Originalists, who aim to limit the Constitution's interpretation to its original meaning, often disagree among themselves. This is because uncovering the "original meaning" requires interpretive judgment, and different originalists may discover original meanings that align with their values and ideals. For instance, in the Obergefell case, some originalists argued that bans on same-sex marriage were not prohibited by the original meaning of the Constitution, while others claimed that they were.
The interpretation of the Constitution is a complex and evolving process, influenced by both historical context and contemporary ideals. While some aspects of the Constitution may seem undemocratic by modern standards, the interpretation of its original meaning is not always clear-cut and is subject to ongoing debate and change.
Becoming a Constitutional Federal Judge: The Ultimate Guide
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The authors of the constitution intended for the US to be a Representative Republic. They had a strong distrust of what we now call consensus and intended for the constitution to be undemocratic.
The process of constitution-making was elitist and undemocratic. The framers, the elites of their time, met in secret and quickly abandoned their instructions to revise the Articles of Confederation. They moved on to creating an entirely new constitution, which helped to forestall potential opposition. The ratification procedure they approved also violated the law of the land at the time.
Most constitutions in other advanced democracies do not have the same kind of elitist and undemocratic arrangements as the US Constitution. For example, they do not have Electoral Colleges or legislative bodies that misrepresent the public. Many of these countries started with elitist institutions but later reformed them.
Some undemocratic aspects of the US Constitution include the natural-born citizenship clause, the requirement of American citizenship for a certain number of years to run for the House or Senate, and the unequal representation in the Senate. Additionally, the Constitution lacks a bill of rights, discriminates against southern states in navigation legislation, allows for direct taxation, and results in the loss of state sovereignty.
