How Democratic is the American Constitution? - Essay Sample

Introduction

The United States Constitution established the fundamental laws and America's national government, in addition, it guaranteed specific basic rights for all the citizens. The constitution was signed in the year 1787 by delegates to the constitutional review in Philadelphia (Dahl, 2003). However, the Article of Confederation, the first governing document, and the national government were, as a result, furthermore, the states functioned as autonomous countries. During the 1787 convention, the delegates present developed a plan to formulate a stronger and operational common or federal government consisting of three major branches including the legislature, judiciary and the executive (Dahl, 2003). Additionally, there were systems of checks and balances to make sure that there is a balance of power among the three branches. After the signing of the American constitution, there have been several amendments. For instance, in the year 1791, there was the incorporation of Bill of Rights guaranteeing basic individual protection, such as freedom of religion and speech (Dahl, 2003). Currently, there are twenty-seven constitutional amendments. The aim of Dahl Robert, in his book, How Democratic is the American Constitution? Is not to recommend changes to the American constitution but to change the way Americans think about their constitution, upholding the constitution requires an understanding of what it entails and how it shapes and defines the rule of law. The paper provides a reflection of the book, How Democratic is the American Constitution? By Dahl, Robert.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

From the literature, it is true that the framers of the American constitution were limited by the opportunities available at the time. From the common knowledge, it is true that social, political and economic aspects of the American society has undergone a lot of transformations and this can greatly impact the perception of the people towards the constitutions that are regarded as one of the best in the world. The team of exceptional farmers had a great challenge in understanding the social alteration and the knowledge of the future generation who were to entire dedicate their lives towards the constitution. Even though the writer claims that the framers of the constitution only considered the republican form of government, it was mainly directed to serve all the American citizens (Levinson, 2006). The founders of the American constitution were influenced by the ideas of the republican governments, and this explains the reasons why the writer pointed out the biases that could have not been realized by the framers. However, the good thing is that different leadership in connection with the citizens have always supported the amendments of the constitution so as to align it with the transformations that are common amidst the developing social, political and economic aspects of the society (Levinson, 2006). During the formulation or framing of the American constitution, the Republican government served as the reference point where all the governance issues could be made, as the writer states, the framers had a conviction that the republican government had high values that were shared by the all the American citizens from all the states. The above scenario is valid as the republican government represented the will of the people and that they represented citizens from different walks of life. Succinctly, the framers of the American constitution allured to the only system of governance without considering the changes that could have occurred for generations to come (Levinson, 2006). However, the realization of successive governments that the framers of the constitution had limitations especially at the time when the American society was still developing, there has been the re-definition of some of the values and laws as stated in the constitution, thanks to the amendment processes.

American citizens adhere to the constitution simply because it consists of laws that govern all the people and different institutions. However, only a few people often tend to question the relevance and the origin of the constitution. During the time of framing the constitution, the individuals involved knew very well that they could not incorporate or follow the ideals of other forms of governments such as monarchy or aristocracy. They had to base the constitution on the type of government that was in place. Following the above idea, they were ignorant of the systems that may arise in the future. However, during the convention, there were different opinions but the majority had their way, a situation which led to the constitution that is currently used in the United States of America (Breyer, 2002). According to the author of "How Democratic is the American Constitution?" there were several limitations faced by the framers of the constitutions. The existence of the thirteen states and more to come was one of the limitations. There was the need to frame a constitution that would serve both the existing states that those that were still to develop into a stable and mature democracy. The anticipation of the framers was to ensure that the constitution was a reflection of the democratic system of governance and a historical perspective of the united countries. The framers of the constitution, therefore, went for the federal system of governance and not the unitary republic that would justify the general historical experience and the political theories (Breyer, 2002). The idea of a unitary government under one constitution could have posed a serious challenge as a result of many countries that were still to come. Additionally, the framers concentrated too much on the autonomy that the states would yield to the federal or central government in different situations.

From the book, the author defines democratic, an arrangement with the principle of one vote, one person which is also referred to as majority rule. The author of the book also applauses the framers of the American constitution as individuals with exceptional virtue and talent who ensured admirable progress when it comes to the formation of the republican government (Breyer, 2002). Additionally, the author elaborates that change and innovation in the democratic ideals and techniques continued even after the constitution was formulated. The American system has for a long time not adopted all the new ideas. The framers and founders of the new constitution were partly constrained by public opinion, which involved maintenance of the sovereignty of the 13 states (Breyer, 2002). The author of the book elaborates on the undemocratic aspects of the constitution that were not clearly placed in line with the values and traditions of American society. The framers of the constitution were tolerance to the slavery, this was to ensure the corporation participation of the southern states, and the idea was however outlawed after the Civil War. The undemocratic aspect of the constitution was also brought about by the suffrage, this is where the voting rights of African-Americans, women and Native Americans were abridged or not protected. The democratic nature of the original constitution was, however, rectified through amendments, for instance, in the year 1920, there was the 19th amendment that barred denial of suffrage because of sex. Subsequently, in the year 1964, there was the 24th amendment that striped poll taxes which were already being used in other states to discriminate people of African origin without explicit racial provisions (Breyer, 2002).

Just as the writer clarifies, the constitutional provisions when it comes to the election of the presided is one aspect of the democratic nature of the constitution. From the constitution, there is an electoral college which gives every state different electors that is a representation of the voters or the citizens. The appointment of the electors depended that the state legislatures chose. The electors would presumably apply their own judgment when electing the president. Currently, in the electoral processes, the majority of the states use the idea of the "winner takes all" to assign votes of the electors following the outcome of the popular votes in a given state, the distribution of votes, however, remain unchanged among the states. Another system that makes the constitution to be deemed as undemocratic is the representation of the senators in the Senate. According to the constitution, each of the states needs to have two senators, irrespective of the population. In other words, the above idea is called Connecticut compromise, it was included in the constitution to ensure the continued contribution or participation of the developing or smaller states. The framers of the constitution did not look deeper into the idea of electing senators, in other words, the constitution stated that all the senators were to be elected directly by the state legislatures. However, in the year 1913, there was the 17th amendment which completely changed the system (Breyer, 2002). After the above amendment, the senators were now supposed to be elected through elections in the statewide races. In the earlier case of the constitutional provision, the election of the senators by the state legislature was undemocratic since the citizens did not have the opportunity to elect their favorite leader.

Democracy requires that the winner is elected by the majority it refers to the procedure of aggregating preferences revealed as votes. In many cases, the assumptions involved in the theory of democracy is the citizens, or the voters have a strong desire to participate in political life. At some level of democracy, the majority should prevail. However, there needs to be a set of institutional arrangements to protect democratic processes. The arrangements should be legitimate and should guide the process in which the collective choice is conducted. In many cases, political leaders are expected to represent the preferences of their constituents. But many scholars observe and argue that those representatives in the congress or the senate diverge substantially from the choice of their voters (Mittal & Weingast, 2011). However, many still ask different questions on how the above case is possible and the reasons for the possibility of the divergence. The idea of the representative democracy follows the fact that the preferences of individual constituents do not contribute to the complex questions on the process of achieving a democratic process. Theories of representation require delegates to carry out the preferences of the constituents. Political representation requires constant contact with the constituents, each constituent must, therefore, follow each policy very closely (Mittal & Weingast, 2011). However, in most cases, only a few active and informed constituents get heard, there is always insufficient freedom or room for compromise. Nevertheless, modern studies approve it is only elites that fulfill the required information on rational choices. Additionally, in situations where there are representative democracies, decisions made are in most cases, likely to vary from the preferences of the voters or the constituents since they are supposed to rely on more information. The difference does not always represent a systematic problem.

According to the United States Constitution, judges have the power to rule or deem some laws unconstitutional. In most cases, the laws or regulations may be ratified by the legislature and approved by the president, but still, judges have the powers to make these laws unconstitutional. In many occasions, judges are not elected, they are appointed for life while they also have a high threshold for removal, a situation which makes enable them to become independent (Mittal & Weingast, 2011). From the book, the...