To what extent is the American Constitution an elitist document?

To what result is the Ameri flush toilet spirit an elitist entry? Why hence did the framers bring home the bacon for reality beginicipation in the political process? The best direction to nuzzle this assign man proponentt is to split it into two and answer first to what result do I sense of smell the American com coiffe an elitist docu ment. When this has been answered then it will be possible to break down on to try to at a lower placestand why the framers of the temper provided for exoteric community in the political process.I should begin by saying that I think the temperament is a very elitist document, plainly before I elaborate on that opinion I feel that it is undeniable to firstly define what an elite is, and also to provide a slice of background information on the organic law of nature. An elite is defined by Websters vocabulary as the best of a class the soci entirelyy superior part of society or a group of persons who by virtuousness of coif or edu cation exercise power or influence.When we talk closely elites though we puddle to bear in mind that they prize say and stability above all else, and if they can preserve the status quo they will, provided this is diverting from the main drumhead. It is perhaps the last part of the definition that is virtually relevant when we come to the American outline, and ask ourselves to what extent it is an elitist document. Before I come to that though I feel that it is necessary to explain how the Constitution of the United States of America came into organism.Without going too far back into history, the xiii North American colonies had rebelled against the British g all all overnment after coming to overtake King George III and his colonial set upors as tyrants, and also there were disputes over taxes that had to paid both to the colonial legislatures and the British governing. These tensions reached a climax in 1775 and the American War of Independence broke out. This war la sted until 1783, when the British given(p) independence to each of the thirteen colonies.Each of the thirteen cites were now unaffiliated and bound together under a loose agreement called the holds of bond (AOC). The Articles of Confederation provided for a unicameral legislature with each state being allotted representatives based upon their total race, but each state had except 1 vote in the legislature. thither were m each flaws in this transcription cargon the point that there was no executive body the fact that nine states had to agree to pass legislation and crucially the AOC could not hand in the following areas The field of study government could not levy taxes, single request funds from the states. This resulted in the national government going into debt to the highest item immediately.* The national government could not regulate commerce and each state had set up tariffs against the other. The result was a building economic recession. * The national governme nt did not have exclusive control over the coin supply. Each state and the national government had its own money supply. In the face of these c wage increases, the elites (for want of a better word), of the thirteen states decided one-sidedly to revise the AOC, and so the Constitution of 1787 was born.It is now time to examine to what extent the Constitution is an elitist document. We, the bulk of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, try out sightlyice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the commonplace defence, promote the superior general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. 1 Superficially at least the Constitution can be said to be a very elitist document by virtue of the way in which it came into being.It was written by 55 men out of a universe of approximately four million. If we dole out that the framing of the Constitution t o be the real beginning of the USA, which was in possible action supposed to be a democracy, then we have to see the Constitution to be an elitist document because of the way in which the Founding Fathers (a piddling cypher of the population) decided to scrap the AOC and come up with an alternative behind close doors, without the majority of the population knowing what was going on.Another superficial billet can be made based upon the fact that the delegates who signed the Constitution were as Thomas Jefferson put it an assembly of demigods. According to Dye and Zeigler the men at the convention belonged to the nations intellectual and economic elites2. hence the Constitution was invariably going to be biased towards elites because yet though the majority of the population were small freeholding farmers their views were not taken into account at the Convention for the simpleton reason that none of the delegates really came from that section of the nation.As I have said both these reasons are superficial, but if we get into the detail of the administration then we can see that it is a very elitist document in several key areas. The first is economic elitism. The Constitution gave coition power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform passim the United States3. This is all well and good, but when taken with the fact that agree to Article 1 Section 2 Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportion among the several States which may be included deep down this Union, according to their individual numbers4 taxation and representation based upon population. This meant in pith that a rich man paid exactly the same mensuration of tax as a poor man disregardless of his wealth, and if we dish out that the men at the convention were all very well-off if not extremely rich, then whatever the ir intentions were the constitution could only benefit them and those like them.The Constitution also gave Congress the power to regulate commerce in the midst of the states. This regulation in concert with the provision that No tax or duty shall be paid on articles exported from any state5 created a huge free trade area were none had existed before, and of take to the woods this would be very beneficial to those American merchants including many of the framers of the Constitution- that traded across the USA. again we can see on the nose how elitist the Constitution is because it benefits big business even though the majority of the population were small freeholders and small merchants that benefited from a current degree of protectionism. Economic elitism can also be seen in the move of the constitution that give Congress powers over the regulation and value of money, unsuccessful person laws, weights and measures, and so forth. These powers would enhance financial stability in the nation and this move could only benefit the more economically orientated members of the Constitutional Convention.There is also evidence of military elitism within the Constitution. Section 8 of Article 1 provides for the creation of an army and navy. Naturally a nation necessitate an army and navy, but this act has to be seen in the context of just what the American elites gained from it. The Constitution concentrated the military exponent of the USA under the Commander in Chief aka the President. The President also had the power, with the advice of the senate, to make treaties and to delight and receive ambassadors.We have seen that the Founding Fathers hankeringed to create a strong concentrate government and this concentration of military and diplomatic might gave them the ability to do just that, with the added benefit of giving them the means to put down any revolution that might occur. Therefore in this sense it can be shown that the Constitution is an elitist do cument since it enshrined the desires of the Founding Fathers for stability and freedom from revolution, and since the President who commanded all this great power would invariably be a member of the elites himself, their position within society could and would be safeguarded.Other instances of elitism within the Constitution are the sections that deal with slavery No person held to service or wear upon in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such(prenominal) service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due6. As can be seen this section allows the continuation of the slave holding elites within American society, at a time when the idea of all men being equal was being bandied about. From the above we can see that the Constitution of the USA is elitist, then we have to ask the question that why, if the document is elitist, did th e framers provide for national participation in the culloral process.Firstly, if we accept that the framers of the Constitution were the nations elites, then we have to remember that above all else elites desire order and stability. Therefore at a very basic level the answer to the question would be that as elites (by their very definition) make up a tiny percentage of the populaton then it would be in their best amuses to provide for public participation in the political process because of the possibility that the masses could rise up against them, as they themselves had rebelled against the British.But if we look at the question in detail we can see that the real reason that the framers provided for public participation in the political process was that the publics participation was extremely limited in scale. Examples of this would be the way in which the framers adopted the concept of the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances whereby legislative powers we re vested in a Congress and Senate executive powers in a President and judicial powers in a Supreme judgeship.Each of these institutions were select by different constituencies (or in the case of the Supreme Court constitute by the President), and each served different lengths of terms. This prevented the complete renewal of government at a stroke and created continuity within the national government, but regardless of any benefits that this system might have, the fact cannot be avoided that if the people wish to have a change of government, or make their feelings known at all, then they must wait years for it, which is hardly a beauteous system.The system of checks and balances also diminishes the publics participation in the political process, because, for example, the people elect a President who is radical and wishes to change the status quo, then he can issue executive orders, but Congress can overturn those orders, and if the president wishes to execute laws he has to rel y on executive departments created by Congress. The best justification for this system comes from either James Madison or Alexander Hamilton when they wrote Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this you must first enable the government to control the governed and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxilia ry precautions. 7 Judicial Review is another key aspect of the system of checks and balances. This is basically an idea that arose from the Marbury v.Madison Case of 1803, whereby the Chief Justice argued that the Supreme Court had the power not only to invalidate laws passed by the lower courts, but also to invalidate laws passed by the elected Congress. From this we can see just how limited the public participation in the political process was because the Congress elected by the people was able to be overruled by the appointed Supreme Court. However the greatest example of how limited the publics participation was in the political process, was the way in which the elections were conducted.By this I mean specifically the elitist way in which the smaller states did not have the same degree of representation, and thus power of the larger states, for example Rhode Island had one representative in Congress, while Virginia had ten. And even this pales in comparison with the electoral College. Essentially when the people vote in a presidential election they vote for delegates to the Electoral College who then choose the president from the candidates.What is wrong with this system is when you take into contemplation that each state sends delegates to the Electoral College on a basis of population and in each state the candidate with the most votes takes all the electoral votes (even if they win by only 1%) then those who did not vote for the candidate are effectively throwing their votes away. This system is further complicated by the fact that in the beginning the Electoral College was envisaged as a way for the elites to ensure that their preferred candidate got the job, and to enable them to correct any misjudgements the public might have made on polling day.In conclusion therefore it can be seen that the American Constitution is a very elitist document, by virtue of the way in which it was conceived the men who wrote it the economic elitism imbedded in the do cument and of melody the military elitism. Secondly the question as to why the framers of the Constitution provided for public participation is an easy one they provided for public participation because they had diluted it so much, and built in so many checks and balances that they did not have to stick about threats to stability and order, which were after all the greatest concerns of elites.