Litwack Vs Michener

Michener, Marshall, and Litwack have different views about the constitution. There opinions vary about the constitution and what it meant to them. James Michener thought of the constitution as a masterpiece of writing. According to Michener the constitution was written so well that even philosophers are amazed by what it has achieved. Michener thought of the government as a well oiled machine that works very well in unison. James Michener said, “Their decision to divide the power of the government into three parts - Legislative, Executive, Judicial - was a masterstroke.” He thinks that our government and constitution are equally powerful and effective. Thurgood Marshall, Supreme Court Justice, had a different view on the constitution. He recognizes …show more content…
According to the text the delegates had to figure out about how many votes and representation each state should have. Smaller states wanted every state to have equal representation and votes while big states wanted the votes to be based off the population of the state. There was a compromise that in the upper house each state would have two votes no matter how big it is and in the lower house votes would be based on the population of the state. Another conflict was whether slaves should be counted as part of the population. Southern states wanted slaves to count as part of their population because they had many enslaved people and it would give them more control on decisions made about slavery. Northern delegates believed that slaves should not be counted in population because they thought slavery was wrong and they realized that southern states could have more power.They finally compromised that representation in House would be based on all people in a state that were free and ⅗ of all people that were enslaved. These compromises fit into the debate that Michener, Marshall and Litwak had because it is based off representation and how the country was made. In general there are many different ways to interpret the constitution as well as voter representation and laws. Compromises and agreements have been made regarding the constitution and representation since our country was founded. The three guys have different opinions on the constitution just like how different states …show more content…
Schweikart and Allen argue that the signers did not just act based on self interest but in interest of others. They argue that the constitution did not enforce class struggle in any way. For example George Washington had to take on the interest of others in order lead a army of civilians instead of an army of soldiers that the British were going to hand him. Essentially George Washington was in a position to fight for the powerful british army or the untrained army of the U.S. In the end I think the left wing had more key evidence and just points for creating a fair government. The constitution was viewed as unfair because the signers signed the constitution based on their own self interest to keep the classes seperate. But according to left wing there should be more equality in the making of our country. I feel that equal representation and amendments has made the constitution fair for all