The current Constitution allows for an amendment to be passed with ⅔ votes from both chambers of Congress and also with ¾ of the state’s approval or with ⅔ of the state legislatures calling for a convention. Sabato’s view on calling a convention is interesting in that his interpretation of a state’s petition to call a Constitutional Convention never dies as well as the visual of a light on, light off policy. Proposed amendments that a state switches it’s light on for will remain on until they reach 34 states with their lights on or until the state shuts it’s light off. This visual allows for a Convention to be called the moment the 34th state light went on, meaning a Convention could be called promptly. The one area Sabato says needs to be addressed is the lack of a standardized way of submitting applications for an amendment or convention.…
Larry Sabato, an American political scientist who graduated from the University of Oxford, recommends a new constitutional convention to revise the current United States constitution to change all three branches of government. The proposals Sabato is offering do not do any good, as this paper proves later. Constitutional amendments can be great in cases like the 14th or 21st, but these proposals would not do anything like that . Sabato’s opinion on how to revise the judicial branch by increasing the number of Supreme Court justices from nine to twelve and adding a Balanced Budget amendment to prevent any deficit spending are good ideas in theory, but in reality, neither would work.…
As two individuals that practice law, Richard A. Bierschbach and Jeffery Toobin, who are two distinctively different authors have very similar views on the United States Constitution. Richard A. Bierschbach and Jeffery Toobin have composed two compelling articles on the United States Constitution. In Richard A. Bierschbach’s “Fragmentation and Democracy in The Constitutional Law of Punishment” and Jeffery Toobin’s “Our Broken Constitution” their rhetorical strategy to persuade know their audience very well. Toobin writes for the average reader who mainly wants a quick way to learn about a topic. Bierschbach is writing to educate people who are practicing law or professor to teach college students.…
Newell, Prindle, and Riddlesperger, Jr. coherently state thoughts about constitutions that I agree with in their statement: The flexibility inherent in [the United States Constitution] has made possible the country’s transition from a nation whose government was mainly concerned with fending off ‘hostile’ Native Americans and delivering the mail to one whose government now shoulders the burdens of world leadership and myriad socioeconomic policies. (Newell, Prindle, Riddlesperger, Jr., 55) As Texas and the nation goes into future years and decades, numerous amounts of issues will arise. These issues and dilemmas can be mended or solved with constitutional reforms and amendments.…
Roche launches into the Constitutional Convention as a skilled, democratic reform caucus. The Articles of Confederation were weak and the framers initial plan did not include exploiting the government. As much as it was governing possible, the founding fathers had strived to secure and protect democracy while keeping much of it the same. Roche also concludes Beard’s argument by addressing that the United States powerfully protected the rights and freedoms of the people in the Revolution of 1776, as a result that the framers intentions were not opposing.…
John P. Roche gives his case that proposes that the form of the Constitution was simply a representative development involving a compromise of the interests of the state, economy, and governmental concentrations. In John P. Roche’s argument he states that the government was as democratic as possible: “My concern is with the further position that not only were they revolutionaries, but also they were democrats. Indeed, in my view, there is one fundamental truth about the Founding Fathers…: They were first and foremost superb democratic politicians…”[1]. He continues by stating that what they did was create a practical compromise that would support both the national interest and be something that the people would agree with. They started with the Virginia plan that proposed a bicameral legislative branch.…
Since the constitution of the United Stats of America was written in 1787 it has long since been a topic of conversation as well as confrontation among politicians and political theorists alike. The ideals of James Madison and John Dewey regarding constitutional reform and democracy are just another example of this. These two men, both extremely influential in their own way, have conflicting views of liberty, democracy and largely the revision of the constitution and its consequences or lack there of. James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution, believed that constitutional revision should be infrequent. While John Dewey argues for change, while not specifically on constitutional revision but rather for “effective liberty” for the state of democracy as a whole, which ultimately relates to that of constitutional revision.…
The 18th century was a time of change and reform for Americans. Having gained newfound independence from Great Britain, they now faced the task of coming up with an efficient way to govern themselves. After a long process, both the Constitution, and eventually the Bill of Rights, both emerged and both which are still the governing documents of America today. In Jack Rakove’s book, Declaring Rights, he states that “how Americans thought about bills of rights was a function of how they thought about constitutionalism more generally.” He was correct in his statement; Americans views on constitutionalism did directly affect how they viewed bills of rights.…
First, why we as American citizens are bound to uphold our constitution? Second, have we had an opportunity to express our views on our constitutional system? Third, how has the constitutional system served our democratic values? Dahl uses the eight chapters in his book to offer plausible answers to the questions he proposes. Dahl begins by outlining the historical roots of the constitution.…
Federalists and Anti-Federalists The feud between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist party was based on the ratification of the Constitution. Even though both groups believed that the principal purpose of government is to secure individual rights and that the best instrument for that purpose is some form of limited republican government. They also agreed that the individual has the right to do anything that the government has no power to keep him from doing.…
constitution, led by Hamilton and Madison, set the stage for a self-governing America. “No one planned the process that produced America’s Constitution”, but it all started in September of 1780 when “Hamilton was the first to conclude that a new government was needed”, even before the Articles of Confederation took effect and called for congress “to revise the Articles”. Calling upon congress to come together and agree was a difficult and long process. Hamilton was always ready for a national convention, yet Madison “was not ready for that drastic step”, but “after the Mount Vernon conference and a trip to New York and Philadelphia, Madison warmed to the idea of a national convention”. The Articles of Confederation needed to be revised, “the weakness of the national government afflicted everyday life” from not having a uniform currency to voting in congress and the complex almost-non existing tax system.…
After America’s long journey of seeking freedom from governmental oppression, the newly formed nation was skeptical when it came to the discussion of new government authority. Many Americans were still uneasy about consolidated power, while others were aware of the prevalent national instability caused by the lack thereof. Though, in the end, the Constitution prevailed and has become the cornerstone of American government, the path that led to this enduring document was gradual and filled with apprehension and debate. Both sides of the issue had very clear and valid notions about either their support or opposition to the Constitution, and in the end were able to find common ground through patience and compromise.…
America has been described as the greatest country in the world. In American classrooms students are taught that America is the pinnacle of freedom to the rest of the world. No other country in the world could ever be the democracy that America is. Despite this, there are many who would argue against the limits of how democratic the Unites States actually is. Public polls indicate that many Americans are unsatisfied with the American government.…
The book could provide his readers with a very distinct explanation on how…
In “The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln,” Sean Wilentz successfully argues that the election of 1828 represented a democratic revolt of the people as the election was crucial to the development and maintenance of the second-party system. Not only is Wilentz the George Henry Davis Professor of History at Princeton University, but Wilentz is also a successful author who has won many awards including the prestigious Frederick Jackson Turner Award, the Albert J. Beveridge Award, the Pulitzer Prize, and the Bancroft Prize. In his analysis, Wilentz claims that the election of 1828 marked an evolution in the American political system as Andrew Jackson became a symbol of political power as he appealed to the common man. In fact, Wilentz successfully argues that Jackson’s election and presidency lead to the development and mobilization of political organizations which significantly shaped future presidential elections. Therefore, in “The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln,” Wilentz successfully proves that the election of 1828 represented a democratic revolt of the people as the election…