Objections to the U.S. Constitution of 1787

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Views against the US Constitution
Lack of Counter Checks
Unfair Representation
Assigned Text
Conclusion
Reference

Introduction

This article presents views against the US constitution as it was in 1787. The article focuses on the process through the constitution was enacted and its early status. The risks that the constitution posed to the general public are viewed.

Views against the US Constitution

The US constitution as it was back in 1787, as discussed by Breading et al. (1787), was a document which could lead the US into a path of tyrannical leadership. The constitution lacked counter checks on federal officials and bodies and thus gave them technically unlimited powers on what they could do.

It was open to manipulation of any kind unfortunately at the expense of the common people. It is also observed that it was not representative – a huge percentage of the populace was not guaranteed of representation of its views. The constitution even threatened the very existence of the states.

Lack of Counter Checks

The 1787 US constitution did not place a counter check mechanism on Congress. For instance, the powers that were vested in Congress were immense and left the body to check itself. It had an unlimited time of operation since the body was responsible for choosing the time for election of new members to Congress. It is also viewed that its legislative power could act as a precursor to greatly weaken the state governments.

Its judicial powers could engulf state judiciaries and this would be an act of consolidating all the states. It also had the mandate to levy taxes directly on the states. It can argued that this could act as a loophole for Congress to siphon resources from the states and there was a chance that this could be overdone leaving the state governments with no means of governance (Breading et al., 1787).

Unfair Representation

The representation of the people was deficient. It is necessary that the composition of a legislature has sufficient knowledge of the represented parts and is in good numerical numbers so that it can truly reveal the opinions and views of the represented populace. The 1787 constitution directed the number of House of Representatives members to be 65.

To form a quorum for discussion of government issues, 33 members were required. What this technically meant was that 17 members were the determinants. In the case of the senate, 14 members could make a quorum since the senate consisted of 26 members.

Out of the 14 senators making a quorum, 8 senators were enough to determine which decisions were to be made. This representation can be said to be unsafe for the vast area and millions of people represented (Breading et al., 1787).

Assigned Text

There are a number of things I disliked about the text assigned to me. First, the text was quite long – it almost took me two hours to read. Second, some of the words were not spelled well, for instance, the word control was written as controul. Third and last, the structuring of some of the sentences appeared to be a bit strange. Nevertheless, the text was quite comprehensive and covered the topic well.

Conclusion

The 1787 US constitution was not a good legislation for governance. It contained many loopholes which could easily plunge the US into a state of despair. In particular, Congress’ powers were unchecked and thus there was a wide room for abuse of power.

Reference

Breading, N., Smilie, J., Baird, R., Orth, A., John, H., Whitehill, J., … Lutz, N. (1787). The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents. Constitution Society. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!