The Making of the Constitution

The Making of the Constitution

The Constitution of the United States of America is one of the more often than debated topics since it was signed in Philadelphia on September 17,1787. Due to the fact that the union would soon break up if the Articles of Confederation were not modified or replaced five states called for a Constitutional Convention. Reason being was to try and form some type of government which would respond to the concerns that had came from the issues with the Articles of Confederation. With that being said for a while now people have been openly discussing with regards to the thought processes of the founders of the democratic republic. Which whom were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison this was because the results of Constitution. For example, the Charles Beard and Karl Marx theory stated similar things when it came to this topic. They believed that the founders of the Constitution were consolidated of the wealthy elite who created the constitution with intent to cripple and limit the power of the poor majority and play in favor to the rich minority.

John Roche a fellow pluralist believed the founding fathers plan did not include an agenda. He believed that they wanted to reform the constitution and make it a document that will unite the country and work. In contrast Richard Hofstadter believed other wise and even wrote a book about it called “The founding fathers an age of realism”. He believed that the founding fathers did, indeed, have an agenda. Which was to create a balanced government with intent to exploit disbelief of the rich minority and poor majority. On the contrary Charles Beard and Richard Hofstadter have made very well thought out acquisition for their claims on if the founding fathers had an agenda or not. John Roche on the other hand provided a more accurate representation of the founding fathers and its historical background of the Constitution in his analysis called “ A reform caucus in action”.

In the early stages of constructing the constitution there were two separate parties with different interests. The first party having high emphasis on power and efficiency within the government affairs. While the other party focused mainly on the popular aspects. Charles Beard argues that the constitution was framed by the wealthy elite whose one and only interest was to protect their private property. Beard believes that the people in charge wanted the legislation of laws designed to protect ones own wealth which is a counter-revolution of bondholders set against the majority of underprivileged. Beard argues that the authors of the Constitution were not that interested in increasing democratic principles than in protecting the private property and rights of the rich and powerful elite. There was plenty of proof for this acquisition that was arranged in the Contract Clause of the Constitution. The Commerce Clause was directed to protect wealthy owners by limiting the majority from regulating contracts or property rights. The new government also set to create a Senate and choose a president. After all ,both the members of the Senate as well as the term president were elected by members of state legislature and electoral rather than the people, the majority. The wealthy founders wanted to strengthen the federal government from the core to battle against the states and people so that resolutions similar to the Shays rebellion which was achieved by rebellions of the poor majority will not happen again. Beard states that the men who wrote the Constitution were not the same men who participated in the War of Independence. Beard stated that they were not the same men who wanted freedom and reform that they were not those who wrote the Declaration of Independence. Subsequently , it was a takeover “that there is a contrast between the values of the Constitution and those of the Declaration of Independence”. However, Beard maintains that neither the general population nor the states could be trusted to pass laws that would benefit the entire nation. Amusingly, only a document drafted and supported by the majority could unify the nation and guarantee rights to everyone.

John Roche maintains an alternative perspective on the founding fathers and the creation of the Constitution. He claims the Constitution to be a specific compromise between the small and large states, rather than greed or capricious thought. Roche argues that the framers of the Constitution did not have an agenda. He describes the Constitutional Convention as a democratic reform caucus. This means that they created this document with the resolve to make the Constitution a document that would preserve and unite the nation as a whole. John Roche characterizes the founding fathers as navis of their craft. However, alternative to Charles Beard’s ideologies, they were willing to compromise their personal views for