Summary Of Framing The Constitution By Charles Beard
Article Review: Framing the Constitution by Charles Beard
In the article, Framing the Constitution, Charles Beard had a very strong opinion on the Constitution and the motives of the framers. He believed that this document was written by the rich landowners, creditors, merchants, public bondholders, and lawyers, whose motives were to protect their wealth and property. Beard said that the reason the framers were against having majority rule was because they didn't want the majority to "overthrow" the rich framers of the time. This critical and different opinion of the Constitution and its framers is contrary to most modern belief. The framers had the "best minds" and mainly advocated the idea of "self-government". The idea of federalism in a republic was an innovative system. …show more content…
Today, only a few believe that individual liberty and the common good is the basis upon the central government operates.
At the time the Constitution was written there were two different parties that wanted different things from the United States government. The Revolutionaries or “Radicals”, led by men such as Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams and Patrick Henry, emphasized the strength and efficiency in government. These were the men who wanted Liberty and the Bill of Rights. The other famous group was the Federalists, which consisted of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. These leaders were more concerned with popular aspects of society such as power, control, and the protection of property rights. In order to keep maintain their wealth, they supported a strong central government, much like the current British system. Both parties contained some of the boldest and most radical thinkers of their time, helping make the Constitution last over 200
years.
I believe that the framers of the Constitution, especially the Federalists, had a very Marxist point of view. In the article, Beard posed the question, “did the United States Constitution break with the kind and a constitutional parliament or did it simply guarantee popular franchise?” The authors of the long-standing doctrine did indeed take parts of the British political system, such as the “House of Representatives” relating to the “House of Lords”, but it also created a new type of government called a democratic republic. This republic has a system of checks and balances so no branch, whether it is legislative, judicial, or executive, has more power than the other. Although the framers may have put in liberties to ensure their stability with their wealth and status in society, as well as government, I believe it didn’t affect creating a government that provided “liberty and justice for all”.
In the article, Framing the Constitution, Charles Beard had a very strong opinion on the Constitution and the motives of the framers. He believed that this document was written by the rich landowners, creditors, merchants, public bondholders, and lawyers, whose motives were to protect their wealth and property. Beard said that the reason the framers were against having majority rule was because they didn't want the majority to "overthrow" the rich framers of the time. This critical and different opinion of the Constitution and its framers is contrary to most modern belief. The framers had the "best minds" and mainly advocated the idea of "self-government". The idea of federalism in a republic was an innovative system. …show more content…
Today, only a few believe that individual liberty and the common good is the basis upon the central government operates.
At the time the Constitution was written there were two different parties that wanted different things from the United States government. The Revolutionaries or “Radicals”, led by men such as Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams and Patrick Henry, emphasized the strength and efficiency in government. These were the men who wanted Liberty and the Bill of Rights. The other famous group was the Federalists, which consisted of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. These leaders were more concerned with popular aspects of society such as power, control, and the protection of property rights. In order to keep maintain their wealth, they supported a strong central government, much like the current British system. Both parties contained some of the boldest and most radical thinkers of their time, helping make the Constitution last over 200
years.
I believe that the framers of the Constitution, especially the Federalists, had a very Marxist point of view. In the article, Beard posed the question, “did the United States Constitution break with the kind and a constitutional parliament or did it simply guarantee popular franchise?” The authors of the long-standing doctrine did indeed take parts of the British political system, such as the “House of Representatives” relating to the “House of Lords”, but it also created a new type of government called a democratic republic. This republic has a system of checks and balances so no branch, whether it is legislative, judicial, or executive, has more power than the other. Although the framers may have put in liberties to ensure their stability with their wealth and status in society, as well as government, I believe it didn’t affect creating a government that provided “liberty and justice for all”.