The Summer Of 1787 : The Men Who Invented The Constitution

Carol Berkins book “A Brilliant Solution:” Inventing the American Constitution shows how the twentieth century and the seventieth century were similar. As in the twentieth century while the presidential election was in process America waited to see who would be the one to take power in the Oval Office, as in the seventieth century the framers feared greatly that the experiment of self-government would fail. The twentieth century presidential election took a down turn on the day of September 11th, 2001 when the twin towers where hit in New York. The United States believed that they were under attack. September 11th which turned out to be one of the many obstacles that the government came upon. In 1787, when the founding fathers where inventing

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was held to address problems in governing the United States which had been operating under the Articles of Confederation since it’s independence from Britain. Fifty-five delegates from the states attended the convention to address these issues. The delegates consisted of federalists who wanted a strong central government to maintain order and were mainly wealthier merchants and plantation owners and anti-federalists who were farmers, tradesmen and local politicians who feared losing their power and believed more power should be given to the states. The Constitutional Convention dealt with the issue of the debate between federalists and anti-federalists. The debates, arguments and compromises

David O. Stewart, by profession, is a lawyer with a resume that includes everything from arguing appeals at the Supreme Court level to serving as a law court to the acclaimed Junior Powell. But in writing The Summer of 1787: The Men Who Invented the Constitution (specifically, I read the First Simon & Schuster trade paperback edition May 2008, copyrighted in 2007), he uses that experience in law to prove himself a gifted storyteller. Two hundred sixty-four pages long, this United States history nonfiction book does indeed have the substance to engage the reader throughout. It has special features that include two appendices featuring the elector system and the actual constitution of 1787, author’s notes, suggested further reading, acknowledgments and an index (which escalate the total length of the book to three hundred forty-nine pages long).

Richard Hofstadter, in the Chapter one, “The Founding Fathers: An Age of Realism,” of his book, “The American Political Tradition,” expresses his ideas of the conflicts that the Founding Fathers of US may have had when they created the Constitution of United States. Right from the beginning of the Chapter, Hofstadter starts with a quote from Horace White that the Constitution of United States “assumes that the natural state of mankind is state of war, and that the carnal mind is at enmity with God.” It is no wonder that Hofstadter, who understood Founding Father’s pain, used such quote. In Hofstadter’s view, the Founding Fathers, torn between democracy and monarchy, the two extremities, set out to create a government in which both could be applied and satisfy both the mobs and the elites of society.

In offering alternative interpretations of the origins of the Constitution, the author accomplishes his secondary purpose, to make the reader challenge what they know about the framing of the Constitution. Holton details the rebellion of the “Unruly Americans” against the state and national governments, using Adonijah Mathews as an ultimate example of the “common man.” Mathews’ views are presented in order to contrast the views of James Madison, whom it seems the author

55 delegates of twelve states wrote the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787 and in 1788 the states ratified it. That gathering at Philadelphia’s Independence Hall brought nearly all of the nation’s most prominent men together, including Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison and George Washington. Several of the men appointed had records of service in the army and in the courts and others were experienced in colonial and state government. When Thomas Jefferson found out who had been appointed he wrote “It is really an assembly of demigods” to John Adams. That summer in Philadelphia, the men, drew out a document defining the distinct powers for the the president, the federal courts and the Congress. This division of authority that was established is known as the principle of separation of powers, and it ensures that none of the branches of government can overstep their boundaries.

The arguments made by Federalists and anti-Federalists regarding the office and powers of the presidency during the ratifying debates that followed the drafting of the Constitution in 1787 were persuasive, but distinctly at odds. Both sides, however, sought the same thing, how best to allocate power in a unified republic of states? From this question opposing views developed as to whether or not a President should even exist, and if so, what powers he should be granted. I will briefly examine the presidential powers that were primarily awarded under Article II of the new Constitution. I will then explore the opposing arguments that arose during the ratifying debates concerning those granted powers. I do so in the interest of offering a

The 1787 Constitutional Convention was paramount in unifying the states after the Revolutionary War. However, in order to do so, the convention had to compromise on many issues instead of addressing them with all due haste. This caused the convention to leave many issues unresolved. Most notably were the issues of slavery, race, secession, and states’ rights. Through the Civil War and the Reconstruction, these issues were resolved, and in the process the powers of the federal government were greatly expanded.

In the book “A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution” by Carol Berkin she explains the constitution from start to finish from how it all began, to the debates inside the convention and finally the end product. Berkin takes the reader and puts him directly in the middle of the convention of 1786; throughout the book you can feel the excitement, the frustration, the tensions between delegates and the overall commitment to making a new government work for all.

Signed by 55 delegates in 1787, the United States Constitution has preserved the American people and her country from the dangers of internal and external rebellions and wars leading to a full-scale destruction of the American empire. Throughout the past 250 years, American nationalist ideas, which founded the framework of the new nation and preceded the creation of the Constitution, and the practiced law in society implemented by the birth of the American Constitution in 1787, have survived through the tyrannical era of British influence, the seven year American Revolutionary War, a division of political thought that divided the nation and led the country into a civil war, and contemporary issues that surround political platforms today.

Throughout the 20th Century, American colleges and universities gained the reputation of being bastions of free speech and the discussion of ideas. While universities in Europe became less and less free, cowering to political correctness, American universities fiercely debated every major issue that faced the country. Most importantly though, liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, Atheists and Christians, all believed in the spread of ideas, and free expression. However, while our institutions of higher learning remain significantly freer than their European counterparts, that reputation of freedom of speech is in doubt. Students and faculty are increasingly resentful towards anyone they deem to be perpetuating hate speech, a term that has spun wildly out of control. The Framers of the Constitution certainly never wished that their great experiment of a nation would succumb to the suppression of those with unpopular ideas, especially at the places in which children are expected to become adults, and explore new, and often provocative ideas. (I wonder) Whether it 's the 40% of millennials who believe "hate speech" should be banned by the government, the screaming at and uninviting speakers with conservative beliefs, or the fear of speaking out,, the First Amendment is under attack in 2016, but is not yet lost. This generation will have to choose whether or not they want an Orwellian government that dictates what is and isn 't an acceptable belief. The First

The constitutional convention of the 1787 was held in Philadelphia to ratify the new constitution that resolved the existing articles of the confederation. This article did discuss about how the central government looked like before the new constitution was approved by the existing states. In this article, some of the weaknesses of the federal governments discussed were, its inability to have a strong foreign policy that would make all the states uniform. The article also elaborated about the role of the new constitution on the checks and balances of power between the branches of the government. Like other articles that discussed about the constitution of the 1787, this article discussed about many contents of the constitution; however, it

It is of the belief that one of the great things about being a citizen of the United States of America is, freedom. It is also the belief that freedom is one of the reasons that citizenship in America is highly sought by individuals from other countries wanting to escape the limitations and restrictions of freedom governed by their native country. The United States of America’s Constitution of 1787, was created to form the government while incorporating basic law with the promise to provide fixed freedoms to the American people (Rosen & Rubenstein, 2014). It was determined however, that additions needed to be made to the Constitution that furthered American’s freedom with limitations that the government could impose on them, thus the proposition

In order to ensure that Fundamental Rights did not remain empty provisions, the founding fathers of our Constitution have made various provisions in the Constitution to maintain an independent judiciary. Articles related to Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles and independent judiciary together provide a firm constitutional basis to the growth of Public Interest Litigation in India. The founding fathers envisaged ‘‘the judiciary as a bastion of rights and justice’’. An independent judiciary lanced with the power of judicial review was the constitutional device chosen to achieve the required objective. This jurisdiction to enforce the Fundamental Rights was conferred upon both the Supreme Court and the High Courts, hence them being the courts that have entertained all the Public Interest Litigation cases.

Politics began to play a bigger role in the lives of American colonists during the beginning of a growing country. After the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776, the country was challenged with the problem of creating a process for governing the states. The Patriots were concerned about forming a centralized Parliament, like in Britain, because power was abused by the wealthy. Initially, the vision was to give states governing authority and leave minimal power to a national Union. But as the years passed and conflicts arose, there was a need to create a national government using the U.S Constitution as the blueprint.