tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18729359.post113172278207034675..comments2023-05-02T08:16:59.322-07:00Comments on US History: How democratic is the Constitution?Fonshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04784396805697373886noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18729359.post-1133415812778389952005-11-30T21:43:00.000-08:002005-11-30T21:43:00.000-08:00dahl is basically saying that compared to nowadays...dahl is basically saying that compared to nowadays, the constitution isn't all that democratic, but it was back when it was written. most of the things that are pointed out weren't seen too often, such as free speech and "all men are created equal," even though slavery was still going on. we have different standards in this day and age and i do not think the constitution is all the democratic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18729359.post-1133212359951511102005-11-28T13:12:00.000-08:002005-11-28T13:12:00.000-08:00I felt that the article argued that the constituio...I felt that the article argued that the constituion was not followed or full proof. This "written" documnet was to better of the United States, but instead made confusion with the people. Backslidding was the problem with the constituion. slavery was strickly unconstitutional but a SLAVE OWNER could travel up north and anywheree and search for his HUMAN PROPERTY and bring IT back to the south beat and or kill his slave. Everyone has free rights but it was clearly seen that the rights weren't fully exercised but used best fit with the region of interest. also when it came down to voting life and elections were not fair because everyone could not vote for whom ever had the same beliefs as they did, but they lived in the they same country? so now you had to live and follwo laws and dictatorships made by a man who was differnt like apples and oranges like you and black slaves, women and non land owning people lived like this for Decades and no one in office ever saw this as un constitutional and that was a hypocracy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18729359.post-1132257185789870842005-11-17T11:53:00.000-08:002005-11-17T11:53:00.000-08:00In this article Dahl talks about the shortcommings...In this article Dahl talks about the shortcommings of the constitution when it was first formed,but even now it is not a perfect piece of law to rule by. Living by a democracy is having equal rights for everyone. When the constitution was first written it was not very democratic at all. I mean to some extent it was but not fully. Everyone did not have equal rights. The constitution favored the white man with land. The writers of the constitution had no idea that by demanding equal rights for the white, land owning male would lead to equality for all(well at least thats how it's suppose to be but even today that isn't the case). Equality has gotten better over a period of time but everyone still isn't treated equally. Gay people are discriminated against for their sexuallity. The constitution can be interpreted in so many different ways and this causes a problem today in our judging system in many cases. In other words it is not a stable foundation to rule upon. That should be odvious because as Dahl stated other democratic countries haven't adopted our constitution. I'm not completly going against the constitution because it was a great accomplishment during that time when america was still trying to find itself, but time changes and with time comes different needs. Our country is way different than what is was when the constitution was formed and the constitution is not fit to rule our society today.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18729359.post-1132251168365876202005-11-17T10:12:00.000-08:002005-11-17T10:12:00.000-08:00i think Robert A. Dahl did a good job summarizing ...i think Robert A. Dahl did a good job summarizing the constitution, and the most important part which is the bill of rights.<BR/><BR/>but one thing that i would like to comment about that Dehl said that the constitution didn't give permission for slavery even though it didn't forbid it.<BR/>In my oponion when u don't forbide something as horrible as slavery, then you are agreeing with it. <BR/>Those people who wrote the constituion had two option,one of a complete democracy and one with a half democracy. Well people would say these people did not believe in slavery, but couldn't stop it because they didn't have the power to.<BR/>i would say these peoplewith Any had their own slaves; and probably after they were done writing the constitution they went home and raped and beat up some slaves. If these people really believed all men were created equal they shouldn't own slaves; and if you tell me that slaves were a usual thing or they were born with it. then are not men that can a lead a country 1 step toward democracyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18729359.post-1132209246237864892005-11-16T22:34:00.000-08:002005-11-16T22:34:00.000-08:00I would say that the Constitution is not democrati...I would say that the Constitution is not democratic and agree with Dahl, but after 50+ people have said the exact same thing, I'm going to switch it up: The Constitution was the most democratic article ever written. Period. Ahh...forget it. I will be the conformist zombie today, so just like everyone else said: "The Constitution is not democratic." Fully. How can an article be fully democratic when it only deals with the issues facing the average white male with property? The Constitution makes really no mention of the voting rights or representation issues regarding slaves and even less mention of women. Why? Beacuse they had no rights and no say-so in the rich, white, male-dominated government.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18729359.post-1132159363700298972005-11-16T08:42:00.000-08:002005-11-16T08:42:00.000-08:00How democratic is the Constitution. If you ask me ...How democratic is the Constitution. If you ask me I fuuly agree with Robert Dahl's Analyzation of the Constitution. I feel that the Constitution is not democratic like it should be or even as it claims to be. First off the issue on slavery. Was it democratic to aloow salvery to go on forso many years? Was it constituational and democratic not to give congress the proper power to prohibit slavery? To allow people who are suppose to be equal to go through so musch pain and suffage? This brings me to my next subject...Suffage. The constition failed to grant the right of suffage to half of the America. To half to the people who should be protected. There was no suffage to women, African Americans, or Native Americans. The people are suppose to hold to power, but they don't even have the power to chose who the state senators are. So where he question is asked is the Contstition demcratic I can honest say no.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18729359.post-1132075335016219032005-11-15T09:22:00.000-08:002005-11-15T09:22:00.000-08:00I agree with Dahl and pretty much everything he sa...I agree with Dahl and pretty much everything he said. All he did was summerize all the ammendments and stating their flaws. I don't think it is democratic, but for it's time I guess it was. I admire is audasity to come out and say all of the things that are wrong with the one thing that we are supposed to abide by.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18729359.post-1132071407490646632005-11-15T08:16:00.000-08:002005-11-15T08:16:00.000-08:00The constitution was drafted a very long time ago ...The constitution was drafted a very long time ago when any liberties were a very rare occurance. Many now would argue that the constitution isn't as democratic as it should be nor are the prossesses for amending it. The lack in democracy in the constituion is due to the lack of trust in the people. I agree with dahl on his stand that now the constitution should be more democratic now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18729359.post-1132068770793383052005-11-15T07:32:00.000-08:002005-11-15T07:32:00.000-08:00Dahl was just expessing his opinions of the shortc...Dahl was just expessing his opinions of the shortcomings of the Constitution.I do agree with him though. Back then no one could really change it but if we had that constitution now, everything would be different. Agreeing with Brittney, they didn't forbid slavery bu they also didn't give permission.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18729359.post-1132061658668040852005-11-15T05:34:00.000-08:002005-11-15T05:34:00.000-08:00It is funny to think that it took this long to pub...It is funny to think that it took this long to publish a list of shortcomings with the constitution, there are many positive sides to the constitution however the problems needed to be stated and Robert Dahl just just that and succeeded in revealing obvious problems like slavery (not abolished) or the presidential electionAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18729359.post-1132061568151898692005-11-15T05:32:00.000-08:002005-11-15T05:32:00.000-08:00It is funny to think that it took this long to pub...It is funny to think that it took this long to publish a list of shortcomings with the constitution, there are many positive sides to the constitution however the problems needed to be stated and Robert Dahl just just that and succeeded in revealing obvious problems like slavery (not abolished) or the presidential electionAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18729359.post-1132035609899094032005-11-14T22:20:00.000-08:002005-11-14T22:20:00.000-08:00basically Dahl was pointing out the flaws in the c...basically Dahl was pointing out the flaws in the constitution such as slavery and how although the Constitution didn't forbade it nor give them permission to.the part about suffrage seemed more republican to me than democratic b/c republicans are the ones who limit the rights and freedom of people wheresas democrates fought to give everyone a voice.also the fact that people weren't able to choose their president nor the body that represented them was wrong b/c the political leader they may have choosen would have been the one who represented their values and listened to their opinions instead of the president elected by the blonde hair blue eyes guys and following their morals.There's not much i can think to say about the constitution other than it was written based on the time period it was written in and and that society.....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18729359.post-1132034436613420082005-11-14T22:00:00.000-08:002005-11-14T22:00:00.000-08:00In my opinion, Dahl did a very good job in bringin...In my opinion, Dahl did a very good job in bringing forth the shortcomings of the Constitution to show the truth, which is that the constitution wasn't very democrtic at all. he brings up the topic of slavery, which I think is very hypocritical because they wrote a rule that they didnt even follow. he lso talked about issues like elections of officials, suffrage and the power of Congress and of the Jusdicial branch. I also agree with Dahl in the point that he makes that the framers of the Constitution werent sure themselves of what they meant by bringing up those issues.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18729359.post-1132033293515794292005-11-14T21:41:00.000-08:002005-11-14T21:41:00.000-08:00Summary:1.The Bill of Rights didn't ban slavery. A...Summary:<BR/>1.The Bill of Rights didn't ban slavery. A democratic system, by Dahl's, believe should never own slaves.<BR/>2.The Bill of Rights didn't grant rights to woman, also bad in Dahl's mind.<BR/>3.The Bill of Rights doesn't grant a direct democracy so it isn't fair.<BR/>4.The Senate was decided by State Legislatures and not popular vote<BR/>5.The Senate doesn't represent population so the population is unfairly represented.<BR/>6.I believe he meant that the Judicial system isn't checked by other branches or by the people enough.<BR/>7.Congress is too restricting on the economy? I'm not entirely certain.<BR/><BR/>My Opinion:<BR/>1.Slavery at the time of the amendments creation was not the most important thing to deal with. The United States at the time was hardly united. The states needed to compromise just to stay together. It was also an essential thing at the time for a growing economy. Ultimately, the slaves were freed.<BR/>2. This is something that truly is uncalled for, but you must take into consideration that times were different then. Stop thinking like you're in the 21st century and start thinking as though you were in the 18th and 19th.<BR/>3. I'm kind of indifferent about this issue. On one hand, if the popular vote doesn't always win it isn't truly a democracy. However, direct democracies are hard to uphold, and it's much easier using the electoral college. Besides, it upholds are democratic-republic which is much better than a direct democracy.<BR/>4.Keyward in this analysis is "was." The Senate is now decided by popular vote. Open and shut case in my opinion.<BR/>5. Dahl focuses on the Senate, yet Congress is made up of two Houses, the Senate and Representatives. Popular vote is upheld by the Representatives. It ensures no state is left with one person representing them. It's perfectly fair.<BR/>6.I'm indifferent on this as well, Mainly because I had trouble understanding it. I think the judicial system is doing a fine job as is, and don't believe any sort of restriction is necessary.<BR/>7. Checks and balances is my only comment. I do support a free economy, but I'm not sure if that's exactly what Dahl meant. I'll stop talking now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18729359.post-1132030268040884512005-11-14T20:51:00.000-08:002005-11-14T20:51:00.000-08:00sorry! typing error ! I meant the government uses ...sorry! typing error ! <BR/>I meant the government uses the Bill of rights to go around the law and their own gain!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18729359.post-1132030082882143452005-11-14T20:48:00.000-08:002005-11-14T20:48:00.000-08:00This is basically stating that the constitution wa...This is basically stating that the constitution wasn't equal for all and non-democractic. Dahl list the shortcomings of the constitution and it equality issues. He also brought up how the bill of rights is used by the government to go all the law and to use for the own gain.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18729359.post-1132029470961744292005-11-14T20:37:00.000-08:002005-11-14T20:37:00.000-08:00To me Dahl is saying that the Constitution was not...To me Dahl is saying that the Constitution was not really democratic. I think he was giving a summary of all the rights given to man and what he thought about it. He talks about how the Constitution does not say anything about slavery being allowed or not being allowed. He also talks about things such as suffrage, voting rights, congress and judicial powers. I think Robert Dahl did a very excellent job of expressing how he felt in a healthy and safe way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18729359.post-1132025129797400112005-11-14T19:25:00.000-08:002005-11-14T19:25:00.000-08:00I think Dahl is right for what he said. He was tal...I think Dahl is right for what he said. He was talking about how the constitution failed to guarantee certain rights. He also thought that the constitution was not democratic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18729359.post-1132025052421410412005-11-14T19:24:00.000-08:002005-11-14T19:24:00.000-08:00Before I start my blog I would like to say:Greg-"y...Before I start my blog I would like to say:<BR/>Greg-"yes the government should have all possible control over the economy.." kinda sounds like a communistic system..eh? :) <BR/>Before I start my blogg I want to comment to greg...<BR/>"yes the government should have all possible control over the economy"<BR/>this kinda sounds like a communistic government to me?...eh?<BR/><BR/>*slavery- It is insanely discusting that it sook us hundred+ years to get rid of slavery, the rape of millions of people's culture, society, and dignity. It makes me ashamed to be an American to know that it took my county that loong to toss slavery ( and adapt the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments between 1865 and 1870.)and we are all still attached to racism and segregration. What about human rights? Aren't we as fellow humans responsible for eachother? <BR/>•suffrage- Also bogus how can there be any sort a democracy if 75 plus precent of the poplulation can't vote because of race and sex. this could have been achieved if the white men at the top gived any sort of emmotion or action towards the oppressed classes. <BR/>•elections- they should be entirely democratic!!!!! duh if the people as a whole have to choose the president they will worry abouit eachother, as a group. When electorial college votes are cast people don't connect votes with eachother with the outcome. <BR/>•judicial power- judges should have equal power to the branches of the government and be able to be checked by the people. <BR/>•Final comment-agree with dahl...why are we the model of democracy when we have such bad poverty and such... bogus...<BR/><BR/>Anyways if any one reads this they should come to the rally on the 17th after school talk to me for details....<BR/>Peace!<BR/>P.S. i hope that this doesn't have any dumb mistakes again cuz i am not rechecking it!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18729359.post-1132023382781649322005-11-14T18:56:00.000-08:002005-11-14T18:56:00.000-08:00After reading the article written by Robert A Dohl...After reading the article written by Robert A Dohl, I kind of got the over all feeling that although things may seem stable now, their were and still are big gaps of information missing from the constitution and some pieces of it neeeding to be revised, taken out, or completely change dto fit this day in age. Although we seemed to have found ways around things that seemed obvisouly wrong with the constitution I stilll think that there are still errors in the constitution and if we aren't going to fix them, whicjh I think Mr. Dohl was suggesting by writing this article, we need to make another more updated document that addresses all the "Un written Laws" of are government, which we find ourselves living by and using to make our life time decission.(I don't know about other people, but I don't see how we could allow are lives to be ruled by an old unchanged document that was written over 100 years old by people who had no idea how things were going to be in the 21st century and beyond. TO me this leaves space for to much faulty ruling and accusations in our government)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18729359.post-1132023341983725542005-11-14T18:55:00.000-08:002005-11-14T18:55:00.000-08:00I believe that all in all the constitution was est...I believe that all in all the constitution was established to help better the lives of all americans. I believe that when the constitution was written it may have seemed very democratic. But in are society today you find that many people just have different view points on what democracy should or shouldn't be. I personal feel that it is democratic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18729359.post-1132022530171235412005-11-14T18:42:00.000-08:002005-11-14T18:42:00.000-08:00Dahl goes on telling the basic Amendmets of the co...Dahl goes on telling the basic Amendmets of the constitution and its basic reason of creation like slavery, women's rights, election of president, and judicial power. however when it was first written Dahl remarks on how the writers didn't practice what they promised in the document. " all me are created equal" didn't happen for a long time. African Americans were treated like property just like white women but the African Americans were considered lower then white women. at first there was no law in the Constitution that said anything about choosing the president and V.P it was who ever had the most votes and the person with the 2nd amount of votes became the V.P and now u have the electoral college and the canidate can choose his V.P.<BR/>In my opinion Dahl did a good job of explaining but since we went over it in class it was easier for me to understandAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18729359.post-1132009728052944102005-11-14T15:08:00.000-08:002005-11-14T15:08:00.000-08:00The points he made appear valid from the evidence ...The points he made appear valid from the evidence he presented. I always thought that the constitution shouldn't be always strictly interperated or followed because of the difference in times and society. Althougd alot of the constitution seems to be undemocratic or not fair in some aspects-you do have to realize the period of time it was written. That's why it shouldn't be so strictly followed. The election process isn't completely right to me. I would have to do research and do my homework before I could say how we should do the process but I will say I believe there's better ways. The whole issue of equal representation on senate is confusing because I see the point but at the same time it's seems like it would balance out with the house. Maybe if I was more interested about politics and had more knowledge I could analyze and state my opinion clearer and be more sure. I do agree that the judicial branch holds alot of power and it seems like no one pays attention to the fact no one can check them. Its seems like everyone is worried just about executive and legislative branch. But I'm not smart in these topics. I do agree about all the shortcomings. I do think that many things are missing and limited in the constitution. I do think that something else should replace the current election policies. And I also think that America is not really a model for our governement but for other aspects.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18729359.post-1132009086661600172005-11-14T14:58:00.000-08:002005-11-14T14:58:00.000-08:00I think that the laws they made to get rid of slav...I think that the laws they made to get rid of slavery we're fake. I mean they were real but I believe that if they really wanted to get rid of it they would have. I think that they actually inforced the laws after salves weren't neede as much. I also think that the Bill of Rights wasn't real. It was simply there because that's what the people wanted. I that teh Costitution would have been a bunch of bull today, because like I said before it was just written to satisfy the people. This was really the only things that caught my eye.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18729359.post-1132004219236374402005-11-14T13:36:00.000-08:002005-11-14T13:36:00.000-08:00To me it sounds like Dahl believes that the Consti...To me it sounds like Dahl believes that the Constitution was made to benefit the people who wrote it. It had many things that in a way slipped through the cracks. Slavery, elections, suffrage, equal representation and judicial power just to name a few. I personally feel that there should be no fine print. If they took out that much time to write it they should have made sure they did not leave anything out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com