The American Constitution and Its Critics

The American constitution ratified in 1789 inAnother major criticism made to the American
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is one of the mostConstitution is that it places too many restrictions
successful constitutions in the world since it hason the government. Critics point out that
remained almost unchanged to this day while atcompared to the constitution of other countries,
the same time remaining a major source of'technically' much more restrictions are place on
authority in the United States . However therethe American government by the constitution
has been some serious criticism of it over theespecially with regards to the executive branch.
years. This article will outline and address the mainAs an example critics point to the fact that the
criticisms made to the American constitution bypresident needs permission for major decisions
its critics [1].like declaring war and the signing of major
The strongest criticism made to the Americantreaties. As pointed our earlier, state rights were
Constitution is that it is an undemocratica main point of concern at the time and these
constitution. Critics point to the fact that therestrictions were mainly placed by the founding
Federalist movement was explicitlyfathers in order to preserve the power and rights
anti-democratic at the time of the drafting andof the states and thus prevent the Federal
ratification of the American constitution. Thegovernment by overrunning the power of the
Federalists were initially not an official party in thestates. Also looking from another perspective this
early days of the republic but later on becamecan be seen as an advantage rather than a
one of the main two parties in the initial years ofdisadvantage in the sense that the president
American independence. The Federalists believedcannot act alone and even though elected he or
that absolute democracy leads to the abuse ofshe still needs the approval of the people through
power and tyranny. Critics argue the constitutiontheir representative in congress for major
places a lot of limits on democracy like the indirectdecisions.
election of the president, undemocratic election ofCritics also point to the fact that the constitution
senators (later fixed by the 17th amendment) anddoes not have clear boundaries between the
many checks and balances on the powers of thepower and authority of the main institutions and
different branches of government. They point outalso regarding the power of the state and federal
that the founding fathers of the constitutiongovernment. They argue that this has led to
believed in the principles of a "Republicanmany confusions and also confrontation regarding
Government" which in reality is a sort of elitethe authority of institutions like the congress and
democracy. Although the critics are correct withthe executive branch and also with regards to the
regards to the worries of the founding fathers inpower of the states and the federal government.
establishing absolute democracy they tend toSome scholars and analysts however see this as
confuse the actual text of the constitution whicha one of the key reasons the constitution has
should be the main area of concentration with thebeen successful over the years. They believe that
interpretations of it in the early days of thethe very survival of the constitution has been due
republic. Incorrect interpretations of theto the substantial room it has left for
constitution are a completely separate matter andinterpretation.
should be addressed in a different context. TheThese scholars believe that being vague on
actual text of the constitution places no majorcontroversial issues was the reason the
limit on elections and democracy [2].constitution was ratified in the first place at a time
The founding fathers like many other scholars inwhen difference of opinion was very strong
the world at the time believed that giving absoluteamong the founding fathers. They point out that
democracy to the people will lead into chaos andthe reason a document drafted over two
eventually to tyranny. However their concern didhundred years ago is still in use today is the fact
not result in an undemocratic constitution. Thethat it has been drafted in a way that can be
fact that they placed many checks and balancesinterpreted differently based on the time period
on different branches of the government, such asand the circumstances otherwise it would have
how the President can veto legislation frombecome gradually obsolete. To prevent
Congress, does not necessarily mean that it ismisinterpretation and drastic changes in the path
undemocratic. In fact, proponents argue that thisof the country the Supreme Court was given the
approach is in tune with the real spirit ofexclusive task of interpreting the constitution.
democracy in which a portion of the populationIn conclusion the US constitution remains one of
cannot force its will on the entire population. Alsothe most progressive constitutions in the world.
with regards to the indirect election of theAt the time of its ratification it was truly
President it should be pointed out that at the earlyrevolutionary in terms of providing equality and
days of the republic, States enjoyed a lot ofliberty for all its citizens. Even though there are
independence and power. This was natural sincehas been some criticism to it in the past century
they had just been united and looked withmost scholars agree that the US constitution with
suspicion and rivalry at other states. The indirectall its strengths and weaknesses is one of the
election of the president was a way to keep themost successful constitutions when compared to
power in the states and at the same time makethe constitution of other countries. The fact that
sure that no single state took control of theit has remained almost unchanged to when it was
country.ratified bears witness to its success.