The first idea that presents itself to the reader is fairly interesting: "Is the Constitution really equal?" Many rights are certainly guaranteed and protected by the Constitution, but these "rights" only applied to, like the reading said, Caucasian men who owned land. Does "We the People" not apply to the whole population, which consisted of women, slaves, and men without property as well as the rich? People were angered at the bluntness of Beard's statements. Personally, I agree with him. Beard stated that the rich "must, in their own interest, either control the government directly or control the laws by which government operates"; the Founding Fathers did just that. In both 8th and 11th grade, where we dove deeper into the history of the United States, my teachers stated that the Constitution was meant to be "equal," but it was written by wealthy Caucasian men (the popular quote from Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" comes to mind). This leads me to my first question: If ALL people were not included in the Constitution (at the beginning, at least), were things really "equal"?
Thomas Jefferson's opinion about how rebellion is a good thing is interesting. What are other people's opinions about this statement? I personally agree; it is a sort of "test" that the government faces: can it hold out against a rebellion or not?
It seems that to Madison and Hamilton that the government is a role model, or a "leader" to the people. They call a "well-constructed Senate" a necessitity that provides "defence to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions." However, what if the government itself makes their own mistakes? Did the founding fathers consider there would be corruption in the government itself?
How come the Supreme Court did not rule the Sedition Act unconstitutional? Technically, it would have denied the people's rights to free speech - if they were to be "punished" for what they said, why have the first amendment at all?
No comments:
Post a Comment