Who’s Voice?
When our country was in its colonial state way back before the name of United States of America could have been imagined, our forefathers took it upon themselves to revolutionize against the British. The reason was simple: not taxation without representation. They felt like their voices deserved to be heard in the issues that were affecting them. Many years later, after the British had been defeated and our nation was taking its first breaths, the first US Constitution was ratified. It was a monumental occasion in which many consider to be a victory for democracy. But once the undemocratic laws in the Constitution and the reactions by the people to these laws are examined, it becomes apparent that there was a miscommunication between what the people wanted and what the framers of the Constitution wanted.
Most would think that if these people really did speak out about this injustice, we would have heard about it! The truth is, they did, but these reactions were lost to history. One such instance is from a newspaper headline in Rhode Island that called their own delegates “the quintessence of villainy.” They used their immediate resources to display their opinion of their delegates’ policies on salaries of government officials, so they let their anger be known![1] What makes this example in particular so interesting and persuasive is that newspapers tend to print stuff that their readers will agree with or at least read about.[2] So basically, this is a representation of what was, at least, on the minds of the Rhode Island people at this time. The most surprising part of all of this is that the delegates admitted that the reforms and laws they were working on would not be agreed upon by the people. In a letter from Roger Alden, the Deputy Secretary of the Continental Congress, he admitted that “the budget was opened Yesterday and the important secret is now exposed to public view…”[3]Now while governments may have the right to hold secrets, in this letter, Alden discusses not only this “secret” but the groups of people that will not agree with it.[4] This is an obvious show that the forefathers were not in fact working for public interest. They apparently knew that the people of this new country would not be okay with this budget, but they passed it anyway. They may have just been doing what they thought was best for the country, but in doing this, they took away the principle that men gave their lives for during the Revolutionary War. No matter which way you look at it, the American people wanted their voices to be heard, and we know this because they fought for this right a little more than 10 years before.
Next, it’s important to examine the actual Constitution so that the pieces that limit representation inside can be revealed. Before we dive right in, it is important to recognize that the men who wrote and put the Constitution together had their own political motives.[5] These men were not without desires and wishes just like the people. In the end, they did what they believed would was right, but it is the principle in which they passed laws without public approval that will be examined. Without further ado, the first, and the most obvious, is slavery. Most tend to forget that this undemocratic tradition was actually put in our Constitution.[6]It is obvious to anybody that knows the definition of slavery that this takes away the voices of millions of people. Eventually, a division in the country would form out of it, and it would play a major role in the Civil War to come. This shows that roughly half of Americans believed that this tradition did not have a place in our country. Another part of the Constitution which succeeds in subtracting the common people’s representation in government is still present in our country today. This practice is none other than the Electoral College. The way it works is that 538 electors from different states vote to decide the office of President and Vice President. This, in theory, is not something that is democratic.[7] Now while it is true that the people elect these electors to represent them, they could technically vote opposite of what the people want. The people’s voice only makes it halfway to the final destination in this concept. Once they have chosen their electors, the line of direct involvement to the government is severed. To add on to this, even state senators were not chosen by direct elections in the Constitution. These senators were chosen by the state legislature.[8] Both of these instances show exactly where the people’s voice no longer influenced politics. Even to this day, legislators and common people across the country talk about the poor idea that the Electoral College is.
Of course there are tons more of voice-hindering laws in the original Constitution like women’s suffrage. The reason why many of these don’t exist today is that our political system underwent a drastic change during the time known as Reconstruction in which a lot of progressive ideals came about.[9]However, as you can see, once we take a look back at the true history of the Constitution, it’s quite clear that there were some parts that went against the principles fought for in the Revolutionary War, and the people made sure that the forefathers knew about their disapproval. Maybe it’s time to take a step back and truly examine our government to see if it is truly operating how we want it to. After all, our ancestors did sacrifice everything for it?
[1]JM Varnum and Peleg Arnold, “Rhode Island Delegates to George Clinton,” April 7, 1787, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/index.html.
[2]Stephen Solomon, Revolutionary Dissent: How the Founding Generation Created the Freedom of Speech(Martin’s Press, 2016).
[3]Roger Alden, “Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 24 November 6, 1786-February 29, Roger Alden to Unknown,” September 21, 1787, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/index.html.
[4]Alden, “Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 24 November 6, 1786-February 29, Roger Alden to Unknown”
[5]Bradley Watson, Progressive Challenges to the American Constitution (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2017).
[6]Robert Dahl, How Democratic Is the American Constitution, Nota Bene (New Haven, Conneticut: Yale University Press, 2003).
[7]Dahl
[8]Dahl
[9]Bradley Watson, Progressive Challenges to the American Constitution (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2017).
