Dahl states that the US constitution could have flaws because of the sheer ignorance of the framers. The framers were endowed with credible wisdom in framing the law but could not see imminent things in the future. He supports his statement by stating that even Madison was not in a position to predict Americans future. I strongly agree with the author in this aspect because we live in a dynamic world which requires utmost repealing of laws.

According to Darl, there were several aspects which indicates the specifics lacked by the constitutional framers: The peaceful revolution of democracy changed the functioning way of the constitution. Correspondingly, new political institutions of democracy could be reconstructed or altered following the continuing democratic revolution. European and international democratization created various constitutional frameworks which the constitution of America could imitate.  The liberal beliefs and ideas would also develop to date which would imply a progressive system rather than a static one.

However, the constitutional framers were constrained by opportunities; they overvalued republicanism avoiding aristocracy or monarchy; there existed 13 states and other imminent ones, but they desired a sovereign central government. They also had to compromise many things to establish the Constitution. I agree with this point because the framers did not even consider abolitionist ideations but recommended both smaller and larger states senatorial representation. Dahl supports the compromises made by the constitution frames citing the always imperfect nature of governments.  This author concluded that the framers considered dynamically imminent conditions.

I agree that it was imperative for the framers to compromise because th,e move could establish a credible constitution and government. Moreover, American law underestimated the vigor of the progressing commitments of democracy among Americans while overestimating the risk of the majorities. Albeit Dahl considers the mistakes dangerous and hence detrimental in future, I disagree with him since the constitution of America will always remain because of the advantage it offers through ensuring democracy to the citizens.

Dahl unravels a lot of shortcomings in the American constitution. In this perspective, I see that Darl is considering it undemocratic due to its flaws. Of course, I agree with him that there are many mistakes in the constitution, but it is worth noting that there is nothing which is good lacks an error. This point, therefore, requires further development.

I agree with Dahl that even though the constitution did not initially have a clause supporting slavery, it never allowed anyone to practice it. Also, the law did not promote suffrage albeit it promoted equality for all. The constitution also did not support any policy that encouraged democracy in the United States. I agree with Dahl in this case because the law allowed the judiciary to abuse the powers conferred to it by the constitution.

Dahl argues that the framers did not consider incorporating equality. In this way, he misses the point.  The Bill of Rights assures everyone some fundamental rights and freedoms which prevents people from any form of discrimination.  Although the framers at the time of framing the constitution could not acknowledge many equality issues, it later came out that servitude was ended, women started voting, racism started subsiding and freedom to vote began. The implication of this is that the point of the constitution not incorporating equality requires further development.

In conclusion, the main ideas include the fact that the constitutional framers were ignorant about the future as they made the constitution,  compromises were made in its creation, and immediate opportunities constrained the framers. The equality issue needs further development.

references

 
Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?