American Politics: Evolution of the US Constitution and People's Will

This essay delves into the historical context and key debates surrounding the US Constitution, focusing on the central question of how the 'will of the people' was to be represented and protected. It examines the differing viewpoints of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, particularly concerning the structure of government, the election of senators, and the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The essay highlights the compromises made during the ratification process and the evolution of the Constitution, including the eventual shift towards direct election of senators. It concludes by analyzing the extent to which the American political system has succeeded in fostering the will of the people, acknowledging limitations and ongoing challenges in ensuring representation and accountability.

Running head: American Politics 1
Institution
Name
Date

American Politics 2
The US constitution got debated in 1787 in which two critical areas of observation
emerged. The first area of interest was on who was ready to represent the will of the people.
Another bone of contention was about if the debate of the constitution will lead to the economic
and the political goodwill for the ordinary people or the political inner circle friends (Kelly,
Harbison & Belz, 1991). The debate was not just a discussion for either side to win or lose but it
was a severe issue for power. The contest got heavily focused on where power would be vested
and the direction it would take. The constitutional drafters made a sharp and clear reservation in
regards to human rights and democracy. The authors of the constitution did believe that the only
way for the will of the people to be boosted and protected was through the implementation of the
law (Scholz, 1986). Although on the contrary, the will of the people got limited when the people
did not get the right to elect senators of their choice but instead the members of the house of
representatives did it. In such a case, the will of the people is not represented at the Senate since
the senators are not directly accountable to the ordinary people. Madison and Hamilton, the
leading federalists, argued that the criteria for choosing the Senate representatives did not take
into interest the will of the people. The requirements got based on how rich, the age bracket, the
strength of social class and the aristocratic power one had in swaying the US Senate (Forbes &
Gill, 1988). By electing such leaders to act as senators provided stronger grounds for limiting the
powers of leaders in the House of Representatives who were directly elected by the people.
The Federalists held that the crucial role of the government was to have control over her
citizens and their ability rule on the excesses. Whereas the antifederalists who were not
supporting the constitutional amendments opposed that the view of the government is the
controller of her citizens and other rules of law excesses. The Antifederalists argued that there
was little to show cowardice actions on fighting for the famous people’s will through the gained

American Politics 3
democracy (Lehman, Prewitt & Stone, 1975). The Federalists argued that the role of the
government was to reflect on the people’s views and have their rights protected, as the people
playing the role of supporting and checking on their leader’s development progress agenda. In
the end, the heated debates between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists came to an end, the
federalists have won and had the constitution amended to allow the chosen senators to got
created by the legislative arm of the state and not by the will of the people. The amended law
held that the US Senate should get constituted of two senators who were to represent a single
state, these senators were to be elected by the legislature arm (Etzioni-Halevy, 1997). It further
stated that one senator had a single vote.
Robert-Ak- Lafollette who had earlier on served as the US Senator, his efforts with other
federalists in the year 1913 made it possible for the US constitution to undergo amendments to
create room for the direct and popular vote way of electing US senators. The law outrightly
stated that the newly chosen senators would serve for six years in office in which two senators
represented a single state and for each senator, he/she had only one vote (Eisenstadt, 1971).
Further, Lafollette mentioned that for the will of people to be respected and boosted by the US
government called for the united efforts of men who would work aggressively on what they
believed is correct if indeed they wanted the government to get salvaged from evil-minded men
supporting the government for evil motives.
Despite the US constitution having been supported overwhelmingly and its completion in
the Philadelphia in the year 1787, it still needed to undergo ratification before its implementation
and promulgation as a legal binding document. This constitution for the US had highlighted on
the government’s structure, arms, powers and her limits in applying the enclosed laws
(Hofstadter, 2004). The ratification process called for at least nine states out of the total 13 states

American Politics 4
to offer and back up its approval before it takes into effect. It would get remembered that the
proposal of the US constitution did not show any fostering of the will of the people since it
primarily focused on the power-sharing between the governments of the state and the federal
one. According to the Kornblith and Murrin, 2005, the Constitutional proposal faced stiff
opposition from many states which included the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, the
state of Rhode Island and that of the New York. The procedure of approving the proposed
constitution was a genuine debate in which the leaders focused more on the rules, core values
and the various institutions through which the citizens would get ruled (Leinwand, 1964). The
heated debate had aimed at determining the kind of government that would get formed for the
US nation. The form in which the current government should best fit in.
Further, the manner in which people will get represented in the formed government and
how the sitting government would deliver her best for the joint protection, welfare promotion
and the security for the liberty of the people. The two opposing groups got involved in the
ratification process of the proposed constitution. These rival parties as earlier on mentioned were
the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists in which the Federalists carried the day.
The Federalists who were in support of the US Constitutional proposition and those who
were against it, the Anti-Federalists both had broadly agreed on many of the principles such as;
they both decided that the central role of the government was to promote the people’s liberty and
have it ever protected. Further, the two parties were also in agreement on the government’s
power limits. Lastly, the opposing groups agreed that the form of government that would protect
the people’s liberty and observe the power limit is the Republican government (Hofstadter,
1959). For the will of the people to have a way in the US Constitution preposition, the
Federalists felt to ensure people’s liberty protection was essential and would only get achieved

American Politics 5
through a firm government that got founded on a system which is federal and not that of a
confederacy. Also, the supporters of the constitution strongly believed that the central type of
government would allow for close monitoring from other organs of the government. The federal
government would still allow for the power-sharing in all the arms of the government with
strong checks and power balances (Gillespie & Lienesch, 1989). Furthermore, the supporters of
the constitution did believe that the voice of the people would undergo ‘filtration’ via the
bicameral law-making organ, senators to serve for six years and have people’s representation in
the House of Representatives from the densely populated regions of the Congress. Through such
representations, the will of the people would get fostered in the government.
The Federalists believed that through the election of leaders to represent the densely
populated districts in the House of Representatives would boost the fostering of the will of the
people. Since the elected leaders would air the grievances of the people, they represent and
would be answerable directly to their voters (Johnson, 2013). Also, the leaders would go an
extra mile in achieving the developmental goals they did promise their voters throughout the
campaign period. On the contrary, the Anti-Federalists felt that the plan for the Federalists to
have the scheme of leaders elected from the majority congressional districts and serve for a term
of six years would form a basis for the leaders to stay away from their people (Stampp, 1990).
Such would create a chance for the leaders to forget the purpose of their election and focus much
on their self-interests and not on the will of the people since they will not get held accountable
by their voters any soon. The Anti-Federalists further argued that if power got left on the hands
of the people, it would be easier for them to counter and curb corruption issues in the federal
government.

American Politics 6
In conclusion, the will of the people remains limited and victimized. The government
continues to be run by a few people who are rich, very old, unwise, from wealthier and superior
economic classes. These rich folks are never concerned about the issues affecting the common
man as well as committing to their vows for a developmental agenda during the campaign
period. When the ordinary people try to access their leaders to launch their complaints they
never succeed since they will never get attended by the so-called ‘busy leaders’ (Hernon, 1989).
People’s will suffer setbacks for the next six years and then awake for other false promises from
those looking for power or those seeking to get retained for the next term. According to the
assigned readings the American political system has tried to foster the will of the power to some
extent, but it has failed in other areas to meet the people’s expectations.

American Politics 7
References
Eisenstadt, S. (1971). Political sociology. New York: Basic Books.
Etzioni-Halevy, E. (1997). Classes and elites in democracy and democratization. New York:
Garland Pub.
Forbes, B., & Gill, S. (1988). Mother Earth: An American Story. The Journal Of American
History, 75(3), 884. doi: 10.2307/1901544
Gillespie, M., & Lienesch, M. (1989). Ratifying the Constitution. Lawrence, Kan.: University
Press of Kansas.
Hernon, P. (1989). The role of U.S. libraries and information centers in fostering
competitiveness. Government Information Quarterly, 6(1), 47-58. doi: 10.1016/0740-
624x(89)90047-6
Hofstadter, R. (1959). The American Republic. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Hofstadter, R. (2004). The American political tradition, and the men who made it. New York:
ACLS History E-Book Project.
Johnson, C. (2013). JURGEN HEIDEKING. The Constitution before the Judgment Seat: The
Prehistory and Ratification of the American Constitution, 1787-1791. The American
Historical Review, 118(1), 176-177. doi: 10.1093/ahr/118.1.176
Kelly, A., Harbison, W., & Belz, H. (1991). The American Constitution. New York: Norton.

American Politics 8
Lehman, E., Prewitt, K., & Stone, A. (1975). The Ruling Elites: Elite Theory, Power, and
American Democracy. Contemporary Sociology, 4(3), 276. doi: 10.2307/2063219
Leinwand, G. (1964). The American Constitution. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
Scholz, J. (1986). Regulatory Enforcement in a Federalist System. The American Political
Science Review, 80(4), 1249. doi: 10.2307/1960866