Anti-Federalists Were Justified in Criticizing the Constitution

In 1789, the United States Constitution became the cornerstone of American society. Before its adoption, however, the drafters of the Constitution had to formulate a system of government that would exist in the United States for years to come. The country's forefathers did not initially agree upon the system of government that would control the new country. Some believed that the new system would not provide the people with enough power. These Anti-Federalists were correct in criticizing the lack of democracy in the Constitution's provisions. Non-democratic qualities, such as election procedures, lack of equality, and a powerless minority are parts of the Constitution.

Many people believe that the general population is adequately represented through the process of voting for an Electoral College. The people are represented by those who are supposed to look out for the common good. It is insinuated that the public's sometimes-uninformed votes may cause damage to the government. They could "accidentally" vote for a something that would eventually cause a degeneration of society just because they were not aware of the issues.

However, others are justified in their claim that the Electoral College is not sufficient representation. The fact that Al Gore, the winner of the popular vote in the 2000 presidential election, did not win a majority of the electoral college votes, and therefore did not become president, shows that there are flaws in the election process as put forth in the Constitution. In the view of our forefathers, this probably should not have happened. The winner of the popular vote should have become President, but because we use the system of representation, George W. Bush won larger states, which have more electoral votes.

Perhaps, instead of allowing other "informed" persons to represent the masses, the government should take more measures to ensure that the masses are informed. It is hard for the population to be informed when the media concentrates more on scandal and murder than on legislation proposals and coverage of lesser-known candidates. At this point in history, we are not even given information about candidates other than the Democratic and Republican nominees. If we are lucky, we may hear about an Independent or Green party candidate, but we remain unaware of the majority of the people who run for office. The role of the two major-party candidates is focused on so thoroughly, that many people are not even aware that there are other candidates. An equal distribution of information throughout the population would allow the people to rightly decide on issues that concern their welfare, rather than allowing other people to make decisions for them.

The population does not get to choose who their Senators or Supreme Court Judges will be. The President appoints judges to the Supreme Court, while state legislators choose Senators. If the Constitution promoted a true democracy, then the general population would vote in every election for government officials, and every vote would count equally. As it stands now, the votes of many citizens do not essentially count. For example, if a Democrat lives in a state with a Republican majority, that state will be likely to choose two Republican electors. Those electors will vote for the Republican presidential candidate in the election, and in the long run, the votes of Democrats in that particular state had no effect upon the election. If we used the popular vote as a tool to determine winners, then everyone would have equal power in the election.

Besides the fact that indirect representation causes problems, another problem with the election process, as set forth in the Constitution, is that the majority silences the voice of the minority. If two-thirds of Congress votes against something, then the one-third who supported it are overpowered. In many cases, the minority will not get what they want unless they work out a compromise with the majority. There are countless cases in which the minority's wishes remain unfulfilled, however, in other cases, such as the presidential election of 2000, both the majority, and the minority was essentially voiceless. The minority will always be essentially voiceless, even though they can make up thirty-three percent of the population.

While the Supreme Court Justices are selected to uphold the values of the Constitution, they can also prevent the adaptation of said Constitution. The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, which allows them to declare a law or proposition unconstitutional. However, they can also rule that a proposed amendment is unconstitutional. While this is a safeguard against the formation of a reactionary government, it can also cause problems. For instance, the President selects the Supreme Court Justices, and the President is selected by the majority (in theory). Therefore, not only do the minority lose executive support, but they have potentially lost judicial support as well. For example, if the United States has a long run of Republican presidents, then after a number of years, those Republican Presidents will have selected a large portion of the Supreme Court Justices. Although in a perfect society, as in the one envisioned by the Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court Justices will have sufficient integrity to allow them to perform their jobs without bias, the President is also going to select officials who are more likely to support his views concerning topics like abortion.

The Bill of Rights, which designates specific rights to citizens of the United States, was not originally a component of the Constitution. It was not added until later, as a way to encourage states to ratify the Constitution. That just shows that the writers of the Constitution were not as concerned with the rights of individuals as they were with creating a lasting government that would not become too tyrannical. They chose to develop a system of Federalism in which a division of powers ensures that each branch will have limited power and will not overthrow the other branches.

However, the division of power makes it extremely tedious and difficult to make any changes, for better, or for worse, to the country. Even though they effectively avoided tyranny, they still should have been more concerned with the individual rights of citizens if they wanted the United States to be a democracy, and though tyranny was avoided, they still made it possible for a slight majority to have complete control.

One of the main principles adhered to by true democracies is the idea that all citizens are equal. Equality was an idea that was supported by the Founding Fathers, as is stated in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal..." However, in the eighteenth century, equality was more of an abstract ideal. In fact, the Constitution was not written to ensure the equality of all citizens. The Bill of Rights pertained only to adult white males, and protected only their interests. The Constitution contained no laws pertaining to slavery, either arguing for, or against it. Women were oppressed as well, and could not vote or participate in government. While women and African-Americans together made up much more than half of the population, they were not protected by the Bill of Rights.

At the time of the Constitution's composition, slavery was still a common practice in the United States, and was not discouraged by the government. Slavery was not abolished until seven decades after the Constitution's adoption. The passing of the Fourteenth Amendment in the late nineteenth century that African Americans were given any rights, women did not receive their rights until the early twentieth century, and it was even longer before African Americans and women were given true equality, after the 1960s Civil Rights movements. A Constitution that was written with a purpose of democracy should not have been written for a minority group, with the idea that that particular minority group (adult white males) would have the power to run the country in which the entire population was to live.

Although it has been fairly successful for the past two hundred years, the Constitution still leaves us with questions concerning areas that are not clearly defined in the document. A strict or loose interpretation of the document can make a world of difference in the way the country is run. One can take the document's words literally, or they can be broadened to pertain to more areas of our present-day lives. The amendment process also allows the document to stay current with the changing times. However, the amendment process is long and tedious. The fact that the Constitution did not grant equality to all citizens of the United States, coupled with the fact that those who could vote were not always fairly represented, makes one question the democracy that was supposed to be created by the Constitution.