Since the US Constitution reflected conservative English opinion about slavery, failed to create a single state (as, for example Machiavelli had worked for), and enfranchised neither African Americans nor women, what was ‘revolutionary’ about it?
While the US constitution was not revolutionary in the social sense it was in the political sense. The US constitution was a radical idea to create a new nation which tested the balance between government and the people and between the legislative and the executive.
In 1776 the idea to form a government, that aimed to correct the transgressions the people under British rule, was a risky gamble. The constitution was meant to find a way to allow for governmental power as well as personal liberties, two ideas which previously had not been mutually beneficial. To return power to the people they played with the idea of popular sovereignty in which the American people would have liberties as well as a government. The people would be in power but they would also elect who governed them.
Another radical element to the US constitution was the change of power from executive to legislative branch. In Section 8, the constitution gives congress the power to “lay and collect Taxes,” “borrow money,” “declare war,” and to “raise and support armies” etc. While the executive branch still has power, the Legislative branch was granted more power than other governments had traditionally allowed such a body to hold. Separation of powers between the three branches also promoted the people’s liberty so that no one portion of government had all the control over the country.
I would contend that while yes, the Constitution was revolutionary in that it pushed a new kind of political structure forward, it was also incredibly reserved in crafting that political structure, leaving a lot up to later interpretation.
ReplyDeleteWhile the separation of powers is absolutely crucial to the Constitution, the legislative branch (as Emma noted) did have considerably more power within the structure of the Constitution. However, a great deal of that power still fell to the social and political elite in the Senate - we see reasoning for this in Madison's writings and the Virginia Plan in advocating for a bicameral legislature. This plan was inherently cautious in establishing and outlining the separation of powers; yes, the legislature would have power, but the Senate would be able to conduct and guide most of that power (rather than more populist House). In this way, separation of powers, even within the three branches, was reserved.