AmericanFederalGovernment
MO-MO
Topic-Discussion2CompletebySundayNov.6.pdf
This is a graded discussion: 30 points possible
due -
Discussion 2 (Complete by
Sunday, Nov. 6) 20 20
This discussion aligns with Learning Outcomes 1, 2, and 4
Democracy, at its core, is centered on the idea that individuals can, in fact,
rule themselves. This concept is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution as we
know it today. However, early on the American Constitution was not a sound,
democratic document. In particular, the idea of popular sovereignty; that is,
the will of the people, was not extended to everyone. For example, as you
read this week, the framers, for a time, chose to retain slavery in the new
Republic. In addition to slavery, in what other areas was the Constitution of
1788 less than democratic? In what ways has the Constitution, since then,
become more democratic? Be sure to provide examples to support your
claims.
Submission
Our discussions are a valuable opportunity to have thoughtful conversations
regarding a specific topic. You are required to provide a comprehensive
initial post with 3-4 well-developed paragraphs that include a topic
sentence and at least 3-5 supporting sentences with additional details,
11/4/22, 1:30 AM Page 1 of 29
Search entries or author
Reply
explanations, and examples. In addition, you are required to respond
substantively to the initial posts of at least two other classmates on two
different days. All posts should be reflective and well written, meaning free
of errors in grammar, sentence structure, and other mechanics.
Grading
This discussion is worth 30 points toward your final grade and will be
graded using the Discussion Rubric. Please use it as a guide toward
successful completion of this discussion. For information on how to view the
rubric, refer to this Canvas Community Guide (https://community.canvaslms.com/docs/DOC-10577-4212540120) .
Unread Subscribe
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/135004)
Sarkis Boyajian (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/135004)
Tuesday
11/4/22, 1:30 AM Page 2 of 29
Reply
The Constitution of 1788 lacked democracy because it did not protect
the people’s beliefs. Religion influences people’s morality. And morality is
a key component of personal convictions. People’s convictions influence
how they want to be governed and how they vote. The first amendment to
the Constitution provided protection to the people’s beliefs by restricting
Congress from making laws respective to an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The Constitution of 1788 lacked democracy because it did not protect
the people’s expression. Speech is the cornerstone of sharing thoughts
and ideas. The sharing of thoughts and ideas influences people’s
opinions. People’s opinions influence how they want to be governed and
how they vote. The first amendment to the Constitution provided
protection to people’s expression by restricting Congress from making
laws respective to abridging the freedom of speech.
The Constitution of 1788 lacked democracy because not everyone
subject to it had representation. The 1700s constitution was the law of
the land. But it wasn’t until the 1800s that voting rights were extended to
all races. And it wasn’t until the 1900s that voting rights were extended
to all sexes. The fifteenth and nineteenth amendments to the constitution
extended the right of representation to everyone.
References:
The Bill of Rights: What Does it Say?. (2022). Retrieved from archives.gov:
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights/what-does-it-say (https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights/what-does-it-say)
The Constitution: Amendments 11-27. (2022). Retrieved from
archives.gov: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11- 27 (https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27)
11/4/22, 1:30 AM Page 3 of 29
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/10700)
Rosita Yaworskir (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/10700)
Tuesday
Sarkis, I think you are on the right path when you say, Religion
influences people’s morality. And morality is a key component of
personal convictions. People’s convictions influence how they want to
be governed and how they vote. You were also on the right path when
you wrote Speech is the cornerstone of sharing thoughts and ideas.
The sharing of thoughts and ideas influences people’s opinions.
People’s opinions influence how they want to be governed and how
they vote. However, the constitution, when it was written was
attempting to join essentially 13 separate countries under one
umbrella government with very limited powers. WhiteHouse.Gov
shares, "A chief aim of the Constitution as drafted by the Convention
was to create a government with enough power to act on a national
level, but without so much power that fundamental rights would be at
risk" (para. 3). The Constitution did the job it was meant to do at a
time it was needed. I don't think it "lacked democracy", especially
since the word democracy never appears in it. It brought 13 very
different view points into one cohesive but on-edge country. The
amendments, especially the Bill of Rights, helped move the country
forward but the point of the constitution was to be minimal while
providing form while allowing each state its own rights to govern their
own people.
11/4/22, 1:30 AM Page 4 of 29
Reply
References
The United States Government. (2021, January 20). The Constitution.
The White House. Retrieved November 1, 2022, from
https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-
government/the-
constitution/#:~:text=the%20United%20States.-,The%20Constitutio
nal%20Convention,rights%20would%20be%20at%20risk.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/89114)
Amanda Kimball (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/89114)
Tuesday
Reply
Sarkis, I agree that religion influences moral and moral influences
how citizens want to be governed, how they want to live and they will
vote accordingly. The Constitution seems well thought out, however,
how did so many injustices pass through? While I am grateful for the
amendments that provide freedoms and rights, I am still so very
perplexed how the abolishment of slavery was 13th on the list of
amendments. To me it seems like one of the most basic injustices of
the Constitution as originally written. How do 2 different times think
so differently if we're all human?
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/1404)
11/4/22, 1:30 AM Page 5 of 29
Christine Hansen (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/1404)
Tuesday
Reply
Sarkis,
Freedom of religion is one of the key protections in the Constitution.
It's so important that this was added. On the world stage, we see any
number of countries that don't have our protections. In China, the
Uyghurs have their DNA and blood taken, their fingerprints taken,
their eyes scanned, and have barcodes put on their front doors to
monitor them.
In Iran, women are being killed for protesting religious head
coverings.
Dr. Hansen
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/42689)
Larita Miggins (She/Her) (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/42689)
Yesterday
11/4/22, 1:30 AM Page 6 of 29
Reply
Hello Sarkis,
I totally agree with the lack of representation and freedoms. Being
that slavery was part of the compromises in this document, I believe
the lack of inclusion was not just purposeful. Without the right of all
voices then there was no debating the withheld freedoms. As you
pointed out the Amendments to our constitution granted voting rights
which subsequently granted the freedom to heard
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/135735)
Calvin Oglesby (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/135735)
Yesterday
Reply
Sarkis,
I don't think that it lacked, "Democracy". I think much of it was open-
ended and allowed for a point of reference to be elaborated on. As
it's the foundational document for a government all roads lead to it.
The Constitution is that fundamental and principal instrument that
all existent interpretations within our political system is based upon;
and, I consider that process to be, 'democratic', as it allows
something for constantly evolving specific Federal and State rules
[and procedures] to be built upon. I think that if the Constitution was
more specific that it would lack that inherent ability to be
'democratic'.
11/4/22, 1:30 AM Page 7 of 29
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/10700)
Rosita Yaworskir (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/10700)
Tuesday
The constitution, based on the discussion board scenario, was not a
sound, democratic document. The document failed to secure equal
rights for all citizens to include the retention of slavery in the new
Republic. However, not all of the inhabitants of the United States were
treated equally under the constitution. Since the constitution’s inception,
there have been amendments to extend equality of freedom and rights
beyond the original text.
The Constitution and the first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of
Rights, did not specifically provide all people equal freedoms. For
example, the constitution did not specifically allow for women to own or
have property rights. The Bill of Rights, in the ninth amendment, “The
Ninth Amendment states that Americans have other, unwritten rights that
are not spelled out in the American constitution” (Hall, et. al., 2022).
Women were not guaranteed property rights.
The constitution promoted democracy but when not attempting to install
a democracy. Its purpose was to establish a Republic which is was
meant to be of the people, by the people, for the people. However, the
constitution, much like the ninth amendment, was not attempting to set
all the rules, freedoms or even limitation on people. The framers were
attempting to empower people with freedom while also limiting the
federal government. The constitution is a Federal document and the
framers were attempting to keep the federal government from
overstepping its purpose while allowing the states the freedom to govern
themselves. Women not getting property rights, slavery and other
11/4/22, 1:30 AM Page 8 of 29
Reply
themselves. Women not getting property rights, slavery and other
examples of what the constitution failed to address, in many ways, were
intentional. The framers were empowering each of its member states as
much freedom to govern their constituents as possible. Again, the state
governments were meant to be of the people, for the people, and by the
people. Additionally, the states or original colonies were each basically
countries of their own. In this perspective, these countries joined a
union for limited privileges and protections. It could be compared to
today’s European Union in which the member countries retain their own
sovereignty while conceding on limited, common issues.
The constitution could have encroach a wider swath of rights for
indigenous people, slaves and women however the framers ceded federal
authority in order to secure a stronger and larger union of states.
References
Daniel Hall, Simmons, G., Sullivan, M., Baker, M., Saez, A., & Lara, M.
(2022, July 11). What enumerated and unenumerated rights does an
American have? Constitution of the United States. Retrieved October 31,
2022, from https://constitutionus.com/constitution/rights/ what-
enumerated-and-unenumerated-rights-does-an-american-have/#:~:text=
While%20unenumerated%20rights%20include%20the,The%20right%2
0to%20bear%20arms.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/135004)
Sarkis Boyajian (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/135004)
11/4/22, 1:30 AM Page 9 of 29
Tuesday
Reply
Rosita, thank you for your perspective. And thank you for your
response to my post in this discussion. I will add that we must
remember what the founders were escaping from… a tyrannical
government that did not offer all of its people fair representation.
Enshrining voting rights for all races and sexes was inevitable.
Unfortunately, it just took some time.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/89114)
Amanda Kimball (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/89114)
Tuesday
The first American political system known as the Articles of Confederation
was established to ensure democracy and protection of the newly formed
US’s citizens in 1777. After it became aware to American citizens and the
U.S. government that the Articles of Confederation had shortcomings,
inefficiencies and appeared to be unsustainable, particularly after Shay’s
rebellion clearly demonstrated the weaknesses of the Articles of
Confederation, our Founding Fathers convened at a Constitutional
Convention in 1787 initially meant to reform the Articles. Rather, the
Articles were replaced with the U.S. Constitution we now know today.
This Constitution guaranteed certain rights to be enforced under a
democracy. Just as the Article of Confederation showed inefficiencies,
through changes in society, public outcry, campaigns for change and
through a democratic process of legislation, changes were made to
11/4/22, 1:30 AM Page 10 of 29
Reply
protect our citizens and country in more modern times and gradually
provide more equal rights with Amendments such as the abolishment of
slavery, the ability for women and minorities to vote, defining what a
marriage is, etc.
Over 11,000 Amendments have been formally proposed to the U.S.
Constitution, however, only 27 have been ratified. The first 10 of these
Amendments are known as the Bill of Rights. These Amendments were
ratified to promote citizens rights as they were meant by the U.S.
Constitution. Times and society changes. One century does not face the
same challenges as other centuries and evolution of our society is
constantly demanding change to support the popular belief of the people
such as gay rights and abortion rights. The Constitution initially supported
slavery. This is a perfect example of how society evolves. I can't imagine a
single person in our era that would ever think this would be ok. It’s
absolutely insane to think that anyone ever did or why any justification for
such a practice was ever accepted. This example alone supports the need
for such amendments to the governing Constitution.
Changes in the definition of marriage, the abolishment of slavery, equal
voting rights, trial by jury rights and fair state representation all show how
the Constitution has become more democratic over time. Change is slow
but through the democratic process, the Constitution is slowly evolving to
support the modern ideas of the democracy.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/135004)
Sarkis Boyajian (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/135004)
Tuesday
11/4/22, 1:30 AM Page 11 of 29
Reply
Amanda, great post. And thank you for your response to my post in
this discussion. Your post got me wondering so I did some searching.
Apparently, depending on how you define slavery, it still exists in the
form of forced labor, forced marriage, and commercial exploitation.
This affects approximately 50 million people worldwide!
Reference:
What is Modern Slavery. (2022). Retrieved from antislavery.org:
https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/modern-slavery (https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/modern-slavery)
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/134038)
Kiyana Douglas (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/134038)
Wednesday
11/4/22, 1:30 AM Page 12 of 29
Reply
Written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in operation since 1789, the united
states constitution is the world's longest surviving written charter of
government. It's first three words- "We The People"- affirm that the
government of the United States exists to serve its citizens. The
supremacy of the people through their elected representatives is
recognized in Article 1, which creates a Congress consisting of a senate
and a house of representatives. The positioning of congress at the
beginning of the constitution affirms its status as the "First Branch" of
the federal government.
The constitution assigned to
congress responsibility for organizing the executive and judicial
branches, raising revenue, declaring war, and making all laws necessary
for executing these powers. The president is permitted to veto specific
legislative acts, but congress has the authority to override presidential
vetoes by two-thirds majorities of both houses. The constitution also
provides that the senate advise and consent on key executive and
judicial appointments and on the approval for ratification of treaties.
For over two centuries the constitution has remained in force
because its framers successfully separated and balanced government
powers to safe guard the interests of majority rule and minority rights, of
liberty and equality, and of the federal and state governments. More a
concise statement of national principles than a detailed plan of
government operation, the constitution has evolved to meet the changing
needs of a modern society profoundly different from the eighteenth
century world in which its creators lived. to date, the constitution has
been amended 27 times, most recently in 1992. The first ten
amendments constitute the bill of rights.
11/4/22, 1:30 AM Page 13 of 29
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/135735)
Calvin Oglesby (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/135735)
Wednesday
I believe that the U.S. Constitution was designed to be and always
remain Democratic. The Constitution being described as the document
that, "defines the fundamental law of the U.S. federal government, setting
forth the three principal branches of the federal government and
outlining their jurisdictions" (U.S. Senate, 2022). The word "jurisdiction",
comes from the Latin 'iūs', meaning "law", and 'dīcō', meaning, "to
declare" (Wiktionary). The word 'diction', further is described as, "the
choice and use of words and phrases in speech or writing"
(Dictionary.com). It may be understood that in a sense jurisdiction, or
the Rule of Law are the composites of the words that form the documents
which outline law[s] to then be applied and interpreted. Our jurisdiction
may then be considered in this context as the English Language, and as
there is no 'official language of the U.S.' most legal documents are
prepared in English. English is also the official language of the State of
Florida (Fla. Constitution, Art. 2, Sec. 9(a), 1968).
In interpreting and contemplating the wording of the United States
Constitution, the one word which stands out to me above all other words
is the word "shall". The word "shall" is riddled almost through every single
paragraph of the Constitution; and, of the original Constitution, the only
section void of this word appears to be the Preamble which professes to,
"secure the Blessings of Liberty". Within the Bill of Rights [the first ten
Amendments], the only section which does not include the word, "shall",
is the Tenth Amendment which declares; "The powers not delegated to
the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,
are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" (U.S.
11/4/22, 1:30 AM Page 14 of 29
Constitution, 1787). I believe that the exclusion of the word 'shall' in
these two sections is key to the insight of the Framers of the
Constitution. The latter describing in essence that whatever is not
described in law is left to the Sovereignty of States and ultimately
individuals, allowing the law to maintain its fluidity and be established
throughout the course of time.
One interesting thing to me about the word, "shall", [as it's not a word
that is commonly used in our language today] is its apparent common
misconception to mean, "must", or to be a mandatory command. In
actuality, the word, 'shall', could mean many things: "may, might, or must",
"maybe or maybe not", and/or, "should or should not", and it can even be
a hybrid word (J.D. Supra, 2021). It's a word that denotes choice and
permits discretion which allows for law to shape. For instance, the
Freedom of Speech Clause of the First Amendment; "Congress shall
make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or the press", is more
clearly described by the State of Florida in its Constitution; "Every person
may speak, write and publish sentiments on all subjects but shall be
responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain
or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press" (Fla. Constitution, Art. 1,
Sec. 4, 1968), and in accord with the Federal Law, Florida goes further in
expressing that there are some forms of expression that essentially aren't
[or may not be at some time in the future] appropriate; and I believe
most people can agree that is true.
In consideration of the aforementioned, the First Amendment of the
Constitution as it applies here could then be interpreted as; "[There]
should be no law abridging the freedom of speech or the press, and
every person may speak, write and publish sentiments on all subjects but
should be responsible for the abuse of the right", i.e. there exists
[possible] consequences to [abuse of] this right. Another example would
be the Second Amendment which reads: "...the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". I also believe that most people
11/4/22, 1:30 AM Page 15 of 29
and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". I also believe that most people
would agree that there are a number of hypothetical [and real] situations
where it's probably not in the best interests of the general public [or
individuals] for certain individuals, or individuals [or groups] under
certain circumstances to possess firearms [if that is what is meant by the
word, "Arms"]. If the word, "must" was used in both of these
Amendments, things may be very different.
Taking into consideration the entire Constitution and shedding light on
the word, "shall", I believe it is easy to ultimately understand how this key
document was framed with a with a fluid capacity. This ability allows it to
be affected by circumstance, and have its influence molded and
improved through [with] the course of time. The additional incorporation
of common law judgments [and improved statutory law], the applications
of both reason and general common sense; and a consideration of the
ultimate will of individuals which compose the people, et cetera, I believe
all clearly express that the fabric of the United States Constitution was
set with a true sense of Democracy in mind...which all may or might not
be possible without employment of the word, "Shall".
References
Constitution. U.S. Senate: Constitution. (2022, April 5). Retrieved
November 2, 2022, from
https://www.senate.gov/reference/Index/Constitution.htm
Jurisdiction. Wiktionary. (n.d.). Retrieved November 2, 2022, from
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jurisdiction
Dictionary.com. (n.d.). Diction definition & meaning. Dictionary.com.
Retrieved November 2, 2022, from
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/diction
The Florida Senate. The Florida Constitution - The Florida Senate. (1968).
Retrieved November 2, 2022, from
11/4/22, 1:30 AM Page 16 of 29
Edited by Calvin Oglesby (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/135735) on Nov 2 at 4:25pm
Reply
https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Constitution
National Archives and Records Administration. (n.d.). The Constitution of
the United States (1787): A transcription. National Archives and Records
Administration. Retrieved November 2, 2022, from
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
Canceling the word "shall" in leases, contracts and legal forms. JD Supra.
(2021). Retrieved November 2, 2022, from
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/canceling-the-word-shall-in-leases-
3494337/
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/10700)
Rosita Yaworskir (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/10700)
Wednesday
11/4/22, 1:30 AM Page 17 of 29
Reply
Good post. I thought you break down of language was important to
the topic. One part of the definition of shall you may have overlooked
was inevitable. However, I don't really think the constitution was
meant to be fluid and ever-changing but to be flexible enough to
cover the topics without having to be overly verbose. You ended with
"I believe all clearly express that the fabric of the United States
Constitution was set with a true sense of Democracy in mind". I
agree but the constitution also clearly sets the standard for our
government to be a Republic which differs from a democracy. The
word democracy never appears and the use of democracy in its
description would delineate from its language.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/134301)
Tyler Fletcher (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/134301)
Wednesday
When the framers drafted the constitution you can see they had an idea
of democracy, But they took that idea of democracy and used it to only
benefit the rich elite white man. I think as a whole the idea of
democracy was their intention. After freeing themselves of a tyranny
government the framers knew they wanted to create a a governing body
that allowed "the people" to control it. "the people" being the group who
drafted the constitution. It's hard to consider for a lot of people because
the majority population can see the bill of rights for what it was.
11/4/22, 1:30 AM Page 18 of 29
The hypocrisy alone in the Second Amendment "the right to bear arms"
speaks volumes. The Second Amendment states" “A well regulated
Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” but slaves in some
states couldn't even own a gun. Other state laws that were put in place
said slaves couldn't carry or be around a gun after 9 o clock at night. To
me that isn't democracy that is just bending a rule to benefit another
group of people, all because that group of people were scared of slave
insurrections.
The Constitution has changed quite a bit since 1778 for example the
24th amendment. The 24th amendment states "The right of citizens of
the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or
Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator
or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the
United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other
tax.". Basically in 1964 the governing body of the United States still had
so many restrictions on voting even though the time in between this
amendment and the original document. After this women still could not
vote until 1969.
University of Minneosota. All Amendments to the United States of the
constitution.
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/education/all_amendments_usconst.htm (http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/education/all_amendments_usconst.htm)
Milwaukee Independent. The hypocrisy of American Rights: What
Constitutional Means in a Nation Created Unequal.
http://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/featured/the-hypocrisy-of-
american-rights-what-constitutional-entitlement-means-in-a-nation-
11/4/22, 1:30 AM Page 19 of 29
Reply
created-unequal/
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/135735)
Calvin Oglesby (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/135735)
Wednesday
Tyler,
Good post. A few thoughts come to mind. The first concerns, "The
Transportation Act of 1717", also known as, "The Piracy Act of 1717"
(Wikimedia). This British Act allowed [in part] for the transport of
felons [and ultimately those in debt] to be transported to America
and furthered the 'peopling' of these [already inhabited] lands; and
over time [possibly from the "necessary" beginning] this was an issue,
and so to some extent, I disagree with the motive of some expressed
concerns the Founding Fathers may have had. Benjamin Franklin
wrote in a "Mock Petition to the House of Commons", that: "the
Transporting of Felons from England to the Plantations in America, is
and hath long been a great Grievance to the said Plantations in
general..." (Franklin, 1766). When Georgia was first established,
advertisements in Europe hailed the land of the newly established
Colony, as "the Most delightful Country of the Universe"; this being an
option to, "debtor's prison[s]". And, you mentioned the word,
"tyranny", which reminded me also of Thomas Jefferson's draft of the
11/4/22, 1:30 AM Page 20 of 29
"tyranny", which reminded me also of Thomas Jefferson's draft of the
Declaration of Independence where he writes, "...against human
nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the
persons of a distant people who never offended [him]" (Jefferson,
1776); so I feel like there was/is some degree of a true/genuine
concern and care in their [the Founding Fathers'] intent despite that
often being argued against.
Another point that often seems disregarded is how well-populated
the lands of America were before the arrival of the Spanish; and that
once Christianity arrived, the transition wasn't an overnight thing. In
the Papal Bull, "Inter Caetera", Alexander VI, describes the lands of
the Americas as that, "wherein dwell very many peoples living in
peace..." (Alexander, 1493). These lands were lived upon before our
arrival[s]. The people here had systems of government, agriculture,
religion, language, science, and so on. Historically, the one thing
these/those people may have lacked is a well-regulated militia and a
centrally organized government. The strongest opposition to our
political system was likely those, "native inhabitants" of the Americas.
The history of this is well [and not so well] documented and seems
to have succumbed at the end of the Seminole conflict[s] in the Mid-
Nineteenth Century. We can choose to see the good in it.
A couple of Amendments are mentioned in your post, which
prompted me to contemplate what I consider to be a very important
and unique Amendment listed in the Bill of Rights--and that's the
Eighth Amendment, which reads: "Excessive bail shall not be
required, nor excessive fines be imposed, nor cruel and unusual
punishments inflicted" (U.S. Bill of Rights, Amend. 8, 1791). The
reason I find this article so interesting is that it is the only
Amendment that distinctly parallels [incorporates] the 1689 English
Bill of Rights, wherein it reads, "That excessive bail ought not to be
required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual
11/4/22, 1:30 AM Page 21 of 29
Edited by Calvin Oglesby (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/135735) on Nov 3 at 9:20am
Reply
punishments inflicted." (English Bill of Rights, Art. 1, Sec. 10, 1689).
References
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, October 6). Piracy act 1717. Wikipedia.
Retrieved November 2, 2022, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy_Act_1717
Franklin, B., Lemay, J. A. L. (1987). Writings ['1722-1790' Volume
Edition]: Essays, Articles, Bagatelles, and Letters. Poor Richard's
Almanack. Autobiography. United States: Literary Classics of the
United States (pp 582-583)
Declaring independence: Drafting the documents Jefferson's "original
rough draught" of The declaration of independence. Library of
Congress. (1995, July 4). Retrieved November 2, 2022, from
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html
The bull inter caetera (Alexander VI), May 4, 1493. The Bull Inter
Caetera. (1493). Retrieved November 2, 2022, from
https://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/indig-inter-caetera.html
National Archives and Records Administration. (n.d.). The bill of
rights: A transcription. National Archives and Records Administration.
Retrieved November 2, 2022, from https://www.archives.gov/founding-
docs/bill-of-rights-transcript
English Bill of Rights 1689. Avalon Project - English Bill of Rights
1689. (1689). Retrieved November 2, 2022, from
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp
11/4/22, 1:30 AM Page 22 of 29
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/89114)
Amanda Kimball (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/89114)
Wednesday
Edited by Amanda Kimball (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/89114) on Nov 2 at 7:33pm
Reply
Isn't it interesting how such well-educated and well-intended leaders
could have been so narrow minded? I suppose that was the culture at
the time and it is also very interesting how influential a culture can be
on an individual's perspective. I believe this practice still exists today
in other forms. I wonder, in 200 years from now, what current day
practice will our descendants think was absolutely ridiculous in our
time.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/42689)
Larita Miggins (She/Her) (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/42689)
Yesterday
11/4/22, 1:30 AM Page 23 of 29
Reply
Hello Tyler,
I agree with your stating that democracy was the intent but not for all
people. The framework was definitely established to only benefit the
elite white men locked away in private for months without
interference protests or opinions. I think it’s how the rights of slaves
to bear arms and women were not to vote until 1969. I wasn’t of legal
age to vote at that time but being a woman and person of color is a
double point of discrimination. I am glad there are Amendments to
the Constitution that all the adjustments needed to live under a more
democratic contact.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/134038)
Kiyana Douglas (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/134038)
Yesterday
Reply
Hey Tyler, I love the fact that you add specific information to how the
framers took the idea of democracy from the government. Also I love
that you did a little research on the history of the constitution itself to
demonstrate the backstory behind the framers. Good job
!
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/42689)
Larita Miggins (She/Her) (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/42689)
11/4/22, 1:30 AM Page 24 of 29
Yesterday
LaRita Miggins
POS2041-Online
Lecture 5609
Discussion 2
In February 1787, there were major debates in Congress which led to
their decision to decided to revise the Articles of Confederation, which
was our nation’s first constitution. There were major debates between
the I55 delegates included at the Constitutional Convention Debates
erupted over how each state would be represented in Congress, over laws
surrounding slavery, and the layout of the new executive branch of
government. The debates were held in private sessions, not made public
for four months. The U.S. Constitution of 1788 was created into law,
replacing the original Articles of Confederation and would be used as our
governing document for the next 200 years. Over the course of the years,
the lack of diversity, equality and freedom would be questioned and later
amended.
The American Constitution of 1788 was a document that was less than
democratic and lacked diversity in its founding members ,
representation, integrity or equality. There were no women, racial
diversity, gender diverse or religious differences. The general outline of
government was two houses of congress and a vote by the people of
those in the lower house, which is the House of Representatives. There
was an argument between delegates over how to elect members with
some strongly opposing a vote by the people. Roger Sherman of
Connecticut , who had no trust in democracy said, “should have as little
11/4/22, 1:30 AM Page 25 of 29
Reply
Connecticut , who had no trust in democracy said, “should have as little
to do as may be about government” because they are “constantly liable
to be misled.” Others like George Mason, having full faith in democracy,
disagreed with Sherman, noting that members of the lower house “ought
to know and sympathize with every part of the community.” If this was
not a government voted by the people, then it was impossible to draft a
document that properly represented all members of our country. As far
back as 1788, women, slaves, natives were a group of Americans not
given the liberty and freedom to be visible. As stated in the module ,
slavery remained in the new Republic.
Through amendments to change legislation, the Constitution, has
become more democratic in its representation and freedoms. From the
election of a more diverse Congress and the judicial system, this
document has slowly evolved into an integral and inclusive part of
legislation that ensures democracy. There are members from different
genders, racial and religious background, social and economic groups.
With the end of slavery and our ability to, today the Constitution provides
liberty and justice for all.
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION
Bill of Rights in Action
FALL 2009 (Volume 25, No. 2). Retrieved on November 2, 2022.
https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-25-2-the-major-
debates-at-the-constitutional-convention.html
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/135610)
11/4/22, 1:30 AM Page 26 of 29
Sha'quandria Easter (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/65283/users/135610)
Yesterday
11/4/22, 1:30 AM Page 27 of 29
Reply
"In Abraham Lincoln’s words, ‘government of the people, by the people,
for the people’." This is what democracy means to me. I the beginning,
this was initial goal. Coming together as a team, one band one sound.
The Articles of Confederation were created by the Second Continental
Congress. The original purpose of the Articles of Confederation was to
plan the structure of the new government and to create a form of
government. Everything doesn't work as planned. That's when you have to
improvise.
Even though the congress had a plan, the early American Constitution
was not a sound democratic document. \Issues aroused between states
that were not settled, which was one of the downfalls of the
confederation. The top weakness of the Articles of Confederation was
that Congress was not strong enough to enforce laws or raise taxes,
making it difficult for the new nation to repay their debts from the
Revolutionary War. This was what made the Constitution of 1788 less
than democratic. Also, the constitution didn't discuss freedom of human
rights.
Democracy is a common value shared by all humanity. It is a right for all
nations, not a prerogative reserved to a few. Today's democracy has
become “a game of money politics." The democracy has been a rich
men’s game based on capita and today as well. America is caught up on
the latest trends. Everything has to be broadcast through social media to
notice that the world is going downhill. there are a few way i can see that
we are democratic being that we do have groups that do come together
for the the same cause, such as LGBTQ, or BLM. I believe the people are
making progress but we aren't quite there yet.
11/4/22, 1:30 AM Page 28 of 29
11/4/22, 1:30 AM Page 29 of 29
