Declaration Of Independence Analysis

Not to Be Dispirited In many ways it appears that the Constitution of the United States was meant to abnegate the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. However, if one follows the history of our nation’s founding from the first colony to the ratification of the Constitution it is possible to see that the new form of government prescribed therein serves to protect the human rights that were proclaimed as the rights of all men in the Declaration. Recognizing permits a view of the Constitution as giving new life to the spirit of revolution. The authors of the Constitution held a view of a union between the states that was free yet orderly, with powers invested in the union distributed in such a way so as to protect the rights of the people.
Though many expressed concerns over a stronger central government as a whole, the greatest controversy was over the form and function what would be the President of the United States. Due to a deep seeded fear of the tyrannical rule of a monarch, the thought of a powerful national government headed by a single magistrate raised the hackles of many an American. In order for the Constitution to pass muster this misunderstanding of the executive had to be addressed.
To understand how a representative democracy embody the spirit of the Declaration of Independence it is helpful to think of the “drafting of the Constitution not as an isolated event but as the last act in the total drama that was the American Revolution.”1 From 1607, when the first colony was formed in Jamestown Massachusetts, to the beginning of the Revolutionary War in 1775, each of the colonies was ruled by a colonial government that tool orders from King George III. In America’s nascent stages they relied heavily on the support of England. As the colonies grew in strength and number, an
Drawing from the many resources provided by James Madison and much debate, they established a template for a Representative Democracy consisting of three branches. Though there were qualms over the Judiciary and the Legislative branches, especially regarding how the spread of legislative power would be handled, the largest point of contention was over the design and power of the Executive branch. As many still bore the unpleasant memories of colonial rule, and of King George III, the Constitution’s energetic executive emerged as one of its greatest obstacles to ratification. It was Alexander Hamilton’s arguments in Federalist 69 and 70 that most adequately resolved the issues surrounding the President of the United States. In Federalist 69 Hamilton made clear the distinctions and contrasts between the President and a despotic monarch. One distinction he made lies in the concept of terms. The President of the United States “is to be elected for four year terms, and is to be re-eligible as often as the people of the United States shall think him worthy of their confidence.”4 In contrast, a monarch gains power by virtue of heredity and is afforded lifetime tenure. Hamilton argued that leaving the President’s position in the hands of the electorate would reduce the chance of corruption. Another contrast lies in the ability to remove the President from office, through a