American Government and Politics: Key Constitutional Debates

Charles Beard's Argument on the Constitution

Charles Beard argued that the Constitution was written by and for the wealthy, in order to protect their property and financial interests. The rich individuals involved in drafting the Constitution included creditors, merchants, bondholders, and lawyers. Beard contended that many of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention belonged to these very categories. In his view, the framers of the Constitution were acting to protect themselves against majority rule, ensuring that the broader population could not overthrow or displace the small class of wealthy men. A particular group of creditors, he argued, were also shielding themselves from the masses who were indebted to them — which is why the Constitution included clauses limiting state control over money-lending procedures and currency circulation.

Beard further argued that the framers deliberately left the federal government with powers they themselves expected to control. He also claimed that the Constitution was imposed through undemocratic methods that prevented the democratic majority from exercising real power. In his view, the elite men who served as framers conspired to wrest power from ordinary citizens for their own benefit. He supported this claim by pointing out that there was never a popular vote on whether to hold a constitutional convention in the first place. Moreover, even if such a vote had taken place, state laws at the time restricted voting to white male property owners — meaning the majority of people, including white men without property, women, enslaved people, and Native Americans, were denied any voice in the matter.

Beard's argument does not itself pose a constitutional problem; he was exercising his freedom of expression and speech. His thesis was widely adopted by scholars and became a standard interpretation of the Constitution for a period. While his work was not dismissive of the Constitution in the way some other scholars' work was, critics have since argued that he mischaracterized or oversimplified the economic interests at play in the Constitution's drafting.

Rights of the Accused

The rights of the accused serve to ensure that the justice process functions fairly and that individuals receive a fair trial. These rights prevent the use of corrupt or coercive methods to secure convictions, thereby protecting innocent people from wrongful imprisonment. They also ensure that the law is properly followed throughout the investigation and prosecution of alleged criminal activity. When procedural rights are violated, the accused may be set free as a consequence — a standard that keeps law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges accountable throughout the entire process. Additionally, these rights help prevent the unjust and prolonged detention of accused persons before trial, which reduces the anxiety and public stigma that accompanies criminal accusations and limits unnecessary delays in the trial process.

Balancing the rights of the accused against the rights of victims is a genuinely difficult task. As crime rates have risen over the years, some have argued that the rights of the accused should be curtailed in order to deter criminal behavior. Proposed measures have included limiting the number of appeals available to convicted criminals and making criminal penalties more severe. Critics of the current system argue that it favors the accused over the victim, since the law tends to prioritize maintaining order over delivering liberty or justice to citizens who have been harmed. The victim's primary interest is to see the perpetrator prosecuted and punished, while the accused is entitled to a thorough and conclusive fair trial. These competing interests are difficult to reconcile within a single legal framework.

What If Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?

If Roe v. Wade were overturned, decisions about the legality of abortion would revert to the individual states. The federal courts therefore play a significant role in maintaining uniformity across all states on this issue. Some critics have argued that this arrangement is undemocratic, since the justices who make these decisions are not elected officials. In the event of an overturn, authority over abortion law would fall back to state legislatures, which could be seen as more reflective of majority opinion since state legislators are chosen through democratic elections. However, it would also produce significant disparities between conservative states and pro-choice states.

In practice, women seeking an abortion in a state where it was illegal could simply cross state lines to obtain one, meaning that overturning the ruling might have limited effect on actual access to abortion. For this reason, it can be argued that states should not individually determine the legality of abortion within their borders. The courts play a critical unifying role in ensuring consistency across state lines, and permitting wide variation in state abortion laws would create an uneven and potentially unjust landscape for women across the country.