The American Constitution and its critics

The American constitution ratified in 1789 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is one of the most successful constitutions in the world since it has remained almost unchanged to this day while at the same time remaining a major source of authority in the United States . However there has been some serious criticism of it over the years. This article will outline and address the main criticisms made to the American constitution by its critics [1].

The strongest criticism made to the American Constitution is that it is an undemocratic constitution. Critics point to the fact that the Federalist movement was explicitly anti-democratic at the time of the drafting and ratification of the American constitution. The Federalists were initially not an official party in the early days of the republic but later on became one of the main two parties in the initial years of American independence. The Federalists believed that absolute democracy leads to the abuse of power and tyranny. Critics argue the constitution places a lot of limits on democracy like the indirect election of the president, undemocratic election of senators (later fixed by the 17th amendment) and many checks and balances on the powers of the different branches of government. They point out that the founding fathers of the constitution believed in the principles of a “Republican Government” which in reality is a sort of elite democracy. Although the critics are correct with regards to the worries of the founding fathers in establishing absolute democracy they tend to confuse the actual text of the constitution which should be the main area of concentration with the interpretations of it in the early days of the republic. Incorrect interpretations of the constitution are a completely separate matter and should be addressed in a different context. The actual text of the constitution places no major limit on elections and democracy [2].

The founding fathers like many other scholars in the world at the time believed that giving absolute democracy to the people will lead into chaos and eventually to tyranny. However their concern did not result in an undemocratic constitution. The fact that they placed many checks and balances on different branches of the government like how the president can veto legislation from congress does not necessarily mean that it is undemocratic. In fact proponents argue that this approach is in tune with the real spirit of democracy in which a portion of the population cannot force its will on the entire population. Also with regards to the indirect election of the president it should be pointed out that at the early days of the republic, States enjoyed a lot of independence and power. This was natural since they had just been united and looked with suspicion and rivalry at other states. The indirect election of the president was a way to keep the power in the states and at the same time make sure that no single state took control of the country.

Another major criticism made to the American Constitution is that it places too many restrictions on the government. Critics point out that compared to the constitution of other countries, ‘technically’ much more restrictions are place on the American government by the constitution especially with regards to the executive branch. As an example critics point to the fact that the president needs permission for major decisions like declaring war and the signing of major treaties. As pointed earlier state rights were a main point of concern at the time and these restrictions were mainly placed by the founding fathers in order to preserve the power and rights of the states and thus prevent the Federal government by overrunning the power of the states. Also looking from another perspective this can be seen as an advantage rather than a disadvantage in the sense that the president cannot act alone and even though elected he or she still needs the approval of the people through their representative in congress for major decisions.

Critics also point to the fact that the constitution does not have clear boundaries between the power and authority of the main institutions and also regarding the power of the state and federal government. They argue that this has led to many confusions and also confrontation regarding the authority of institutions like the congress and the executive branch and also with regards to the power of the states and the federal government. Some scholars and analysts however see this as a one of the key reasons the constitution has been successful over the years. They believe that the very survival of the constitution has been due to the substantial room it has left for interpretation. These scholars believe that being vague on controversial issues was the reason the constitution was ratified in the first place at a time when difference of opinion was very strong among the founding fathers. They point out that the reason a document drafted over two hundred years ago is still in use today is the fact that it has been drafted in a way that can be interpreted differently based on the time period and the circumstances otherwise it would have become gradually obsolete. To prevent misinterpretation and drastic changes in the path of the country the Supreme Court was given the exclusive task of interpreting the constitution.

In conclusion the US constitution remains one of the most progressive constitutions in the world. At the time of its ratification it was truly revolutionary in terms of providing equality and liberty for all its citizens. Even though there are has been some criticism to it in the past century most scholars agree that the US constitution with all its strengths and weaknesses is one of the most successful constitutions when compared to the constitution of other countries. The fact that it has remained almost unchanged to when it was ratified bears witness to its success.

References:

1- Kelly, Alfred and Herman Belz, ‘The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development’, Volume II, 1991

2- Dahl, Robert A., ‘How Democratic is the American Constitution?’, Second Edition, 2003

Film Review: Dead Man

Director and Writer: Jim Jarmusch
Country: USA
Genre: Western/Drama
Starring: Johnny Depp, Gary Farmer, Lance Henriksen, Michael Wincott, Eugene Byrd, Mili Avital, Iggy Pop, Crispin Glover, Billy Bob Thornton, Gabrial Byrne, John Hurt
Music: Neil Young
MPAA Rating: R
Running Time: 121 minutes
U.S. Box Office: $1,053,518

The film ‘Dead Man’ written and directed by Jim Jarmusch and staring Johnny Depp, Gary Farmer and Crispin Glover was released in May 1996 and distributed by ‘Miramax Films’ in the United States. The film is in the western genre and is about an accountant called William Blake who travels America’s western frontiers during the mid 19th century. Even though the film has some interesting observations about the American way of life in the west during the ninetieth century, it was not well received by audiences and grossed a disappointing $1.05 million which is well below what Hollywood studios are used to.

The film starts with Johnny Depp playing William Blake traveling in a train from Cleveland to the Wild West in order to fill out an accountant position at a firm which offered him the position. When he arrives he finds out that the position has already been filled and before he knows it he finds himself in a heap of trouble when he kills the son of the wealthy businessman who sought to hire him. He hastily runs away to the wilderness where he is helped by an Indian who calls himself ‘Nobody’. During the remainder of the film Blake and his new Indian friend go through the wilderness of the Wild West hunted by the three ruthless hired assassins.
During the course of the journey Blake transforms into the villain everyone perceives him to be by killing ‘white people’ along his route. Killing for him keeps getting easier so as near the end of the movie he is totally unmoved by the value of human life. This behavior is encouraged by his Indian friend who bizarrely believes that he is the spirit of the famous poet ‘William Blake’ who has come back to kill the ‘white people’.

The film which is shot in black and white has some of the same dreamlike like qualities as ‘Apocalypse Now’ which was made by Francis Ford Capolla about the Vietnam conflict. Jarmusch’s film however has a humorous and even sarcastic look at the Wild West to a point where the audience feels the movie is a fantasized story used only to deliver the directors critical opinion on the American way of like in the Wild West. The downside to this is that half way through the film the audience does not care about the characters anymore, knowing the thin humorous story is only an attempt to convey some other important and serious facts.

Jarmusch points to the savagery and moral bankruptcy of the Wild West in the ‘Dead Man’. In one of the opening scenes the main character walks through the filthy streets of a western city where he sees coffins being made (an indication to the sheer number of people who get killed) and animal skulls being sold for decoration in a dark and depressing environment. People are so pre-occupied with violence and killing that even the main character which did not know how to shoot just a couple of days ago turns into a killer. The only thing people seem to care about in Jarmusch’s illustration of the Wild West is tobacco so much that the phrase “Do you have any tobacco?” gets repeated countless of times in the movie.

As the movie progresses and William Blake the main character gets closer and closer to death, he gets more lost in his search for his identity and his goals to the extent where near the end of the movie he does not seem to care about anything even dying anymore. One might point that this the directors way of illustrating the emptiness of the American society at the time and also the uncertainty of human existence. The director also takes subtle shots at organized religion throughout the film especially more so in a scene where a very religious salesperson is presented as a zealot and racist.

A criticism which can be made to Jarmusch’s film is the rather slow pace of the movie. With a runtime of 2 hours, some scenes are slow and even boring to some extent. This could have been fixed with better editing. The music of the film by Neil Young's is a blend of acoustic and electric guitar. It suits the atmosphere of the film pretty well however after a while it gets a bit repetitive and even irritating at times. Credit can be given to the cast for an inspiring performance especially to Johnny Depp who masterfully plays the transformation of the main character in a convincing manner and to Gary Farmer who portrays the mysterious Indian called ‘Nobody’.

In conclusion the ‘Dead Man’ written and directed by Jim Jarmusch and staring Johnny Depp is a rather quirky black and white film with some interesting observations about life in 19th century Wild West America. Even though the film is a bit puzzling and slow paced at times it will definitely be worth while for people interested in the history and culture of America. However if you are looking for a movie to watch with your family on a Saturday night with your take out food then this movie is not for you. What this movie is sure to accomplish is thought and discussion and hopefully new insights on the nature and tendencies of 19th century Americans living in the west and even to some extent on the contemporary American culture.

American Studies Program

American Studies is a multidisciplinary program involving the study of different aspects of the United States of America. It is multidisciplinary because it consists of studying the economy, culture, history, politics, foreign policy, literature, art and many other topics regarding America.

When I first started the program at Tehran University my idea of what the program consisted of was a program with mostly a political orientation towards the study of America. I thought that it would focus on American politics, foreign policy and the relationship between Iran and the US. Not only did I expect the program to be this way but also I thought that this is the correct way to understand America. My reasoning was that since the US is the only super power of the world then politics and foreign policy would be the main pillars for understanding it.

The reality of the American Studies program at Tehran University was fortunately different than my expectations. It was more multidimensional than I anticipated with courses on American culture, art and cinema among other things. Currently contrary to before I think that understanding a country requires far more than political understanding even if politics is a major issue in that country like the US. The interesting fact is that even to understand the politics of a specific country you need to have a good understanding of the culture of that country. In a country like the US political participation and behavior has deep historic and cultural roots and ignoring this would make one’s understanding of the US very superficial.

Another aspect of the program at Tehran University which was different than my anticipation is the fact that most of the professors approach different topics of the United States with an un-biased and detached view. When I first enrolled in the program I thought that many of the professors would have a strong anti American bias due to long and deep row between the two countries. This was not the case.

My main disappointed with my MA studies is the unavailability of major recourses (mainly books) needed to conduct research. Although I should add that this is mainly not related to the North American and European Studies Institute or even Tehran University for that matter but rather the unavailability of academic resources in Iran as a country. Even Canada’s Carleton University library with over 2 million books didn’t have most of the books I sought for research, however one always had the opportunity to order a book from ‘Amazon’.

Presidential Primaries in the United States of America

Primaries are the initial steps of selecting the presidential candidate of each party in the United States. Each party announces their candidate at their national convention which is usually the summer before the presidential elections. At the national convention the ultimate candidate of the party for the election is chosen by the delegates present at the convention. The rules for the appointments of delegates to the convention vary from party to party and also from state to state. Most of the delegates are chosen using primaries and caucuses however both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have provisions for so called Super-delegates which are chosen outside the primary and caucus system. The caucus system is very similar to closed primaries but in ways more restricted for party members and party influence.

Here is a short movie on Barack Obama and the presidential primary race:

There are two major types of primaries called Closed Primaries and Open Primaries which are explained below:

1- Open Primaries: In this kind of primary any registered voter can vote regardless of their party affiliation. Voters are not required to publicly choose one party or the other. Rather, they enter the voting booth and choose the party ballot on which they will vote in secret. Hence, one does not need to be a member of a particular party in order to vote in a party's primary. Also a member of one party can vote in the primary of another party. However, one can vote in only one primary. The advantages of open primaries are that they increase voter participation. Also it allows independent voters to participate which might help with the election of a candidate that might have a better chance to get elected in the general elections. One major disadvantage of this kind of primary is that the opponent party might organize its voters to take part in the others party primary and vote for the weakest candidate.

2- Closed Primaries: Voters may vote in a party's primary only if they are registered members of that party. Independents cannot participate. The closed primary serves to encourage party unity and prevent members of other parties from infiltrating and voting to nominate weak candidates. There are also semi-closed primaries. The advantages of these kinds of primary are that it encourages people to join a party and thus be more political. The main disadvantage is that registered party members will probably vote politically and will not be a good representation of the general public thus they might chose a candidate with a low likelihood of getting elected.

Recently the presidential race in the US was officially started with the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary with Barak Obama and Mike Huckabee winning the Iowa cuacus and Hillary Clinton and John MacCain winning the New Hampshire primary. An interesting article with regards to the democratic nomination can be read at the New York Times. Although Iowa and New Hampshire are only two states among the fifty states however since they are the first states where the party nominations take place it is monumental for candidates to win them. The reason for this is that 'early states' build momentum for the candidates and effect the elections in the next states.