Howard Zinn's Arguments Against The Constitution Of The United States

Words: 489
Pages: 2

Examining the yes position first, I constructed the major argument to be that Howard Zinn says that the United States Constitution was written by fifty-five men of wealth and power. He says that most of the makers of the constitution had direct economic interests in establishing a United States federal government and that they didn’t bother to represent four important groups in the making of the constitution. Slaves, indentured servants, women, and men without property were all left out and didn’t include any of their interests or needs. There is much factual evidence that supports Howard Zinn’s claims. The first one being, the founding fathers only favored the wealthy and elite so far so that they intentionally made it where non-landowners and non-legislatures couldn’t vote. The founding fathers wanted to make sure that only the people that shared the same opinions with them were the ones to vote and elect government officials. The founding fathers strongly believed that …show more content…
Originally it was stated that the Amendments were created by the government to seem more likable by the people and avoid even more criticism about the “one-sided” constitution they created. The first slice of backlash came about after the first amendment which stated a need for the peoples “freedom of speech and practice of religion” well, Zinn states that just seven years later the government goes against this with the creation of the Sedition Act in 1798. This act made it illegal for anyone to say “False, scandalous, or malicious” things about the government. Ten Americans were placed in prison for violating the Sedition Act which left everyone confused about the first amendment and what it actually allowed you to say. Historian Leonard Levy explains that the first amendment allows you to the freedom of speech but afterward can legally punish you for some of the things you