USA: The Change That Britain Needs

I am a very lucky political person...why you may ask? Because I have studied (and experienced) politics in two of the most powerful countries in the world...Great Britain, and the United States.I first studied for my GCSE’s and A-Levels at Monmouth, but when I was granted an ESU scholarship to study American Constitutional Law in Connecticut (New England), I was there before the academic year had a chance to begin. As well as studying Law, I was also able to compare the UK and US in political theory, history, economics and philosophy, and truthfully, what I learnt across the pond changed my political opinions beyond recognition, and that is, Britain needs to be a lot more like America.

America has its flaws of course, but its political & societal achievements far exceed our own. As an example, their Constitution is actually written as an official document, and hence much more protected than our unwritten, conventional constitution. Their Bill of Rights is reflective of the protection of all citizens within the United States (unlike our Human Rights Act, which seems to solely benefit illegal immigrants, criminals, and the radical left who refuse to favour common-sense over political correctness). Their younger generation are taught the values of the “American Dream” and the importance of hard-work (unlike our younger generation, who realise that dole payments will sustain you for the rest of your life, without you having to lift a finger). And finally, their country is united under one, independent nation who are proud of their religious and nationalist roots (unlike our country, which is riddled with devolution, struggling under multi-culturalism, and governed by cowards who would rather surrender our independence to a country who, only 70 years ago, tried to wipe us from the face of the earth).

Yes, America may have corrupt politicians who sent us to war for no reason, but politicians can be easily changed...political ideologies however, cannot. We may rid ourselves of New Labour by the next election, but will it really make a difference? Even with Cameron at the reigns, our society will still suffer because of one simple problem...we lack the right political beliefs to make our country great again. Of course, we need the Conservatives to change our health service, we need the Conservatives to protect our borders, and we need the Conservatives to reform our education system...but fundamentally, we desperately need the Conservatives to instil the political ideologies of America. We need a written constitution so our rights cannot be infringed at will. We need to instil the importance of hard work within our younger generation, and we need to take pride in Britain and forget our divisions. Only then can we be the great country that we once were many years ago, and only then can we be the great country that is demonstrated by the United States.

Granted, I have a love for American politics and society, but for good reasons. I do not advocate a total transformation of our traditional and national customs, but I do insist that we take a page out of the American book, and change the way our government (and society) operates in a deeper and more philosophical way. Will Durant once said that "a great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within." We are on the verge of collapse as a society, because we refuse to be proud of who we are, to be united as a nation, to be willing to make this country a better place. We need to change our roots and our beliefs as a society, and if you need direction for such change, you need look no further than across the Atlantic.

To what extent was Enoch Powell an asset to the Conservative Party in the years 1965-1976?

During his time as a Member of Parliament, Enoch Powell made numerous influences to both the success and hindrance of the Conservative Party from 1965 to 1976, which can be categorised into four main political areas.

The first is Powell’s policies, and the question of whether or not these contradicted Conservatism during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. As he explained at an interview in 1991, there were two subjects which “he exercised his liberty of self-expression most audibly”; his view of immigration into the UK, and Britain’s integration with Europe into the European Common Market (EEC). Both of these not only created mass publicity, but also gained (and lost) support for the Conservative party.
Firstly, looking at his view on immigration, Powell was concerned about the number of post-war immigrants entering the UK, and he publicised this concern whilst speaking in Birmingham on April 12th 1968. He spoke of how British society was suffering under the huge influx of immigrants it was accepting every year, and how this was damaging the basic character of Britain in the future:
“If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population…would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected”.
Powell also spoke of the consequences Britain would face if it continued to allow such a high number of migrants passed its borders (which was over 50,000 a year in 1968). He predicted ethnic communities within the UK using violence against their fellow citizens, which would inevitably result in the break-down of British society:
“[The immigrant communities] will organise to consolidate their members”…“agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens”, and finally “dominate the rest with legal weapons…like the Roman, I see the River Tiber foaming with much blood”.
Because of the imagery Powell used here, his speech later became known as the “Rivers of blood” speech.
Powell’s second view was of Britain entering the European Economic Community. In 1970, when parliament had approved of Britain’s entry into this, Powell spoke out in the House of Commons, firmly believing that Britain should not be apart of any other economic system other than its own. He felt that by uniting under a European Union, there was little point in having the British parliamentary system, and furthermore, it undermined the historical liberties of Britain. If Britain were to be controlled under Europe, where would the sense of patriotism be? (As Powell later said in 1971: “there is more to politics than getting the economy right”…implying that nationhood was far more important than creating a monetary union with Europe).
But even though these were Powell’s policies, both vary on how much they contradicted Conservatism in this period. By looking at the Conservative manifesto of 1968 for instance, we can see that Powell’s view towards Europe did undermine Conservative policy at this time, as it claimed the Conservatives would:
“work energetically for entry into the European Common Market at the first favourable opportunity…and encourage co-operation with other European countries”.
Powell however was completely against this. He was in no way favourable for joining the EEC, as not only did it threaten the national identity of Britain, but also he knew that by entering Europe, Britain would be “under the mercy” of a European parliament; surrendering its sovereignty and having no control whatsoever over taxation and legislation, which under British right, should only be passed by the House of Commons. It was also a cause for concern to how such an integration would affect the British economy itself, as the EEC would not only affect the British balance of payments, but would also affect both exports and imports which would cause a severe strain on imported food prices entering Britain.
Overall, it is clear to see from this that Powell wasn’t a man of Internationalism, but a man of Nationalist principles and policies, which is why he did not support the Conservative manifesto on this issue. However, in contrast to Europe, he did support the 1966 manifesto on its policy towards immigration, as it explained that the Conservative party was in favour of:
“Helping immigrants already here to re-join their families in their countries of origin, or to return with their families to these countries, if they so wish”.
Powell was favourable for re-emigration, as immigrants present in this country could return to their country of origin and contribute their skills to their domestic economy. So in this sense, Powell did not undermine the Conservatives with this view, but none the less, did create a significant political outcry. It was not necessarily his approach to re-emigration which caused this, but his view on how Britain would soon be subjected to racial tension that portrayed him as a racist.
This now leads us onto the second area of this topic, being the splits Powell created with these views in his own party. When Powell made this speech in 1968, he did not know that it would create such scorn from his own party; especially with the Conservative leader Edward Heath. Heath believed that Powell:
“…could not remain a member of the Shadow Cabinet because of the inflammatory nature of his speech at Birmingham. [It was] likely to make race relations more difficult”.
It is also important to know that at this time, the 1968 Race Relation’s act was passing through the House of Commons, so it was rather unfortunate that Powell should make this speech at this time.
Not only was Powell demoralised by his own leader, but also from his own party members. Powell was never popular within the Conservative party, as he was quoted saying to the Sunday Times:
“Indeed it would be awkward…and even dangerous, to form a deep friendship in politics”.
Powell believed that it was doubtful whether there were such things as friends in politics, and so never established any relationship within his own shadow cabinet, portraying him as quite unpopular, and this was shown in the 1965 leadership race when he achieved 15 votes out of a possible 298. But his popularity status declined even further in April, as past supporters of Powell felt that his speech was inappropriate for party policy. Conservative MP Nicholas Ridley for instance (who was Powell’s sponsor in the leadership election) claimed that Powell’s views:
“…will make him lose touch with reality and the gentleness of the Englishman as a political voter and he’ll become an extremist”.
So with no real party support, no one from the Conservatives would dare justify such an opinion of “racism” in case they were either expelled by Heath himself, or submerged by an outraged media who had no sympathy for Powell’s opinions whatsoever. The Times newspaper for instance, described Powell as giving “an evil speech”, along with other media opinions branding Powell “a racialist”, “a Nazi” e.t.c. Even Labour MP’s felt that Powell’s views towards immigration were extreme. Ray Gunter (Cabinet Member for the Labour Party in 1968) claimed:
“I don’t think that Mr. Powell has a very great future in the field of politics. I also feel that the Conservative party are now in such a mood…they could only think of Mr. Powell as a major disaster for them”.
In this sense, Powell did not contribute any benefits to the Conservatives at this point, as the media, the party opposition, and the Conservatives themselves felt that Powell was destroying the image (and the support) of his party, which in the long run would have cost the Conservatives a significant number of votes in the upcoming election.
However, if anything, Powell actually gained the Conservatives support with his 1968 speech: support from a minority group of his party, and the majority of the general public.
A few members of the Shadow-Cabinet, including Cyril Osborne, Norman Pannel and Ronald Bell, believed that Powell’s ideas of nationhood were correct, and that it was his right, as a British MP, to express his views for the cause of freedom of speech. As well as this, Powell not only received numerous support from his own constituency, but also mass support from the general public. His constituency in Wolverhampton South West claimed:
“we praise his courage to express the true facts which exist in his constituency and in other parts of the country…”
so it was clear that Powell’s support was most certainly increasing, especially in London. Three days after Powell made his speech on April 12th, over 1000 Dockers marched to Westminster appalled at Powell’s victimisation from the Conservatives, with over 400 meat porters handing in a 92 page partition in support of him the next day. In addition, he also received over 120,000 letters of support in the following week, with every writer believing that UK immigration had simply ran out of control, and re-emigration was the only solution to this ever growing problem.
As well as obvious support from the National Front and the newly formed British National Party, Powell received huge support from the general public themselves…a general public which Heath was certain to vote against Powell. When national polls were conducted one month after Powell’s Birmingham speech, 74% of people (who were asked if they agree with Powell’s voluntary repatriation proposal) said they did, with only 23% saying they disagreed. Even a poll conducted on coloured immigrants (asking if they would favour further controls on immigration) resulted in 48% saying “Yes”, with only 29% saying “No”. By looking at this evidence, it is quite clear that Heath (and majority of the Conservative shadow cabinet) could not have been more wrong when they criticised Powell as a disadvantage to their support.
Richard Crossman, a Labour MP, described the public support that Powell had created across the country, explaining that although the Conservatives thought otherwise, the public were unified with Powell’s immigration views:
“Powell has stirred up the nearest thing to a mass movement since the 1930’s, stimulating a real revolt of the masses…the illiterate proletariat who have turned up in strength [have] revolted against the literate”.
Further more, two Gallup polls were undertaken shortly after Powell was excluded from the shadow cabinet. One showed that 74% of the electorate agreed with Powell’s “Rivers of blood” speech, with only 15% disagreeing, and a final 70% believing that Heath was wrong to release him from his Shadow-Cabinet in the first place. The other poll showed that 56% of the electorate intended to vote Conservative in May 1968 (compared to only 45% in January). This shows that although Powell received much accusation of racism from the media and his shadow cabinet, the nation on a whole agreed with what he said in Birmingham; that Britain was accepting far more immigrants than its society could handle, and it was therefore necessary to introduce a British Nationality Act to solve this problem, and retain Britain’s national identity.
So this shows that Powell had the support of the nation behind him, which leads us onto the next topic, being his electoral success. We can see that Powell influenced the way the public voted, by looking at the 1970 General Election (the election after Powell made his speech). The Conservatives had lost their past two general elections (in 1964 & 1966) with a decreasing majority of only 40%, while Labour where commanding a significant working class majority of nearly 48%. However, when Powell made his speech in 1968, the next general election was a surprise victory for Edward Heath, as the Tories achieved nearly 47% of the electorate vote, while Labour trailed with 43%. In terms of parliamentary seats won, the Conservatives had now gained nearly 70 seats from Labour in 1970 (compared to only 5 seats in 1964), which increased the number of Conservative MP’s elected into parliament up to 330.
So even though Heath expelled Powell from the Shadow Cabinet, these figures show that Powell actually helped Heath by gaining him the support needed to become Prime Minister. By-election figures from 1968-1970 also show that Conservative support increased by over 6.8%, with Labour support falling by a massive 17.3% during this time…again indicating that Powell made a huge influence to the way the public voted during the 1970 general election.
So overall, Powell did damage the Conservative party in some respects with his views on immigration, but in the long run, he significantly benefited them by gaining huge support from the general public, and inevitably, achieved Heath the Prime-minister-ship in 1970. It is recognisable that without Powell, the Conservatives would have possibly faced their third election defeat in a row.
But even though Powell benefited his party in this perspective, he was to change his support for the Conservatives over the issue of Europe. With Heath now in office, Europe was to be top of the Conservative agenda, as the new motto for the Tories had now become:
“Conservatives - the party of Europe”
As explained, Powell was against this idea of European unionism, as he was bound to the words of Winston Churchill, stating:
“The Conservative party stands for the absolute independence of the UK”
Powell knew that Edward Heath and his supporters were going back on the essentials for what the party stood for, and when it became conclusive that the Conservatives were fully behind this integration, Powell had no choice but to resign as MP in 1970. He was later quoted on the matter, saying:
“It would have been worth any sacrifice to continue to warn and advise against the loss of a free nation’s liberties.”
But this wasn’t the end of Powell, as in the sudden general election of 1974, he returned to parliament as an Ulster Unionist, and was to fight against the European issue not with the Conservative party, but against the Conservative party. In doing so, he stunned the nation by claiming to the public: “I have already cast my vote, and it is for Labour!”
The Conservatives however were still fighting for EEC integration, spending vast sums of government expenditure on the European campaign, which did win them the next general election in February 1974 (but only by a narrow 200,000 votes). Labour on the other hand, was fully against the idea of Europe (hence why Powell was in strong support of them). Their main policy was not to enter Europe through party opinion, but to give the public a referendum to let them decide whether the EEC would be best for Britain and its economy. With this in mind, Powell (arguably for the first time in his career) damaged the support that the Conservatives had. With enough public loyalty from his 1968 speech, he urged the public to vote Labour in the October 1974 election, explaining that European integration would affect the three most important aspects of British politics: taxation, legislation and expenditure. Powell even spoke of this to the House of Commons in February 1972, stating that:
“…it is an inherent consequence of accession to the Treaty of Rome, that this House and Parliament will lose their legislative supremacy”.
Powell made it clear that by joining with Europe, Britain would forfeit its power of taxation, its spending of this taxation, and its right to pass laws; all of which would be handed over to a European parliament and diminishing Britain’s historical liberties. And so when the election finally came around, Labour achieved a comfortable victory, partly thanks to Powell’s public persuasion. The Conservatives had lost 21 seats in the Commons, while Labour had increased their number of seats from 301 to 319, and a clear victory with over 11.4 million votes in total. This resulted in the Conservatives losing mass support from the electorate, as the 47% of the public vote they once had in 1970, had been reduced to a mere 35% in October 1974.
So in this respect, Powell was not an asset to the Conservatives, as he felt integration with the European Economic Community would have solely undermined the reason for British sovereignty. He even sided with the Tories closest rivals to fight against Heath’s proposal of a European Common Market, and so was more of an asset to the Labour party than the Conservatives themselves. However, this did show him to be the most influential politician of his time, as his views not only got the Conservatives elected in 1970, but also removed them from office in October 1974.

In conclusion, from the evidence I have presented, Powell was both an asset and a hindrance to the Conservative party from 1965-1976. Looking at his 1968 speech on immigration, Powell gained much support from the general public; not only because they agreed with his views on the matter, but also because he was the only politician to tackle such a politically sensitive issue at this time, earning him much respect and support from the public, who in return, voted for the Conservatives to be the next government in the general election of 1970.
Looking at Powell’s opinions towards Europe however, it is clear that he was a hindrance to the Conservatives, as he influenced the public to vote for the Labour party in October 1974, hence contradicting Heath’s objective to move Britain into a single economic community. This demonstrated that he was willing to support the rivals of the party he was once a member of, believing that:
“…whoever envisages the EEC in terms of political union…is misleading himself and helping to mislead others”.
It was this use of persuasion that influenced the public to vote Labour in 1974, and support the policy of the government holding a referendum before any further move was made to join in a single market with the European Union.So overall, Powell was an asset to the Conservatives, but only on policies which he favoured (such as immigration). The policy of Europe however proved Powell to be more of a hindrance to the Conservative party, showing that as well as being beneficial to the party, Powell was also very influential in damaging Conservative support, demonstrating that Powell wasn’t always an asset to the Conservatives from 1965-1976.

How successful was the new constitution of the United States (1789-1841)?

08/02/2006

The new Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1789 by James Madison, created a completely new democratic system within America, which had never been tried before, and up to 1841, had made significant changes amongst American society. However, despite this, it did create numerous issues about how the American political system should be run, and whether its ratification was necessary for the benefits of American politics.
The first consideration to make is the new institutions created by the Constitution. Before its adoption, America was operating under the Articles of Confederation (set up in 1777). This gave the basis for America to operate with a weak central Government, as it was a uni-cameral system. It had no rights to tax or trade, and most noticeably, gave each individual state the authority to pass its own laws and legislature. The idea of this was so individuals would not be oppressed by a ruling Government as they had been under British control, and so the American people were free to live without the worry of an “over-controlling” power. The Constitution however was a complete re-draft of this, and in most respects, a complete opposite of this, as it established a strong central Government with tax raising powers, and most importantly created new institutions, which were the Executive, Congress, and the Judiciary. The President (such as that of the 1789 election, where George Washington won the votes for the Federalists) would be the overall leader of the United States, along with the two other main institutions within Government; Congress (comprising of the Senate and the House of Representatives), and the Supreme Court.
Despite this looked a suitable form of Government, the newly formed American democracy faced one major problem from the Anti-Federalists, and that was the question of how much power should the Federal Government have over the individuals of the United States? The Anti-Federalist argument was that if this form of Government was created, where would the Government draw the line at being too powerful; limiting the people of their liberties and rights? If the Government was to become a dictatorship as it were, then the American people might as well appoint a monarchy…a monarchy which America had fought in the Revolution a few years earlier. With this argument, a conflict occurred between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, of which, developed into the first real stage of democratic progress, where the Bill of Rights was established in December 1791. This was passed by Congress to set out the rights of all individuals within the United States, entitling them to such natural liberties of freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right of prohibiting cruel and unusual punishments, e.t.c. This was a break-through for the new nation, as this prevented the Federal Government from ever becoming so powerful that they could take away their peoples natural rights and liberties, and as well as this, the form of the Government set out in the Constitution also prevented the Government from becoming to powerful. This was shown with the Judiciary Act of 1789, where the Judiciary (comprised of the Supreme Court, 3 circuit courts and 13 district courts) would nullify any state laws passed by the President/Congress which violated the Federal Constitution. Along with this, the President could also nullify laws passed by Congress, so in the long run, there was no chance of the Federal Government ever becoming to powerful as each department would be able to counter-act laws passed and “flex their muscles” as it were, preventing any chance of a dictatorship occurring within America.
In this case, it is clear that the Constitution succeeded in protecting the individual rights of the American people, and by the form of Government and the Bill of Rights, they would never have to fear Political turmoil within their nation. However, if there was a point where the Constitution didn’t succeed in legislation, it was the question of “what relationship was there between the Executive and the Legislature”? Originally, the Senate had been proposed to function as the Presidents advisory council, as the President was to appoint high officials and make treaties “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate”. But however, problems occurred with this, and a huge development within the American democratic system occurred during this time. When Washington put forward an Indian Treaty to the Senate, they refused to discuss the matter within his presence, and so, treaties were therefore to be submitted to the Senate after they had been negotiated, and not before. Now with no support from the Senate, Washington had to look elsewhere for political advice, in which he chose the founding father of the Constitution, James Madison. However, the Constitution created another problem here, as Madison became powerless when Congress passed executive departments in the autumn of 1789 (which included the State, Treasury and War departments). It became law that these departments would be responsible to the President alone, but this did develop into a problem when the executive heads evolved into their own “cabinet”, where they met regularly, cast votes on legislation and made collective decisions, which was not mentioned in the Constitution.
So despite the Constitution had set out a democratic government as shown, and was progressing this Government into passing laws through the Senate and the Supreme Court, it did fail on numerous occasions where it failed to point out the relationship between the Executive and the Legislature, and was violated by the heads of Executive departments where they collectively formed a cabinet to vote upon laws.
The second point to mention was how the Constitution allowed the creation of America’s financial economy (through tax, finance and trade), all set up by the 1789 Wartime Secretary, Alexander Hamilton.
Throughout the 1790’s, Hamilton created a financial programme which was set out in a series of reports, and recommended numerous instigations, such as funding the entire domestic and foreign debts created from the war, and funding Federal revolutionary debt also. Because the new Constitution had been adopted, America now had the right to tax individuals for the purpose of Federal Government spending, and this is what Hamilton exercised. By increasing domestic taxes, Hamilton’s vision was to wipe away the foreign debt (of $56 million), and the state revolutionary debt (of $21 million), as he claimed that this was “essential to the Governments financial standing”. However, despite the Constitution could allow this, it didn’t turn out successful in the starting run, as the new financial programme run into turmoil as soon as it set off. Hamilton’s state taxes were largely criticised by Southern states, as many of the South states had already paid their revolutionary debts, and rejected contributing to debts not owed by them, but owed by states such as Massachusetts and other states bordering the New England area. With this in mind, Madison also tried to persuade congress to reject this proposal in April 1790, but the situation was resolved by Hamilton, in saying that he would make special allowances for southern states, and create the new national capital being permanently in the South. It was inevitably agreed, and Congress passed the law in 1790.
However, despite this, Hamilton also ran into further problems created by the Constitution when he attempted to set up the first bank of the United States, with a revenue of over $10 million. It would provide the basis for Government funds, taxes, would stimulate industry and issue paper money, and all Hamilton needed to do this was for Congress to charter the bank, and make this financial idea become reality. However, as Madison pointed out, the bill raised Constitutional questions. Congress had no powers what so ever to charter new companies, and hence no such power existed under Constitutional law. With this, Washington refused to sign the bill, and the national bank appeared to never become legislation. However, by claiming that the bank was necessary to regulate currency and trade, Washington decided to pass the bill (although not convinced by his argument), and the bank of the United States was opened in Philadelphia in December 1791.
The final point to Hamilton’s financial programme was the Manufacturers report of 1791, in which he planned for industrialisation through protective tariffs, bounties and subsidies. By doing this, he would be able to bind the country together and make it self sufficient, and in the long run, able to rely solely on its domestic economy and not that of foreign imports. But problems occurred again when Hamilton exercised the taxing legislation set out in the Constitution. To fund such a heavy programme, Hamilton needed more taxes than that of import duties, and so passed a taxing law in 1791 on distilled liquor (known as the whiskey tax). This bore heavily on the American people (especially that of farmers), and in 1794, the law boiled over into armed resistance, where mobs terrorised federal agents and prevented courts from functioning properly. But despite the problem created here, the Constitution did succeed in one matter where it was justifiable that the Federal Government could create an army and use it to its own will. This is what Washington did in this situation, where he sent over 13,000 armed men into troubled areas of the uprising, which showed that the Government had the power to compel obedience to laws through the use of its militia, and exercise the US army as set out in the Constitution. However, this did create allegations to whether Washington was turning democracy into a military dictatorship, and would use this power to seize control of individual rights which would be un-constitutional. So although Hamilton passed these laws exercising the Constitutional right to taxing and releasing America from the burden of national debt, it also created problems relating to the Constitution, such as chartering the Bank of the United States and Washington instigating laws with the aid of a “military dictatorship”, which went against the writings of the US Constitution.
But apart from these issues, Hamilton’s programme did benefit the United States economy in the long run. Because of his financial knowledge and legislation, the country endured mass growth and boom from when the new orders were set up. Exports increased from $20 million in 1790 to $61 million in 1811, as well as imports increasing from $23 million in 1790 to $53 million in 1811, and the New York Stock Exchange was set up in 1792, all because the Constitution made this possible. So in the long run, the Constitution did benefit the US economy greatly, and proved a success with the Federal Government.
Finally, despite the American democracy progressed throughout the 1790’s & the 1800’s (such as passing an embargo act while Europe was at war), it also endured much debate and change from the General Election of 1800 onwards. At this point, Thomas Jefferson took over the Presidency, and had a completely different view to that of Hamilton’s. He wanted America to be a more “peaceful nation”, largely dominated by an agricultural economy, and contrasting to that of Hamilton’s “Capitalism” ideas. He also felt strongly against the Judiciary, as his view of the Supreme Court was “undemocratic”, as it had un-elected judges appointed for life, and was largely Federalist dominated. With this, he wanted to repeal the Judiciary Act of 1801, and appointed 3 new Supreme Court Justices in this time, of which (under John Marshall), led to the Marbury vs. Madison case of 1803. This became a key development for Constitutional America, as Marbury had been named a justice of the peace in Columbia district. However, Madison declined to certify this, so the President could appoint a Democratic Republican instead, which inevitably led to Marbury suing, requesting that the Court should force the President to appoint him. However, this led to a political dilemma, as if the Supreme Court voted in favour of Marbury, the President would not agree to his appointment, and the Court had no way of forcing him to (as it was unconstitutional), but if they voted against Marbury, they would be handing the Democratic Republicans a victory, which in no way did they want. The matter was only resolved by John Marshall, claiming that Marbury was entitles to his appointment, but Madison “did not have to honour this”, and that the Courts passing Mandamus’s was unconstitutional.
So with this, although a political dilemma occurred, there was inevitably a complete progress of the Constitution, as even though the Supreme Court denied itself the power to issue Mandamus’s, it established itself as a far greater power to judge the Constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.
The final point of American democracy that was influenced by the Constitution was the Growth aspect from the 1800’s onwards, which would not have been possible without the Constitutions adoption. In 1803 when the Louisiana purchase was made, the land area of the US doubled in size, along with the population increasing by 10.6 million from 1820-1840 (89% of this was from natural growth and excluding immigration). Because of this, the United States expanded from the take over of Indiana (1816), Mississippi (1817), Illinois in 1818, Alabama (1819), Maine (1820), and Missouri in 1821, along with future adoptions of Arkansas in 1836 and Michigan state in 1837. However, all of this was only possible from the influence of Indian removal, which was established indirectly from the Constitution.
From the Constitution, the United States “acknowledged Indian distinctiveness by recognising Indian sovereignty”, and gave the Federal Government responsibility for dealing with native Americans. This was precisely what the Federal Government did, but in effect, abused this Constitutional power by using treaty making as a tactic to acquire Indian land (such as that mentioned). By the 1840’s, Indian tribes had given up over 200 million acres of their ancestral land because of Federal pressure, because of such regulations passed in 1824 by James Monroe, suggesting that all Indians should be moved beyond the Mississippi river. In addition to this, by Constitutionally leaving the Indians at the hands of the Federal Government, the Creeks ceded under Federal pressure in 1826, along with the mass “trail of tears” march by 20,000 Cherokees from their land in 1838-1839, being forced to move to present day Alabama (of which, nearly 5,000 died on the route there).
Despite the harshness of this Government legislation, it did none the less prove the Constitution a success as America acquired vast acres of land, which allowed the population to increase dramatically, and lead the country abiding by the Constitution it adopted in 1789. In conclusion, although the Constitution did have many hindrances with its adoption, it did (in the long run) prove to be a success (included with Hamilton’s financial planning, and the overall progress of the American democracy), and in doing so, allowed the United States to endure many benefits with its progressing government, its expansion of land, and its economic growth during the period 1789-1841.