How did the Constitution's framers reconcile the dilemma of economic inequality and political freedom?

Answer 1

Economic and class distinctions were a major conflict in the drafting of the United States Constitution, and the poorer majority had little to no political power at the time. In fact, almost all of the framers of the Constitution were or came from wealthy or dignified backgrounds. However, they knew that converting their newly-won independence back into an aristocracy would only lead to another revolution in the future. Thus, they included a number of factors into the document.

The first and longest article of the Constitution covers the Legislative Branch and its responsibilities. In the article, the framers created a bicameral legislature, separated into the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Connecticut Compromise gave equal representation of the states in the Senate, and population-based representation in the House. This had a dual-purpose, in addition to resolving big-state-little-state conflicts. It was originally intended for the Senate to protect the interests of the elite (due to the fact that it usually requires one to be relatively well-off to be elected into the Senate) to counteract the tendancy of the House to protect the interests of the masses. They hoped to bring balance by donig so, giving equal representation to all economic classes.

When the draft Constitution was put up for ratification, Anti-Federalist advocate groups fiercely protested its lack of a Bill of Rights, and urged states to refuse the ratification of the document until one was included. The Anti-Federalists feared a powerful, centralized national government, and with just reason considering their hard-fought independence from a tyrannical one. The Federalists responded by having the framers include what is now known as the United States Bill of Rights. This list not only promised individual rights, but guaranteed them in the stone of law. With the Bill of Rights, the Constitution guaranteed political freedom by making it illegal for the government to infringe on the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to peaceful protest, freedom of religion, and freedom to criticize the government, amongst others.