Show reviews that mention. All reviews ymca gym microwave and coffee maker freedom trail long wharf bunker hill across the bridge convenience store short walk few blocks t station shipyard uss rates aquarium. Reviewed 1 week ago via mobile Just a bed. Reviewed 5 April More then I expected. Reviewed 3 weeks ago Total Dive. Reviewed 10 November via mobile Good hotel, lovely staff.
Reviewed 6 November Huge rooms. Previous Next 1 2 3 4 5 6 … The Constitution Inn offers the best hotel value in downtown Boston - great accommodations, great location, and a great low price!
Constitution Inn, Boston
All guests are welcome to use their pool and fitness facility. The Constitution Inn is the perfect place to gather with family and friends. Hotel class Star ratings indicate the general level of features and amenities to expect. They are provided to TripAdvisor by third-party partners such as Expedia and Giata. Star rating provided by Expedia. All photos Find your way to the Charlestown Navy Yard, which is a developing area with lots of condos and an additional site for Massachusetts General Hospital research centers.
Nearby Hotels See all 89 nearby hotels. Battery Wharf Hotel, Boston Waterfront. Nearby Attractions See all nearby attractions. See all 33 questions. How far is Fenway and what is the best way to get there from the hotel. Can we take the subway. Response from ChrystineS1 Reviewed this property. The front desk receptionists are very helpful so just ask.
There is a free bus which will take you into the centre of town and there is also a shuttle boat which goes between the quay and the town. How close are you to the subway system?
A Constitution for All Times
And where can we go for breakfast in the morning? Response from Singinmom Reviewed this property.
I did not use the subway system, so don't know. We found a cafeteria that serves breakfast and lunch in an office building about 2 blocks away, open Mon-Fri. It was quite good. Is there free parking? Is the hop on hop off bus close by? Response from Beth B Property representative. TripAdvisor LLC is not responsible for content on external web sites. Taxes, fees not included for deals content. The Creation of the American Republic established that the history of constitutional invention in America did not begin with the convention of The process of constitutional invention took off in , as Americans were moving to declare independence.
As the colonies became states, they had to create governments anew because their old forms of government had significant royal elements to them. So to replace colonial charters they wrote new constitutions, which said specifically what state governments could do and how they would be structured. Wood shows that there was this rich body of experimentation going on at the level of state government.
He then identifies, traces and explains all the changes — some gradual, some significant — that took place in American constitutional thinking between independence and the writing of the federal constitution.
In and , when it became evident that the nation needed a new federal constitution, the experience of the states provided a real source of information, arguments, experience and inspiration that the framers in Philadelphia drew on quite deeply. I think the nature of the presidency was the biggest issue. There was no real model at that time, anywhere in the world, of a republican presidency.
Americans were rejecting monarchy and what we now call ministerial government, meaning the cabinet form of government that was evolving in Britain. They wanted to have a president who was constitutionally independent of the legislature, but not so powerful as to be a potential despot. They had no satisfactory ideas as to how the president was going to be elected, so they settled on the electoral college system.
- A Constitution for All Times by Pamela Karlan!
- CONSTITUTION INN - UPDATED Hotel Reviews & Price Comparison (Boston, MA) - TripAdvisor;
- What people are saying about USS Constitution.
- Eye for an Eye (DCI Andy Gilchrist Book 1).
- The Greatest Gift.
So I think the single largest issue that the framers left open was the question: There were bills of rights attached to some, but not all, of the state constitutions. In it was not clear if these statements of right were meant to be legally binding or who would enforce them. Between and Americans started to think of declarations of rights or bills of rights as having more legal authority.
Forrest McDonald paints a different picture of the intellectual ferment that surrounded the framing. Tell us about it. He has great background chapters where he describes dominant modes of thinking in the 18th century. He has other discussions of how people thought about political economy, meaning the role of the state in managing economic affairs. So he creates a deep intellectual background for the world that the framers inhabited. Then he assesses which authors exerted influence on particular framers.
Scholars have been arguing about it for 70 years, but McDonald is an avowed Hamiltonian and finds it hard to take Madison too seriously. Can we safely generalise about how Enlightenment political theory informed the framing? The framers and the founders were definitely part of the Enlightenment. As provincial intellectuals, aware of their distance from contemporary centres of thinking in Europe, they consciously tried to absorb knowledge. On the other hand — and this is what a lot of my own work is about — they also lived through a revolution.
The Best Books on The US Constitution | Five Books Expert Recommendations
Many of them, particularly Madison, were profoundly convinced that what they had learned by experience was far more valuable than anything that they had ever read. Now lets talk about a person portrait of the men who made the Constitution: We know a lot about the federal convention because Madison assigned himself the task of taking daily notes about what was said.
And we know a fair amount about many or most of the authors of the Constitution. So we can reconstruct a narrative about how the Constitution was framed day by day, issue by issue. Rick Beeman does that very successfully. Framing a constitution through this kind of convention was a great novelty. Most of the state constitutions, which had been done a decade earlier, were written quickly by delegates who had other duties to perform. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention came to Philadelphia from 12 of the 13 original states and sat together, sealed up in Independence Hall, from May through September.
Some of the delegates spoke very little, about 15 were active speakers, others sat back and absorbed or seemed terribly bored. They came in good moods and bad. Some ate too much for lunch and napped in the afternoon. It got pretty hot in the hall.
Constitution Inn
Reconstructing what it was like, week by week, to draft a new federal plan makes a great story. It seems that two centuries ago the framers were unable to resolve contentious issues that are still being litigated today — disagreements over guns, freedom of speech, separation of church and state. The Bill of Rights was framed as a postscript to the Constitution. Once ratified, the Bill of Rights did not see much action until the s. Most government in America took place at the state level. Max Edling, a young Swedish scholar, who has just finished a sabbatical at Stanford this year, did this book originally as a doctoral dissertation in England.
For a foreign scholar to write a thesis that significantly shifts how established scholars think about the American Constitution is quite a feat. Max Edling restores the Hamiltonian part of the framing story. Most scholars, myself included, have privileged James Madison, who was most concerned about the protection of rights and the proper structure of constitutional government.
Edling explains that Alexander Hamilton and a group of other men who had served in the Continental Army, were concerned by the weakness that the American government demonstrated during the revolutionary war and were deeply aware that Great Britain, our former colonial master, was advantaged by having the most efficient state in the Atlantic world. Their view of the dangers that the United States would face as a new republic shaped the framing.
Gordon Wood wrote of this book: Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress had no genuine independent sources of revenue; it had to ask the states to collect taxes. Hamilton and others saw that this was a terrible way to run a national government, particularly in wartime.
The Constitution gives Congress an almost unlimited authority to tax. Hamilton and those around him understood how important it was to put the United States Congress in the position to act efficiently and effectively. Pauline Maier picks up the story of the Constitution from the time of its framing with Ratification.
Please tell us about it. The story of how the Constitution was ratified is just as remarkable as the story of how it was framed. By the end of 10 months of public debate, each of the 11 states that originally ratified the Constitution had independently adopted it. States could recommend amendments, but the only binding action they could take was to vote the entire Constitution up or down. Comparing that process to what Europeans have been going through over the last decade with the EU constitutional treaty makes you think the framers were geniuses.
Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787
They came up with a remarkably efficient way to get the Constitution adopted. It required a lot of debate and a lot of political manoeuvring but it was ratified in less than a year. Until Pauline Maier published this book, that story has never been well told. There have been examinations of particular state debates.
There was one older narrative, which was adequate. But no one has looked at ratification as comprehensively. Recently, the Historical Society of Wisconsin compiled some 20 volumes of ratification debate records. Maier uses those records cohesively and effectively. She tells a great story. They won the day in various ways. Under the Articles of Confederation you needed all 13 states to approve amendments.
It was a gimmick that worked. Ratification got off to a good start. The Federalists got six states to ratify within the first few months of debate. They made one big mistake in Pennsylvania, which was the second most populous state at the time. The Pennsylvania convention was divided into two parties: The Federalist majority rode roughshod over the anti-Federalist minority. That played poorly in the press — it looked as if the Federalists were being overly manipulative and insufficiently democratic. Criticism of what took place in Pennsylvania helped make the overall process of ratification elsewhere fairer.