Since December 15, 1791, the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees our rights and places limitations on federal and state governments. By placing limits, the states have their sovereignty. This form of cooperative federalism safeguards the checks and balance system that is the keystone of the U.S. Constitution. To protect our civil liberties, like freedom of press, the Anti-Federalist wanted the Constitution to include a Bill of Rights. This paper will discuss the importance of limited government regarding civil liberties, the limits on the governmental role through the Constitution and its effects on government dealings with foreign issues.
To start, limited government needs to be defined. In concise terminology, the
…show more content…
Constitution constructed boundaries and powers for the national government. The Ninth Amendment limits the interpretation of enumerated federal powers and the Tenth Amendment incorporates the rule of enumerated power (Garry). With these parameters in place, an individual’s liberties are protected and the government understands it roles. In relation to civil liberties one needs to examine the Warren Era. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren was a pioneer; he ruled on several landmark civil liberty cases. Under Warren’s stewardship, the court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson of separate but equal and ruled on Miranda v. Arizona, ensuring suspects are read their rights (Warren). These precedents are fundamental in ensuring civil liberties. Moving on to limited government and the Constitution.
The Constitution is written with protections and boundaries that limit the government. One case that correlates with limited government is United States v. Lopez. The Supreme Court ruled in 1995 that Congress had surpassed its constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause when it passed a law prohibiting gun possession in local school zones (McBride). Lainie Rutkow’s article The Constitution's Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court, and Public Health, elaborates on limited government by referring to United States v. Lopez. Rutkow as the, “United States v. Lopez can be seen as the Court's effort to define the outer bounds of the Commerce Clause and to pull back from prior cases upholding the broadest possible reading of congressional power”. Why is this important? These court decisions are important because they set precedence; they are examples for the courts to determine future …show more content…
cases. Equally important is enacting provisions regarding the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). This case wasn’t about women’s rights but… “limits to Congress’s power under the Constitution” (Bullock). The VAWA case touched on an area the federal government was wading into states and infringing on civil liberties. In Bullocks brief, he highlights the main points by, “Urging the Court to restore the principles of limited constitutional government adopted by the Founders. The Constitution establishes a government of enumerated powers, leaving most power-including the general police power-with the states or the people”. We need to understand that through time, the powers of Congress need to evolve. The courts need to exercise their flexible limits, yet the margin for error is thin if they fail to uphold the rights of states. Another example is the recent case of Honeycutt v.
United States in the use of criminal asset forfeiture in federal proceedings. Tony Honeycutt owned a hardware store in Tennessee. Honeycutt’s hardware store was receiving $270,000 profits from water filters that were sold in connection to the manufacturing of methamphetamines. His brother and accomplice, Terry Honeycutt were both convicted. Tony Honeycutt paid $200,000 and Terry was to pay the remaining $70,000. Terry Honeycutt argued he has no stake in his brother’s business and shouldn’t be held liable. The case was sent to the Supreme Court when a circuit court reversed that ruling and stated the Honeycutt’s were “jointly and severally liable” (Kessler). This case became an example of forfeiture abuse. Steven L. Kessler’s, SCOTUS Limits Criminal Forfeiture in 'Honeycutt', explains the decision that The Supreme Court… “held that joint and several liability doesn’t apply to criminal forfeiture. Only assets obtained directly or indirectly by a defendant are subject to forfeiture”. Concluding that the government can’t overreach in asset
forfeitures. In correlation, The Honeycutt case is related to the Fourth Amendment, that one is secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of property by the government. Jarrett Skorup’s, While States Limit Forfeiture, Feds Are Expanding It, defines civil forfeiture as, “Occurring outside the traditional criminal justice system and means citizens can lose their property without ever being proven to have done something wrong and even without ever having been charged with a crime”. This is a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment. The government seizing one’s property without proper cause is deplorable and an abomination to our Constitution. Fret not, reforms are being made because the standards of evidence for forfeitures are deficient, thus contributing to the abuse (Skorup). One final matter that needs to be discussed is how the Constitution affects congressional and presidential performance to foreign policy. Foreign policy etched into the Constitution is minimal, making most cases of first impression. In the case of Zivotofsky v. Kerry, Justice Clarence Thomas, the court found that Section 214(d) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act was unconstitutional (Lithwick). Dahlia Lithwick clarifies by posing, “The constitutional question is whether Congress or the president gets final say on the sovereignty of foreign places. And if the president gets final say, did Congress intrude on his powers?”. Therefore, laws and parameters are set. This issue is very convoluted and deals with issues in the Middle East so understanding the case requires detailed research. In totality, it comes down to checks and balances. Moreover, the government must proceed with caution and diplomacy when breaching issues of foreign affairs. George Washington’s farewell address warned against the dangers of foreign entanglement and advised the citizens of the United States to observe good faith and justice toward all nations (Sciabarra). It’s our duty as citizens of the United States to uphold the words of Washington and the Constitution. For we are one nation, indivisible with equal justice for all.
Many people today argue that McCulloch v. Maryland is one of the most important Supreme Court cases in United States history. Three main points were made by Chief Justice Marshall in this case, and all of these points have become critical and necessary parts of the U.S. Government and how it functions. The first part of the Supreme Court’s ruling stated that Congress has implied powers under a specific part of the Constitution referred to as the Necessary and Proper Clause. The second section of the ruling determined that the laws of the United States are more significant and powerful than any state laws that conflict with them. The last element addressed by Chief Justice Marshall was that sovereignty of the Union lies with the people of the
During and after the turmoil of the American Revolution, the people of America, both the rich and the poor, the powerful and the meek, strove to create a new system of government that would guide them during their unsure beginning. This first structure was called the Articles of Confederation, but it was ineffective, restricted, and weak. It was decided to create a new structure to guide the country. However, before a new constitution could be agreed upon, many aspects of life in America would have to be considered. The foremost apprehensions many Americans had concerning this new federal system included fear of the government limiting or endangering their inalienable rights, concern that the government’s power would be unbalanced, both within
After the American Revolution, America had earned it’s freedom from Britain. In order to govern this new country the Articles of Confederation was created. This document was flawed by the colonists fear of putting too much power into a central government. Knowing the document needed to be fixed a constitutional convention was called. The document created at this convention has been our constitution ever since. But even the Constitution was meet with criticism. One major concern when writing the constitution was how to protect the citizens rights. The Constitution did this through the preamble, the legislative process, the limit of presidential terms, the judicial branch, and the bill of rights.
With many recent incidents that involve guns between 2012 and 2013, gun control laws have become a hot topic in America. On one hand, after the horrific incident like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting at Newtown in 2012, most people wanting to limit guns from getting into the wrong by setting up a rigorous system that control who can and cannot obtain a gun. On the other hand, we have the people who believe that with such rigorous system in place is violated the individual rights that granted and protected by the United States Constitution. They believe that the rigorous system will prevent people from defending themselves and could be a violation of their privacy. Regardless of which side is right, if we want to understand more about our current conflict, we have to look back on how this hold debate started. The District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court case in 2008 that found the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 unconstitutional, which influence the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense by questioning the Second Amendment and laws that restrict a person from acquire guns.
According to law, Congress must “regulate commerce.” Some individuals might feel that the Government possesses too much power, but it is necessary for them to have it. Without it, our Government would be weak and subject to failure. State legislature acts should be unconstitutional if they interfere with interstate commerce. If not, we are giving more power to our states than our Government. Congress’ power to legislate control over public schools is constitutional because it is a power delegated to them. Regulation of activities in and affecting commerce does include carrying a handgun to school. The action of bringing it does directly violate the Gun Free School Zone Act, which the Federal Government made a federal offense. Congress analyzes activities in a broad sense so that in the end, they do what is best for every individual.
In a world where terrorism, war, and economic instability are ever looming threats it’s not a wonder why the limits on the freedom of the individual can come into question. This is especially true when the country where these limits are brought into question is one of the world’s leading powers in: democracy, economics, social welfare, military force, and foreign politics in general. This country, of course, is the United States. Unfortunately, even with the country’s democratically centered government, there is still a debate on whether Americans have enough protections for civil liberties or not. A few key areas of argument on civil liberties and hopefully provide enough information to the reader so that he/she may deduce an educated opinion as to whether Americans have enough protection for civil liberties or not.
The Constitution of the United States is one of the most iconic and important documents of all time. However, when it was first generated, its writing and ratification caused some major concerns. The purpose of the Constitution was to address the great number of issues of a new nation. To be more specific, the Constitution was meant to resolve the political, economic, and social problems of the country. Nevertheless, the document spurred much discussion and concern over people’s rights, the economy, and political corruption.
In 1789, the Confederation of the United States, faced with the very real threat of dissolution, found a renewed future with the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. This document created a structure upon which the citizens could build a future free of the unwanted pitfalls and hazards of tyrannies, dictatorship, or monarchies, while securing the best possible prospects for a good life. However, before the establishment of the new United States government, there was a period of dissent over the need for a strong centralized government. Furthermore, there was some belief that the new constitution failed to provide adequate protection for small businessmen and farmers and even less clear protection for fundamental human rights.
The United States of America is one of the most powerful nation-states in the world today. The framers of the American Constitution spent a great deal of time and effort into making sure this power wasn’t too centralized in one aspect of the government. They created three branches of government to help maintain a checks and balance system. In this paper I will discuss these three branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, for both the state and federal level.
This debate has produced two familiar interpretations of the Second Amendment. Advocates of stricter gun control laws have tended to stress that the amendment’s militia clause guarantees nothing to the individual and that it only protects the states’ rights to be able to maintain organized military units. These people argue that the Second Amendment was merely used to place the states’ organized military forces beyond the federal government’s power to be able to disarm them. This would guarantee that the states would always have sufficient force at their command to abolish federal restraints on their rights and to resist by arms if necessary. T...
The opposing argument serves as a perfect gateway to the topic of relationship between Federal and State government. In the United States, the Supremacy Clause serves...
The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican government, he and his fellow justices sought to perpetuate their Federalist principles in the United States’ court system. In one of the most memorable court cases of all time--the case of Marbury v. Madison-- Marshall established the idea of judicial review and strengthened the power of the judicial branch in the government. Abiding by his Federalist ideals, Marshall decided cases that would explicitly limit the power of the state government and broaden the strengths of the national government. Lastly, the Marshall Court was infamous for determining the results of cases that dealt with the interpretation of the Constitution and the importance of contracts in American society. The Marshall Court, over the span of a mere three decades, managed to influence the life of every American citizen even to this day by impacting the development of the judicial branch, establishing a boundary between the state and national government, and making declarations on the sanctity of contracts ("The Marshall Court"...
“The Constitution leaves in its wake a long legacy, forever shaping the fate of many other countries. Whether those countries are currently in a state favorable to liberty or not, it is undeniable that the U.S. Constitution’s principles have caused people to rethink how to organize their political systems” (Hang). Time has only added value to the Constitution, for every time we reference it in our lives it is a testament of our trust and loyalty in what it states about our rights as individuals and the role the government plays in our lives. When it was written, the Constitution was the law of the land that gave people rights they had previously lived without. Similarly, we live lives of choice and independence because of the same document while other countries limit all the rights we are guaranteed in the Constitution. Simply put, “The Constitution is important because it protects individual freedom, and its fundamental principles govern the United States. The Constitution places the government 's power in the hands of the citizens. It limits the power of the government and establishes a system of checks and balances”
The current state of federalism in the United States is of one of peril, plagued with recent Supreme Court rulings, current debates over the devolution of Federal powers, and variance in State governing. The United States has always been troubled with the role of the Federal government V. State government on numerous issues. Since around the time of the Great Depression, the federal government was charged with the taking care of the American public in many social and economic matters. Congress was then granted by the Supreme Court almost complete power in passing any sort by legislation by relating it somehow to the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause found in Section 8, Article I, United States Constitution, states that Congress may regulate any and all commerce between foreign nations and the states. Congress simply related almost all legislature in some way to intrastate commerce, therefore making the passing of their legislation constitutional. This system was greatly used by Congress for almost sixty years, when, in the late nineteen-eighties and early nineteen-nineties many individuals and special interests groups challenged the constitutionally of these laws passed by Congress using the Commerce Clause. In several cases, such as United States v. Lopez, Congress was dealt a powerful blow and the states seemed to gain an upper hand. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause by enacting the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This, along with many other laws repealed by the Supreme Court, weakened Federal control and gave power back to the states, a grievous mistake in my opinion. This increased the strains on the role of federalism in the United States and once again brought up the question, who has the power to govern what? In addition to this, federalism has taken a frightful turn with the current debates of devolution, or returning power to the states. Many current Congressmen and citizens alike believe that states should have a greater level of sovereignty and that federal power should be weakened so as to strengthen state governments. In contrast, many others believe that the Federal government should be allowed more power. This and other conflicting ideas have lead to a constant strain on the abilities of the government to best carry out its duties.
In spite of the prominence of the states in everyday life, the most demanding public policy questions former to the American Civil War involved discussions over the possibility of national power with most Americans believing it should remain partial. Yet federalism was still the center of political arguments. The Constitution did not report if states did nor did not reserve any remaining sovereignty in the powers given to the national government. The fact that the states were much more capable in accomplishing governmental purposes adequately t...