Government Vs Government

984 Words2 Pages

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…

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…

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

Open Document