Since its adoption more than 200 years ago, the constitution of the United States established America’s federal government putting in place various fundamental laws that would also guarantee some of the basic rights for its citizens. The constitution opens with a preamble which in itself does not have a force in law but rather establishes why the document is in existence and also reflects the desires of the framers to improve on then government whose governing document was the Articles of Confederation. The desire to make sure that the government would be just and ready to protect its citizens from both internal strife and external attacks. It also explains that the constitution would be of benefit to the people instead of to its harm even for the forthcoming generations of Americans.
During the constitutional convention in 1787, a plan for a stronger federal government was devised. This would be composed of three branches namely, the executive, legislature and the judiciary and a system of checks and balances that would ensure no single branch would have too much power. These branches were established in the first three of the seven articles of the constitution (1).
The legislative branch of government is established in the first article of the constitution. Here, its name, The Congress, and two arms, House of Representatives/ lower house of Congress and the upper house of Congress/ the Senate, and a few minimum requirements for holding the positions such as age limits are stated (2). The leadership of both houses and a few ground rules for them to meet are spelt out in the subsequent sections. The procedure in which a bill is passed into law is detailed in section seven of this article as these laws usually have direct consequences on the citizens. In section eight, the specific powers of the congress are enlisted including regulation of commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and with the Indian Tribes in the Commerce clause (3). With these powers, there is also a provision in a clause called the Elastic Clause that allows Congress to enact any law necessary for executing or implementing the powers (2). Nevertheless, some limits are given to the Congress in the subsequent section on some legal items.
The second branch of government, the Executive, is explained under article two of the constitution. Here, the office of the president and vice-president are explained, and their term limits and minimum requirements stated. The powers and duties of the president as well as impeachment of the president are well stated. The Judiciary is established under section three and states the role of the Supreme Court and the cases that can be brought before this court. The crime of treason is also clearly defined in this article (2).
Article four involves the dealings of the states and their citizens and commands mutual honor to the laws of all states. The requirements and methods of amending the constitution are detailed in article five. Article six contains the Supremacy Clause that sets the constitution and all the laws and treaties of the United States to be the supreme law of the country. As a requirement of article six, all officers both of the United States and of the states, while taking office, need to swear an oath of allegiance to the United States and the constitution. The Bill of rights ratified under the Amendments 1 through 9 are also encompassed in the constitution. These include the rights to various freedoms including freedom of religion, speech and assembly among others (2).
With all these achievements in the constitution, there were fears among anti-federalists on issues of equitable distribution of power among the three branches of government and the power to regulate commerce. They also feared that the constitution gave too much power to the federal government while taking away power from the state. The federalists on their side argued that the government had limited powers granted by the constitution and had prohibitions from doing certain things. They also argued that by separating power into three equal branches, the constitution had provided a balance and prevented any potentials for tyranny (4). In addition, the federalists reasoned that a system of checks and balances were provided for in the constitution to limit each of the branches of government. The case of Gibbons v. Ogden of 1824 for example, in which several states passed retaliatory statuses that would bring division and disunity among them, is an indication of how the anti-federalists were wrong about power. However, the judgement, defining commerce and upholding the power of the congress to invalidate what had been done by the state of New York brought an end to the brewing disunity and had substantial effect on the well-being of the people of America thus vindicating the Federal system. The anti-federalists were also concerned that the federal courts were given too much power and were too far away to provide Justice to the average citizen. The federalists on their side, argued that the federal courts had limited jurisdiction and left many sections of the law to be handled by the state and local courts. With a belief that the federal court would provide checks and balances on the powers of the two branches of government, and that it would protect citizens from government abuse and guarantee their liberty, the federalists deemed it necessary (4).
From time to time, the federal system has been growing with emergence of different cases from the different quarters. Upon the enactment of the civil rights act in 1964, Heart of Atlanta Motel challenged it in the supreme court (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States). The civil rights act came through to protect the rights of several citizens who were facing discriminations that arose after the abolishment of slavery after the civil war. Cases of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion and national origin were often witnessed. The white supremacists used poll taxes and literacy tests to disenfranchise the African Americans. However, with the enactment of the civil rights act in 1964 and later being upheld by the supreme court, this segregation came to an end and the minority groups were now protected by the federal government (5).
In the case of Marbury v. Madison, the supreme court asserted the power to declare the acts of congress as unconstitutional and thereby claimed a paramount position as the constitutional interpreter. This ruling became a landmark and laid precedence for the court’s power in reviewing laws and acts coming out of congress in line with the constitution. This ruling also fits well in the government’s commitment to provide checks and balances in all the three branches (6).
The case of McCollugh v. Maryland in 1819 asserted national supremacy over state action. In making this decision, the supreme court used the constitutional provision that gave congress the power to enact any law necessary and proper for executing its powers (Elastic clause). Because the bank was a legitimate instrument of explicit federal authority, the law creating it was considered constitutional and that the constitution was the supreme law of the land (2).
In the case of Gibbons v. Ogden (boats between states): The supreme court defined broadly the Commerce Clause to say that the federal government could get involved in trade that took place between two states. It also broadened the definition of Commerce to include the movement of people between states. This was one of the first instances where the federal government was allowed to get involved in something going on inside a state. It was also one of the earlier cases where the Supremacy Clause was used to give more power to the federal government than to the state (3).
The case involving the United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation demonstrates the expansion of presidential war powers. The supreme court’s ruling in favor of the state stated that the powers of the president concerning international relations is so large and that he has the authority bar companies from selling weapons to other countries. The 14th
amendment also subjects all persons born and naturalized in the United States to its jurisdiction (7).
After the civil war in 1864, the 13th amendment saw it that all slaves were freed from their masters with the help of the federal government. As such, the former slaves could now own land and make a living by themselves. Without this amendment, slavery would still be a pain to the citizens of America (4).
Although free from slavery, the former slaves were still not considered citizens of the United states and therefore faced a lot of prejudices. The 14th amendment ensured that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. It further stated that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (5). This amendment brought freedom to the former slaves and accorded them rights and state protection like any other citizen and expanding the federal power.
The 15th amendment expanded the federal powers by defining who had the rights to vote. It stated that the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Therefore, the black minority and former slaves were given the right to vote however, women were still not able to vote (5).
The federal powers were also expanded by the case of Schenck v. United States in which limits were placed on the 1st amendment that gave individuals the right to free speech. In this case, a guy who was against war was telling people not to join the military and defended himself using the 1st amendment that he had the right to speech and could say whatever he wanted. However, the supreme court said that speech can be limited if the country is at war and the speech was dangerous to the country. The example given by the court of someone screaming fire in a crowded theatre causing people to panic and hurt each other while getting out of the theatre as speech that would be considered dangerous and therefore not protected. This limitation to the right to free speech thus necessary in situations in which it will cause harm to others (8).
The enactment of the Labor Relations Act by the Congress was a big step in the growth of the federal government. This came in the wake of the industrial revolution and machines were invented for various jobs creating a lot of employment opportunities. However, the working conditions became very dangerous and working hours prolonged. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory incident that led to the death of 146 individuals, a majority of whom were women and children, encouraged workers to demand their rights encompassing better working conditions. By enacting the Labour Relations Act, the federal government protected the rights of workers all over the nation (1).
The civil rights act of 1964 came amidst rampant discrimination of citizens who were not of white descent. This act outlawed discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, required equal access to public places and employment, and enforced desegregation of schools and the right to vote. It also led to the establishment of several Federal agencies such as Equal employment opportunity commission and the office of Education (The department of Education) to deal with issues of discrimination at various levels. The creation of these agencies grew the powers of the federal government even more. This was followed by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that protected the right of every citizen to vote irrespective of race, gender, religion and national origin. This act gave freedom to all citizens to take part in the process of voting for their leaders. Since voting was not in the enumerated list of federal government, the department of Justice was mandated to enforce it if any state did not comply thus expanding the powers of the federal government (1).
The case of Crockett v. Reagan of 1981 which claimed that the president had violated War Powers resolutions and failed to comply with its requirements to seek congressional approval. The case was dismissed by the court as presenting unmanageable standards which by implication expanded the federal powers (9).
The case of Zivotofsky v. Kerry of 2015, in which the supreme court said that the president possessed exclusive power over treaty negotiations marked a big victory for independent presidential power in external affairs (10). This case held that the President had exclusive power to recognize foreign governments thereby expanding the powers of the president.
The case of Smith v. Obama of 2016 in which it is claimed that the president had violated War Powers by declaring war against ISIS but congress had not authorized. However, this case was dismissed with claims that it presented non-justiciable political questions. This is a sure sign of expanding presidential war powers (10).
In conclusion, the ideals of democracy are difficult to achieve. Nonetheless, the Federal government of the United States in its quest to provide a nation that is free for all its citizens, has achieved several milestones in protecting the rule of law. Through its constitution, the federal government has managed to protect its citizens and fight tyranny among its branches of power. The constitution has provided the necessary checks and balances in all the three branches of government and also protected the rights of its citizens. Anti-federalists have also made a mark in fighting for the individual rights through the Bill of rights that are now encompassed in the constitution. With cases unfolding in which the presidential powers are expanding, it is uncertain whether the checks and balances in place will stand the test of time of the concerns of the anti-federalists will be made manifest. As it is today, the United States stands where its founders had dreamt of.
Works cited
1. Foner, Eric, and John Arthur Garraty. The reader's companion to American history. Houghton Mifflin, 1991.
2. History.com Staff. Constitution. 2009. History.com. A+E Networks Accessed. May 23, 2018. http://www.history.com/topics/constitution
3. Haskins, George L. "John Marshall and the Commerce Clause of the Constitution." (1955): university of Pennsylvania Law Review. 104, 23-37.
4. Schmidt, Steffen W., Mack C. Shelley, and Barbara A. Bardes. American Government and Politics Today, 2007-2008. Cengage Learning, 2006.
5. Whalen, Charles, and Barbara Whalen. The longest debate: A legislative history of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Seven Locks Press, 1989.
6. Van Alstyne, William W., and John Marshall. "A critical guide to Marbury v. Madison." Duke Law Journal (1969): 1-47.
7. Lofgren, Charles A. "United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation: An Historical Reassessment." The Yale Law Journal 83.1 (1973): 1-32.
8. Holmes, Oliver Wendell. "Schenck v. United States."Nos 437 (1919): 438.
9. Rostow, Eugene V., "Great Cases Make Bad Law: The War Powers Act" (1972). Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2143. http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/2143
10. Louis Fisher (2017) A Challenge to Presidential Wars: Smith v. Obama. Congress " the Presidency, 44:2, 259-282. DOI: 10.1080/07343469.2017.1318189
