Background
It was assumed that each state would have its bright and responsible representation in Congress. It was necessary for security, and because each state had its own political and economic interests, it was also subject to different cultural currents and social processes. Weak judicial power led to issues of economic and political distress. Religion influenced other states differently, which was reflected in their political and social decisions, leading to violence.
However, despite the differences in size and population of the states, the largest and smallest had no more than one vote in Congress (Harrison et al., 2021). This resulted in a skewed opinion, as Congress gave no nationally representative view of each state. For example, states like New York were highly urbanized and, most importantly, had a large number of migrants. The image of this state’s community was very different from that of conservative Texas, which was predominantly agrarian and thirsty for self-government.
Typically, conditions that could maintain self-government through economic means (such as trade with Britain) insisted on the status quo. Self-government would allow them to regulate the monopoly on violence in the region. It meant special rights to slavery and a derogatory attitude towards enslaved people that could not be restrained from the outside. The states acted on different trends in human rights protection, and in Congress, due to uneven representation, these trends collided.
Liberty and Tyranny
Tyranny and liberty originated as universal concepts during the French Enlightenment; the authors of the US Constitution were the descendants of those thinkers. Liberty is the level of freedom that implies a person’s right to choose a profession, place of residence, and marital status, regardless of origin. People become the creators of their destiny, laying down the democratic foundation and the country’s constitutional order.
The desire for liberty became the center of the US Constitution, and the need for freedom was no longer discussed but became apparent to everyone. At the time of the Constitution’s creation, the concepts of liberty and tyranny were initially considered opposing philosophic categories (Harrison et al., 2021). The first category is the manifestation of personal will, and the second is suppression and imposition. Tyranny did not mean a specific force from which it is necessary to protect people with the help of law and the Constitution.
The dilemma of the power of the government as a legal corps of tyranny has been formed. The stronger the government is organized, the better it will provide freedom to citizens. At the same time, a strong centralized government can become a conductor of tyranny in the country. The consolidation of power must be done carefully and thoughtfully; a comprehensive system of checks and balances must accompany such power. For example, John Adams suggested that in a democratic country, a lawyer’s right to representation should be mandatory and fundamental for all criminals, regardless of their rank.
Separation of Powers
The separation of powers establishes such an order of relations between state authorities that allows them to restrain and control each other, preventing excessive concentration of power in the hands of one person or group of persons. The separation of powers would function effectively without force, as the principles of sovereignty and democracy ensure it. The principle of separation of powers enables the creation of additional safeguards for effective administration, freedom in society, and the protection of individual rights and freedoms.
Legislative power cannot be reduced to executive and vice versa. The executive branch is accountable to the legislature, and the legislature can condemn the enforcement of laws. Within this framework, the judiciary stands apart, as resolving high-profile and serious scandals and criminal offenses depends on its independence and impartiality. Decisions on these issues can have detrimental effects on the welfare of individuals.
Checks and Balances
The mechanism of checks and balances creates a competitive struggle in the highest echelons, allowing them not to make amendments unanimously and quickly during one reading, but to challenge any changes in the law and test them for their strength. Thus, such changes and decisions can be rejected and gradually forgotten if the representation considers them useless or harmful to society. Checks and balances between the branches of government can make things difficult for the government and often require a significant amount of documentation. Nevertheless, primarily proven people get into power thanks to this, and laws that cause doubts are often not adopted.
Checks and balances allow as many people as possible to participate in politics. Checks and balances are distributed through the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch. Examples of checks and balances are economic regulations; for example, Congress, the legislative branch, controls the entire budget of the executive branch. Another example of checks and balances is the appointment of federal officials and judges (Holcombe, 2018).
The president nominates federal judges to the judicial branch, but the Senate considers the proposed candidates and confirms or rejects them only after doing so. The classic example of checks and balances is the president’s impeachment and the right to it in the House of Representatives. Another well-known example of executive branch checks and balances is the president’s veto power over bills in Congress. Here, checks and balances are not limited to one branch or action because Congress can override a veto with a two-thirds vote in a second say.
Rights
Habeas corpus is the most important constitutional right that protects individuals from arbitrary actions by the police and the executive branch. This rule was initially intended as a means of personal protection against imprisonment without trial or investigation. The bill of attainder is a piece of legislation that allows a party to be charged with a crime by providing evidence. Such crimes were typically political offenses, including treason, espionage, or desertion to the enemy. Ex post facto is a retrospective consideration of an already committed crime before the official adoption of the relevant law recognizing the act as a crime.
The Bill of Rights was limited at the time of its adoption, focusing primarily on individual rights and freedoms. It was probably caused by general unrest over slavery, and the bill’s passers wanted to ensure that each enslaved man would receive his specific rights. That is why the Bill of Rights focuses on equality of protection. The Bill of Rights supported freedom of religion, the print press, and expression. Rights are essential for protecting communities against unlawful imprisonment, as guaranteed by habeas corpus, and against felonies, as prohibited by bills of attainder, while defining the values of society.
Federalism
The federal government was limited because it had limited interests. Thus, tax administration, spending, military affairs, the army, borrowing, and similar areas were subject to new bills. Structuring the country’s economic life was essential since the economy became the regulator of the general movement of previously disparate states that did not understand each other’s intentions.
Healthcare and education were underdeveloped, but the government did not designate the development and regulation of these areas, as well as intrastate commerce, as essential to improving the country’s welfare and reinforcing centralization of power (Harrison et al., 2021). In parts of education and healthcare, the government has probably allowed the use of the right to freedom. This is especially true for education, and each state was able to regulate separately which areas of science to focus on.
References
Harrison, B., Harris, J., & Deardorff, M. (2021). American democracy now (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Holcombe, R. G. (2018). Checks and balances: Enforcing constitutional constraints. Economies, 6(4), 57-77.