US Constitution: then and now - Essay Example

Over time, the purpose and reasons for governments changed, based on the ever-changing needs of the citizens who benefit from its monopoly on power.Sometimes, these governments shift to become less powerful; under different circumstances, these governments shift to a state of more power. Conditions that determine the direction of a state’s power are subject to a great deal of examination and political interest. One could argue that the United States, like all other countries since the late 18th century, have undergone such a transition.

However, the exact direction it has gone since that time is likewise subject to debate. Understandably, a broad transition in the philosophical basis for the United States government has occurred in the past two hundred years, which has shifted the focus of federal institutions away from the protecting of individual rights to the entitlement of liberties and, as a consequence, from a decentralized union of states to a nationalist ideal of federal power. In the years following the ratification of the United States Constitution, the role of the federal government was imagined as limited in scope, in hopes of avoiding dictatorial control.

As a result, the emphasis of the government, as directed by the Bill of Rights, was in the protection of individual rights (such as the right to free speech) that do not impose on the rights of other free citizens. These rights, known as negative rights, do not specify what a person can do, but what he cannot do. This focus on the individualist spirit and the union of the states was, in essence, an attempt to decentralize power from a single source (Smith). States were seen as entities that could actively uphold the interests of individuals within a certain region, more so than could a centralized federal government.

At this point, the government was structured as a collection of states, rather than a single overreaching party. Although the Articles of Confederacy were rejected because they did not allow a strong enough bond, the Constitution still limited centralization while providing a stronger bond between states. At the turn of the 21st century, the focus of government is quite different from the institutions that ratified the Constitution. Since the Bill of Rights, the Constitution has been amended several times.

In many cases, these Amendments have come to recognize underprivileged individuals as fully initiated members of American society. This changing focus to positive rights, or rights that entitle people to some good (such as the right to vote for minorities and women), has reflected a broader change in the role of government. Thus, instead of a Constitutionally mandated government for the protection of negative rights, the situation has become one in which people are entitled to certain things by virtue of belonging as a citizen to the United States, and the government is obligated to supply individuals with those goods (Smith).

Additionally, as the population has grown along with the number of groups represented by the United States, the need for uniformity in how these rights are distributed has changed as well. Therefore, the federal government takes on a larger role in the contemporary political climate, and we call it a “federalist” structure of government. The distinction between these two styles (or purposes) of government is centered around (a) the philosophical ideal of what the federal government ought to do, (b) the structure that best attains those ends, and (c) the way in which the federal government protects the rights of its citizens.

At the beginnings of the United States, the philosophical ideal of the federal government was the concept of a republican state that gives people representation in the course of their country, but with limits on that direction. Those limits were Constitutional in nature. For instance, the freedom of religion supplied by the First Amendment prevents the enactment of a democratic push for a single state religion (Tepker 34). In today’s political climate, however, the Constitution is not regularly viewed as a limiting force.

As an example, critics of federalism cite the Tenth Amendment as a Constitutional limit frequently violated (Osborne). Over the past two hundred years, the American federal government has undergone a gradual, predictable change from an entity in charge of ensuring individual rights to an entity in charge of evenly distributing entitlements to all of its citizens. This is neither politically desirable nor undesirable unless one analyzes it in a particular normative context. Regardless, this change has actually come about because of changing philosophies with respect to the proper purpose and role that the federal government ought to play in the daily lives of American citizens.

In contrast to the laissez-faire attitudes of the late 18th century, today’s attitudes put more emphasis on the federal government to provide the kinds of services and positive liberties. Critics of this transition wish to return to the previous picture of a constitutionally limited government, while advocates of the new model feel that the federal government should be doing more to protect its citizens’ civil liberties and play a more active role (Osborne). How the federal government continues to develop, either increasing its centralization or decreasing it, remains to be seen.

Works Cited Osborne, James. Tenth Amendment Movement Aims to Give Power Back to the States. 26 May 2009. 9 March 2011 . Smith, Duane. "An Introduction to the Political Philosophy of the Constitution." 10 February 2002. Center for Civic Education. 8 March 2011 . Tepker, Harry F. "Democracy's Paradox: Popular Rule as a Constitutional Limit on Foreign Policy Promoting Public Rule." Oklahoma Law Review 58:21 (2005): 21-36.