Dignity, Liberty, Equality: A Fundamental Rights Triangle of Constitutionalism - Essay Example

?As a function of the society in which we live, many of the terms and definitions for the rights and freedoms that individuals have are oftentimes taken for granted. Moreover, in addition to merely being taken for granted, the underlying definitions and societal interpretations for these rights and freedoms have lost much of their original intent. Both as a function of the way in which society engages with these principles, and as a function of the way in which governance delineates and constricts these rights and privileges, the underlying representation and core meaning that these engage is oftentimes confused and/or misunderstood. As a function of this confusion with regards to some of the core precept that help to define the society in which we live, it will be the express intent of this particular analysis to engage the reader with an understanding of the immutable nature of equality and liberty. Through such analysis and focus upon the way in which these two are related and differentiated from one another. Yet, the fact of the matter is that the interplay between equality and liberty is something that perennially exists. Ultimately, each and every decision that is made with regards to greater levels of liberty, or the exercise thereof, has a direct and/or tangential impact with regards to the manner in which an individual can experience a degree of equality. Naturally, in a perfect world, society views equality and liberty as two “goods” that should be able to exist alongside one another in equal measure. However, the fact of the matter is that one necessarily constrains the other and causes a situation by which an increased degree of equality adversely impacts liberty; and vice versa. The following analysis and discussion will more appropriately define this inverse relationship and the means by which it is exhibited within the United States; both past and present (Smith 456). One analyst noted, “The balancing of liberty and equality interests cannot be accomplished in the abstract. We cannot decide issues involving specific legislation by determining that we lack ''enough'' liberty or that our society has ''too much'' equality. Careful evaluation requires inquiry into the specific nature of the individual freedom that may be sacrificed and the value of the equality that will be enhanced if the proposal becomes law” (New York Times 1). As such, the interplay between these two seemingly competitive virtues is clearly manifest. Firstly, before delving into an active definition and understanding of either liberty or equality, it must be appreciated that neither of these terms are in direct competition with one another for a position of being the most important guiding principle of democracy; rather, these concepts are both cornerstones through which democracy is defined, upheld, and delineated. If one of these two terms had to be understood as of greater importance than its counterpart, then the entire framework upon which representative government is fabricated would topple. Ultimately, at its very core, liberty necessarily defines the state of being free. As such, this freedom has been exhibited within almost each and every aspect of the way in which the American experience of government has come to be known. Although the freedom of liberty is a defining hallmark of the way in which he United States has come to experience its own development and growth as a political and social concept, the fact of the matter is that the actual application of liberty itself is not static. Just like with the way in which equality has come to be re-defined and re-understood throughout different periods of the nation’s history, liberty and the freedoms that it entails has been defined, constrained, and redefined as different experiences have shaped the way in which this concept is reflected within the American populace. A quick example of this can of course be seen with regards to the way in which liberty came to be constricted after the attacks of September 11th, 2001. Whereas the nation itself was in a state of shock the government, with the full support of a very large majority of its stakeholders, promoted a vast reduction in the civil liberties that the American population had so long taken for granted. Sadly, as with so many reductions in liberties, the process of liberty reduction does not readily give way to increases in liberty as time goes on. Instead, the liberties that were deprived from the American populace as a result of the panicked and “knee jerk” reactions of the events of September 11th have not been returned and continue to negatively impact upon the civil rights and liberties that individuals within the nation can experience throughout the course of their own daily life. For instance, even though the Bill of Rights expressly denotes that the American citizen shall be free from warrantless searches and seizures, the implementation of the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) and its tacit right to screen, search, and otherwise detain individuals that they deem unfit to fly not only restricts an individual’s civil rights with respect to the freedom from search and seizure, it also restricts the right of travel that the American is otherwise guaranteed within his/her own borders (Aradau 297). Another salient example of the means by which liberty is constrained is with regards to the way in which the Sedition Act of 1918. Whereas the United States, and indeed liberty itself, has as its founding and guiding principle the ability and freedom to say what one feels and express oneself freely, the Sedition Act made it illegal for individuals to criticize the government during “wartime”. Although repealed soon after it was enacted, the deprivation of freedom that this act engaged was only the first in a long list of government acts and laws that sought to further hedge and defines the freedoms that the founding documents of the United States had offered and delineated so broadly (Baer 453). In such a manner, the greatest level of differential that exists between equality and liberty is not with respect to their underlying meaning; rather, the greatest differential that currently separates these two is with respect to the fact that equality for the average citizen/individual has precipitously grown over the years. By way of extension, liberty has shrunk and continues to be shrink – seemingly year by year (Taylor 361). Whereas it might be understood that equality has come to fruition and then represented throughout our society much later than the precepts of liberty, the fact of the matter is that the concept of the quality can be traced back to the Declaration of Independence; and even further to the rights of man. In short, the precepts of equality were referenced within the lines that so memorably detail that: “all men are created equal”. Moreover, the quality is further reference with regards to the fact that justice, within the new form of representative governance, was predicated upon the belief that each individual, regardless of class, race, nation of origin, religion, or any other indicator should receive and expect the same judgment under law as should any other individual (Subramanian 327). One author noted with regards to virtue, “The best regime will be one without extremes of wealth or poverty, not because these inequalities are inherently unjustifiable but because they undermine good politics” (Horowitz 694). This defining concept of equality was a fundamental of the way in which the early Republic came to evolve. Surprisingly, even though equality and justice under the law was such a fundamental fabric of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and indeed the core belief of many founders of the United States, the ultimate level of equality that could be experience was reduced due to the pervasive evil of slavery. However, even though the nation endured a bloody civil war that cost the lives of tens of thousands of its young men, recognition of the fact that the founding documents and ultimate direction in which the United States was incompatible with the level of equality that was represented during that time was all but assured (Vorster 440). Says one author with regards to the interplay between these two concepts: “Positive liberty is the right to pursue happiness as a person thinks best. This right involves guarantees that ensure no person is denied opportunities on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, or creed. Such guarantees are political in origin and presume the existence of another guarantee: the right to participate in political decisions that shape the structure of opportunities in American society. But the exercise of liberty depends on more than guaranteed opportunities: it also requires some capacity for using these opportunities to full advantage” (Horowitz 695). Ultimately, even though the founding fathers represented both of these concepts side by side, the level of interplay and/or “give and take” that has been represented within this brief analysis can accurately denote the fact that their interdependence is in fact much broader than one would at first assume. Rather than coming to an understanding of the fact that these two similar yet competitive forces cannot exist side by side, the better realization that can be made is with respect to the fact that the level of interconnectedness that these two virtues share must be maintained in equal measure as a function of regulation and defining the society in which we live; while all the while maintaining, as near as possible, the reflection of the society that the founding fathers set out to define. Works Cited Aradau, Claudia. "Forget Equality? Security And Liberty In The "War On Terror." Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 33.3 (2008): 293-314. Academic Search Complete. Web. 19 Nov. 2013. Baer, Susanne. "Dignity, Liberty, Equality: A Fundamental Rights Triangle Of Constitutionalism†." University Of Toronto Law Journal59.4 (2009): 417-468. Academic Search Complete. Web. 19 Nov. 2013. Horowitz, Maryanne C. New dictionary of the history of ideas. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2005. Print. N.A. "Decide Civil Rights From Facts, Not Ideas." New York Times. N.p., 14 May 1988. Web. 19 Nov. 2013 SMITH, NICHOLAS. "The Relationship Between Equality And Liberty." New Zealand Universities Law Review 23.4 (2009): 450-464.Academic Search Complete. Web. 19 Nov. 2013. Subramanian, S. "Liberty, Equality, And Impossibility: Some General Results In The Space Of 'Soft' Preferences." Journal Of Economic Policy Reform 13.4 (2010): 325-341. Business Source Complete. Web. 19 Nov. 2013. Taylor, Robert. "Hate Speech, The Priority Of Liberty, And The Temptations Of Nonideal Theory." Ethical Theory & Moral Practice15.3 (2012): 353-368. Academic Search Complete. Web. 19 Nov. 2013. Vorster, Nico. "Liberty And Equality. A Critical Response To The Debate Between James P. Sterba And Jan Narveson." South African Journal Of Philosophy 31.2 (2012): 433-446. Academic Search Complete. Web. 19 Nov. 2013. Read More