Historical Expansion of Federal Government - Coursework Example

Historical expansion of the federal governments role in American society since the adoption of the Constitution For the better or worse? of writer AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW FALL 2009 Professor Judge Greg Duras Historical expansion of federal government. The U. S. Constitution was adopted by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. After its adoption on September 17, 1787 in the Constitutional Convention, it was adopted individually by all states comprising the Union. Prior to the adoption of the Constitution, and the Articles of Confederation prior to that, the American states were governed by common law, as applied in the U. K. Article VI of the Constitution provides the powers of the Federal government. Article IV provides States’ powers and limits. The tenth amendment to the Constitution, forming part of the Bill of Rights, states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Founders had, from the very beginning of the drafting of the Constitution, provided for separation of powers of the federal and state governments. However, because of obvious reasons, the federal government has been interested in the expansion of its powers. The expansion of the federal government’s powers has included diverse areas such as generation of revenue, public health, education and acquisition of land for public purposes. The federal government also controls working conditions of the citizens, the drugs that are prescribed; even the entertainment of the masses- there are now federal controls over radio and television. The expansion has been resisted successfully by citizens, and Courts have often held expansions to be without constitutional authority. The expansion was slow to start with but has grown rapidly, particularly since the early 20th century. In 1887, Interstate Commerce Commission was established. In 1906, Federal Drugs Administration was created, while the Federal Reserve was commissioned in 1913. Federal Trade Commission was established in 1914, and the Federal Food Administration created in 1917 controlled all aspects of the food industry.1 But there are dissenting voices, who argue that the gradual increase in expansion, though inevitable, was not as effective as a single action of the government. The story of the growth of the federal government can be divided into two parts: before and after 1913, when the 16th amendment to the Constitution, which permitted a federal income tax, was ratified. 2 The next big step in expansion of federal power was adoption of a package of reforms called the New Deal by the then President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The New Deal was intended primarily to revive the economy which was in a bad condition because of the Great Depression. But, the New Deal resulted in huge increase in the federal government’s size and scope. Between 1933 and 1939, the New Deal had resulted in nearly doubling in federal spending and a 60 percent increase in number of civilians working for federal government. By 1945, federal expenditure had skyrocketed to nearly 100 billion dollars, and number of civilians employed by the federal government reached nearly four million. Moreover, the size and scope of the federal government never returned to the status quo ante bellum.3 However, there is bound to be a change in conditions, after all, the original 13 states have now increased to fifty, and because of the radical changes in means of transport and communication, the United States have become inextricably united. Correspondingly, the never sharply defined roles of the federal versus the state governments were inevitably to change. The 14th amendment was added to the Constitution in 1868 to end the unfair treatment of former slaves. However, its language more broadly prohibits discrimina­tion against “any persons” by the states. Section 5 authorizes Congress to pass “appropri­ate legislation” to carry out the purposes of the Amendment, which prohibits discrimination on any grounds, resulting in laws that prohibit discrimination in housing, schools, in hotels, amusement parks, and other places of public accommodation and means of transportation. The Supreme Court of the United States has dealt with many cases challenging expansion of powers. A landmark case dealt with by Chief Justice John Marshall was McCulloch v/s Maryland.4 The case was a challenge to the decision of the government to operate a bank. The Supreme Court in effect, held that (1) the Constitution should not be read narrowly, and (2) the Necessary and Proper Clause gave the government implied powers that flowed from the enumerated ones. Since a bank was a reasonable means for carrying out several enumerated powers (taxation, regulating currency, etc.) it was a legitimate exercise of na­tional power. Chief Justice John Marshall John Marshall was one of the major personalities responsible for expansion of federal powers in that he was a strong nationalist. In Gibbons v/s Ogden,5 Chief Justice John Marshall broadly interpreted the term “commerce” and basically concluded that the federal government could regulate a commer­cial activity that affected more than one state. The opinions pro and con expansion. There are strong and extreme opinions on either side about the validity, legality, and necessity of this expansion. However, assumption of more power than originally granted is inevitable for an institution having more power than the less powerful, howsoever fine the balance intended. There are concerns about this expansion mainly on the ground that the expansion is eroding the powers of the states to deal with issues specific to respective states. The critics of expansion also argue that the federal government better leave the traditional duties to the states instead of usurping powers to do the necessary. For instance, in the field of education, the Congress had planned economic stimulus package, effectively doubling the budget of Department of Education. The critics of the expansion argue that the expansion would necessarily shift the decision making to the federal government who may not be equipped to deal with the issues as effectively as states would. Secondly, the federal expansion is at the cost of taxpayer. The budget announced by President Obama proposes increase in federal spending, increase in outlay for education and healthcare etc. This, say the critics, is not well for the economy, which is already in doldrums because of the recession. The people in favour of expansion of the federal government argue that the increase in collection of revenue by imposing taxes, particularly directed at the upper-income groups is ultimately a welfare measure necessary to be taken by the government. They are also vehement in their assertion that the increased spending is necessary in healthcare reforms, economic bailout packages and provisions for education. Present situation. A report of the U. S. Senate Republican Policy Committee issued on February 3, 2009, in it’s Executive Summary opposes the bill on the ground that The bill would dramatically increase the federal role in education and limit the options of local policy makers.6 The expansion of federal powers has become so entrenched in the society that nominations to the Supreme Court are now viewed with concern as an attempt by the government to seek appointment of judges on their sympathy to the cause of expansion of federal powers. In his article in Capitalism Magazine, Thomas Sowell argues that “--President Barack Obama has -—concealed the real goal—- getting judges who will ratify an ever-expanding scope of the power of the federal government and an ever declining restraint by the Constitution of the United States.”7 Conclusions. In the circumstances, it is a debatable point whether the government is right in expanding its role in society. What is undeniable is that the current economic and social scenario warrants drastic measures, and the new surge of hope that has come in the wake of an educated and smart President like Obama will see to it that the criticism of the policies of the government will be ignored at least for the time being. The courts have ruled many times that the restraints on personal liberties by federal authority are unconstitutional, but the same applies to restraints by the state authorities, and even otherwise, wherever there is conflict the federal governments authority is paramount. It is no doubt true that the systems of checks and balances as contemplated in a federal government would be impaired if the government is intent on its expansion at the cost of states losing their powers over welfare of the people, promotion of their legitimate interests and the like. However, it is equally true that increased spending is necessary for social security, particularly in healthcare sector. The economy needs a boost in the form of bailout packages, and also that for generation of employment, as there are many more persons unemployed than ever were in the history of the U. S. Hence subject to their ratification by the Courts, the government should take all such steps as are necessary for the betterment of the society. Notes 1. Randall G. Halcombe. Federal Government Growth Before the New Deal. Article published in Freeman magazine V. 47, Issue 9. Also available online at http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/federal-government-growth- before-the-new-deal/ accessed on October 31, 2009 2. Halcombe. 3. Larry G. Gerber, World War II and the expansion of government in America. Article published in National Forum: Phi Kappa Phi Journal, Fall 1995. Also available online at http://www.findarticles.com/articles/mi_qa3651/is_199510/ai_n8712049/pg_4/?tag =conte. Accessed on October 30, 2009. 4. McCulloch v/s Maryland 17 U. S. 316 (1819). 5. Gibbons v/s Ogden 22 U. S. (1824) 6. U. S. Senate Republican Policy Committee. Democrats’ Spending Expansion Bill Dramatically increases Federal Role in Education. Paper issued on February 3,2009. 7. Thomas Sowell. ”Empathy” Versus Law: Supreme Court Nominations and the Judicial Expansion of Federal Powers. Article address http://www.CapMag.co/article.asp?ID=5518 Read More