The US Constitution, for the People or the Nation - Essay Example

The U.S. Constitution, Written for We The People Written by what would be described as the elitists of their time, the Founding Fathers, the Constitution outlines the rights of all citizens while limiting the authority of government. Though the reality of slavery was present well past the ratification of the Constitution in 1789, the document affords all equality under the law with no regard of financial or social status. The Constitution established the world’s first republic where elected representatives of the people make laws in the interest of the common good. The Founders were students of the Age of Enlightenment, an ideology that supported, among other issues, a government built and operated by the general population, one governed by laws, not a monarchy. One need to look at the history of the document, Bill of Rights and the Justice System created by the Constitution to realize that it supports rights for all and not for the elite. John Locke, Baron Montesquieu, and Jean-Jaques Rousseau were examples of the greatest philosophers during the Age of Enlightenment in eighteenth century Europe. These and other ‘enlightened thinkers’ espoused their views at about the time of the founding of the United States and were heavily influential in the formation of the Founding Father’s ideology regarding the role of government. It was in this era of Enlightenment that the idea of equality for all was born which was the foremost inspiration for the Constitution. The Constitution was inspired by the Magna Carta and British philosopher John Locke helped to lay the foundation for the Founders’ deep belief in personal freedoms. Locke argues the power of the government is provided by the people and therefore is not above the laws of the people. Because it was an agent for the people, government should be restricted to working to enforce laws that are developed for the good of the people and should not involve itself with matters that did not directly and materially relate to the general welfare of the population (Constant, 1995). Within this context, Locke says it is important to always remember that the right of enforcement is not by nature the right of the ruler. “This is a right which each individual brings to society in his own person. Therefore, society does not create the right of property and, except within certain limits, cannot justly regulate it. At least in part, both society and civil government exist to protect the prior right to private property” (Dolhenty, 2003). Political power, then, consists of the powers to establish laws and define punishments for the violation of those laws, enforcing the laws that have been established and to defend the populace from any kind of foreign attack. As has been mentioned earlier, no form of religious implication is involved in government, nor did Locke believe government should have any say in matters that did not directly threaten the health and welfare of others within the commonwealth. Locke defines each individual as having the right to “life, liberty and estate” (Locke, 1960). The ways in which Locke outlined the rights of individuals, the natural state of man and the natural acquisition of property as well as the correct way in which ruling parties, whether they be parliaments or monarchies, should best rule over the people and the right of the people to revolt against an unjust ruler are almost an outline for the declaration that Thomas Jefferson wrote up in defiance of King George III. Much of the document enumerates the various ways in which the king has failed to uphold his portion of the bargain inherent in the people’s providing him with the right to rule based upon the principles of ruler-ship enumerated by Locke (Stephens, 2006). Because he drew heavily from materials already presented in the Magna Carta and the Virginia Declaration of Rights, both of which were strongly influenced by Locke’s ideas, Jefferson’s resulting Declaration echoes many of Locke’s premises, including the idea that the people not only have a right, but an obligation, to revolt against the unnatural reign of King George under the existing conditions because the natural rights of men living in the colonies were being exploited rather than protected (Sterner, 1999). When government overstepped these bounds, Locke had a ready answer for it born out of his personal experience in the several transitions of government he witnessed in England just prior to the Glorious Revolution. In discussing the responsibility of the populace to adhere to the laws thus created out of this voluntary societal system, Locke points out that there are occasionally instances in which the law and the person’s moral conscience find themselves in disagreement. “In ‘matters indifferent’ (i.e., things neither commanded nor forbidden by God in the Bible), a Christian must obey the ruler ‘actively’, by actually doing what he commands. But if the ruler forbids something God has commanded, or commands something God has forbidden, then the Christian must obey God actively” (Kilkullen, 1996). When the government begins to act in a way counter to the natural law and instead of protecting citizens begins to abuse them, Locke argues that “… the community perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of any body” (Locke, 1960: 448). Therefore, if the government neglects to provide the protection it was established to provide or itself violates the natural rights of its citizens, Locke argues the people are justified in their pursuit to remove the ruler or overthrow the government, by force if necessary. “Revolution, in other words, is sometimes justified” (Rogers, 2000). Through these arguments, it can be seen that Locke vehemently defended the right of the people to resist against unjust ruler-ship and equally opposed the prevalent attitude of ruling by Divine Right. The First Amendment to the Constitution is the most recognized and recited of the Bill of Rights within both political and social realms because it is the most essential in preserving the uniquely American freedom the Founding Fathers envisioned. The First Amendment effectively guarantees free speech, freedom of the press and religion. Freedom of the press is an extension to the freedom of speech concept. A free press is essential to the idea of democracy and has been accurately described as the ‘Fourth Estate’ of government. As the three branches of government act to check and balance each other, the press watches over them all. The freedom of religion has been interpreted by many as a constitutional right to the freedom from religion, as issue that refers to many topics not the least of which involves the teaching of the Biblical account of human creation in public schools. The Founders created a secular nation intended not to be influenced by religious dogma whose government is held accountable by the people via information gained by the media. The Founding Fathers considered a free press one of if not the most important aspect in the formation of a free and democratic society. Though much of American law is patterned from the English legal system, the Founders wanted to distinguish the newly formed government from England where the press was tightly censored. Journalists who questioned the King’s decisions were often jailed or worse. The Founders knew that if the press were not free, the country would not be either. The author of the Declaration of Independence, founder of America’s first University and third president Thomas Jefferson believed that liberty depended upon a free press and to limit this fundamental freedom would be to lose it altogether, along with it the freedoms of the nation’s citizens. According to Jefferson, “The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right” (Kann, 2006). The founders of the nation created the government of and thus answerable to the people. Journalists are the conduit that carries this right of the people. The First Amendment gives us the freedom to think and express those thoughts. In order to think effectively and act appropriately, one must have credible information which is supplied by a free press. Imagine if a right-wing evangelist were in the White House and could control information, a not too far-fetched possibility given the political reality of the day. The U.S. would become a dictatorship whose citizens would be told how to think and what not to say by the government. This scenario is what the Founders were trying to avoid by penning the words of the First Amendment. The foundation of the American criminal justice system is located within the U.S. Constitution, specifically in the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution which guarantees every U.S. citizen certain fundamental liberties and rights. With regard to criminal procedures, the foremost of these rights is the assumption of innocence. Though not explicitly written into the Constitution, this presumption has been interpreted by several court rulings as implied in the Eighth and Fifth Amendments. It has become a fundamental right that is universally recognized by the courts and public alike. Under this presumption, defendants are entitled to a presumption of innocence. Defendants do not have to prove their innocence. The government must establish guilt ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ This right and others are outlined in four Amendments, the Fourth which protects against searches and seizures without benefit of a court warrant, in addition to the Fifth, Sixth and Eighth. These aforementioned four Amendments are essential to the U.S. criminal justice system functioning as the framers of the Constitution envisioned it. The omission of all or parts of these Amendments in any phase of the criminal justice system deprives a defendant their right to the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Due process, in essence, is a clause that encompasses the precepts of these Amendments. It protects U.S. citizens from policies or practices which infringe upon basic, fundamental concepts of justice and fairness whether or not actions by the government violate specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights. The criterion of criminal law is whether the disputed policy or practice violates “a fundamental principle of liberty and justice which inheres in the very idea of a free government and is the inalienable right of a citizen of such government” (Twining v. New Jersey, 1908). The Fifth Amendment guarantees the defendant’s right to ‘due process of law’ and from being subjected to ‘double jeopardy’ or testifying against themselves. Double jeopardy means being put on trial twice for the same offense (U.S. Department of State, 2001). The ‘Miranda Rights’ are covered by the Fifth Amendment. Defendants are guaranteed the right to a ‘speedy trial’ and an ‘impartial jury’ by the Sixth Amendment. Furthermore, it assures that defendants are able to confront, ‘cross examine,’ any witnesses brought by the prosecutor against them and have adequate legal representation to defend their case (U.S. Department of State, 2001). The right to have an attorney during the pretrial phase is a vital aspect of the due process of law because “it holds everyone up to the same standards at the most critical stages of criminal justice, preventing the creation of a dual system of justice at the bottom, one for the rich and one for the poor” (Black, 1963). The Eighth Amendment prohibits courts assessing ‘excessive bail’ and implementing ‘cruel and unusual punishments.’ The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the guide for all criminal law processes within the judicial system. The Bill of Rights safeguards citizens against the abuse of governmental powers by imposing limits on the methods by which it can treat people accused of crimes against the state and provides for the equal treatment in the justice system. It was written by ‘enlightened’ men to protect the rights of the minority from the currents whims of the majority, to protect the rights of all and not just a privileged few. References Black, J. (1963). “Opinion of the Court Supreme Court Of The United States 372 U.S. 335 Gideon v. Wainwright.” Supreme Court Collection. Cornell University Law School. Available June 9, 2008 from Constant, Ronald Terry. (1995). “John Locke in the Glorious Revolution.” Constant site. Available June 9, 2008 from Dolhenty, Jonathan. (2003). “John Locke: A Philosopher of Freedom and Natural Rights.” The Radical Academy. Available June 9, 2008 from Kann, Peter R. (December 13, 2006). “The Power of the Press.” Wall Street Journal. Available June 9, 2008 from Locke, John. (1960). Two Treaties of Government. Cambridge University Press, p. 448. Kilkullen, R.J. (1996). “Locke: Two Treatises.” Macquarie University. Available June 9, 2008 from < http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y6710.html> Rogers, G.A.J. (2000). “John Locke.” The Dictionary of Seventeenth-Century British Philosophers. 2 Vols. Thoemmes Press. Available June 9, 2008 from Stephens, George. (2006). “John Locke: His American and Carolinian Legacy.” John Locke Foundation. Available June 9, 2008 from Sterner, C. Douglas. (1999). “Thomas Jefferson Writes the Declaration of Independence.” Home of Heroes. Available June 9, 2008 from Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 106 (1908). Find Law. Available June 9, 2008 from U.S. Department of Justice. (July 2001). “Criminal Justice in the U.S.” Issues of Democracy. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of State, Vol. 6, N. 1. Read More