The Constitutional Convention of 1787
The Constitution was written in an attempt by the Americans to solve many dilemmas that arose post-Articles of Confederation. Such solutions included giving more power to the national government (but not too much), finding a more effective way to tax the people, creating a national currency, creating a military, among many others. The most important idea that was resolved in the Constitution, though, was one that was debated and talked about many years before by a philosopher named Baron de Montesquieu. This idea was that of separation of powers and checks and balances. Americans, unlike the British or any other in Europe were able to effectively separate the powers of their government by making three branches - the Executive, Legislative and the Judiciary that each had their own respective powers. Like and heavily influenced Montesquieu, Americans believed that too much power in one branch would eventually lead to corruption and failure to protect and serve the people. The Constitution's biggest success was the separation of powers by creating the three branches and the checks and balances that each branch had.
Americans, from their beginning until around 1790 had undergone and experienced two extremes of government - absolute and entire control in the national government under the rule of the British Empire, and later under the Articles of Confederation, a national government that had virtually no power. American politicians now saw it would be necessary to have a national government that would be in control of certain issues (military, currency, etc.) but left the state government (closer to the people) in charge of certain other powers. The national government and it's powers could not be given to just one house or person - there needed to be separation of powers. In other words, nation government needed to be split up into different branches, each with their own set of powers to avoid corruption and unfairness. It was decided that their would be and Executive, Legislative and Judiciary. Even further Americans dissected the powers of those branches. In the executive, there would be departments, in the Legislative there would be two houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives, and in the Judiciary there would be a Supreme Court and many courts of lesser importance below it. One of the biggest successes of the Constitution was to separate these powers and create a system that allowed each branch to have equal but different power.
Separation of powers was a radical idea in terms of how other European countries ran themselves, but not necessarily a new one. Many years before the philosopher Baron de Montesquieu spoke and published about separation of powers. Something new, though, that the Americans created was "checks and balances". Checks and balances, in short, is the idea that each branch of the government has the ability to stop another branch from doing or passing (basically) anything. Passing laws is an example of this. First off, both houses of the legislative branch must agree and vote to pass a law. If one house does not vote in favor the law, the law cannot be passed. If the law is passed, the president (the executive branch) has the opportunity to veto a law he/she feels is unconstitutional or not right. The law, then, goes under reconsideration and must be proposed again and passed again for it to go under effect. If the law is passed, the Judiciary, if a case is brought to them, has the ability to declare a law unconstitutional and get rid of it. This just one example of checks and balances, but it is clear that this system is much more "fair", unlike the British system or any monarchy, where a king or queen's word is law and nothing can be done to stop him/her.
The Constitution was not solely about separation of powers and checks and balances. It resolved many issues previously not thought of or covered in the Articles of Confederation. It came up with reasonable ways to allow for taxation, the creation of a military and so on, but the most important issue was separation of powers and checks and balances. All other issues, indirectly, were caused by or the lack of separation of powers and checks and balances. Under the Articles of Confederation, the national government could not tax states without their consent. This issue was resolved by the Constitution by clearly and thoroughly listing all the powers of the national government. With an organized system and clear powers for each part of the government, The United States of America was finally able to run smoothly. The system created was fair, each branch had a fair amount of, but not too much power. Checks and balances made sure that corruption cannot go on, as each branch can essentially prevent any other branch from doing something they see as unfit. The biggest success of the Constitution was creating a fair system of separation powers of the government, and the ability for each branch to check one another and create a balanced and fair system.
Early on in this piece you say that the British government had "absolute control" over the colonies. While I do think that the British government was not an ideal form of government (in that it did not have checks and balances or actual representation), I disagree that it had absolute power over the colonies. The colonies were granted some freedoms, such as having their own colonial assemblies.
ReplyDeleteLainey, I do understand what you mean when you say that the British government gave the colonies freedom, but when we look back, we can see how in control Britain was of these freedoms. After the tea party Britain was able to quickly limit the self-government in Massachusetts through the Coercive acts, proving how much power Britain had over the colonies. Sure these colonies were granted freedoms, but they were mostly granted out of salutary neglect. Although the British government rarely exercised their power, they ultimately had absolute power over the colonies. Although America’s new government was given more power through the constitution, the distributed of this power as well as the system of checks and balances was able to secure a government that was powerful but also fair because of actually representation of the people in the government.
ReplyDeleteTo Lainey:
ReplyDeleteI mean that the British thought to (and technically) did have absolute power over the Colonies in that all freedom and rights the Colonies had were given to them by the British. For example, the right to self-govern was clearly a freedom that the Colonies had, but the British gave them that and had the power to take that away.