In 1787 when the US Constitution was ratified by Congress, basic human liberty was an infant concept. At the time the nation was debating states rights and separation of powers within the federal government under the Articles of Confederation. The framers of the Constitution knew that the assurances declared within would not be awarded to all, but they left the language of the document vague. Many believe that what is written in the Constitution is all the founding fathers intended it to be; a framework for government divided into three equal but separate branches. While I to hold this belief, I also understand that certain functions of government enshrined in the Constitution provided future generations of Americans the ability to further prefect the document and protect human liberty. I will argue that US Constitution, under the bill of rights, provides basic human liberty for all people; rights that were not expanded to women or African Americans due to cultural relativism and ethnocentrism.
It is noteworthy to begin with how and why the United States came into existence. Immigrants fled the United Kingdom and Europe to the North American continent in search of religious and economic freedom as early as the 1400’s (Martin et al, 5th ed. Pg 11). In the 1690’s English colonies begun to flourish with tobacco and indigo plantations fueling economic growth on the backs of enslaved African labor (Martin et al. 5th ed. Pg12-13). By the 1760’s the heavy handedness of the British Crown, that sent an earlier generation of Englishmen across the Atlantic, was again being imposed on the American English colonies. British military presence in American cities like Boston compounded the frustration and popular outrage over taxation without representation in British Parliament (Martin et al. 5th ed. Pg 96). Radical ideas began to emerge in Americans minds that the only solution would be to have the thirteen English colonies unite, declare their independence of British rule and build a new nation on republican principles of limited government, states’ rights, and human liberty (Martin et al. 5th ed. Pg 153).
The American Revolution was a bloody war for independence; however, at the same time was also a defining moment for human liberty in the world. The signing of the Paris Peace Treaty in 1783 (Martin et al, 5th ed. Pg 146.) ended the war for American Independence and put the new nation on a path towards human rights within the United States. Along with independence, however, came responsibility to provide a functioning system of governance for the people. Opposing political parties with distinct platform positions soon emerged in the Continental Congress. They debated how to structure the new government but all agreed the system that was to be created would provide solutions to national problems. Additionally, the Declaration of Independence cited certain inalienable rights be awarded to every individual citizen of the United States; including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When Thomas Jefferson wrote “all men a created equal” it was intended to be a message to King George III that authority was not determined by birthright (Martin et al, 5th ed. Pg 162.); an ideal that later would extend in law in principle to women and African Americans.
One of the most fundamental human rights in the US Constitution is the known as the great writ of habeas corpus. The majority of text in the US Constitution covers how the framework for the three branches of government are to be applied; clearing stating what authority and limitations government had over the people. However, human rights are addressed in Article 1 by explicitly stating “the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it” (Barron, Dienes 5th ed. Pg LXX). This specific provision provides individuals the right to petition the government for release of unlawful detention in criminal cases. The writ of habeas corpus is a fundamental human right championed by revolutionary American leaders as a means to check authority over the people in times of war and peace. To me, it is no surprise why it is stated clearly in the first sentences of the Constitution.
The right of habeas corpus has been challenged in modern history by the operation of the Guantanamo Bay prison, under the Bush Administration. The prison has held enemy combatants and suspected terrorist off of American soil, in some cases, for 7 years or more without any charges being brought against them. The problem with operating such a prison is that it directly counters the habeas provisions written in the Constitution. The men held there did not cause a rebellion against their government, nor did invade our country; they were captured on a foreign battlefield. They should be charged with a crime or be released. Not be held indefinitely. By holding them without charges the US administration undermines our own constitutional law as written under Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2.
President Abraham Lincoln, On the other hand, suspended habeas corpus for a Maryland secessionist during the American Civil War; denying Chief Justice Roger B. Taney’s habeas request (Carr, Nicholas et al.). He did so, arguably as a way to quell further dissent and violence in the midst of a savage civil war. Both Lincoln and Bush used the office of the President of the United States during wartime to deny freedom to individuals specifically spelled out in the Constitution, but Lincoln faced uprising within the borders of the country, by fellow countrymen. A far more desperate case and sense of urgency than what the Bush Administration dealt with.
One of the most important provisions stated in the Constitution is Article V, which describes the process in which the Constitution can be altered by amendment. The language is humorously confusing at best, but what it essentially does is provides a governmental mechanism to change the way in which government function for the people, by the people. By a two-thirds vote, amendments can be debated upon, by and three fourth vote, they are then ratified and sent to the president to veto or sign into law. This process has allowed over time, the way in which leaders have to extend liberties to the American people (Barron, Dienes 5th ed. Pg LXXIX). Article V is the vehicle for another landmark document, the bill of rights, which came in the form of the first ten amendments to the US Constitution.
The bill of rights represents the amendments to the US Constitution, which President James Madison proposed, which were then ratified by the first Congress in June 1791 (Schwartz, Bernard, ch 6, pg160.). To gain the votes needed to pass the Constitution, Federalist in Congress compromised with reluctant Democratic-Republicans in providing further checks on federal power over the people (Barron, Dienes 5th ed. Ph 3.). The Bill of Rights stood as “a constant reminder that the newly created federal government must always wield its power in the light of these basic guarantees on individual liberty” (Barron, Dienes 5th ed. Pg 3.). The bill of rights specifically spells out individual freedom in unequivocal language; the right to practice the religion of your choice; amendment one; the second amendment is the right to bear arms; the interpretation of which is a hot topic in modern politics; the right to be secure in your own home and to protect your property, amendment three; the right against unlawful search and seizure, amendment four; the right to a grand jury in capital punishment cases, amendment five; the right to speedy trial by a jury of peers, amendment six; the right to reasonable bail, amendment seven; and the right of the states to advance all other rights not mentioned in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, amendments nine and ten. The ninth and tenth amendments represent and secure the right to individual liberty through interpretation of law through implied powers declared in Article 1 through Article 7.
Eighteenth century cultural and societal norms for women were much different that which do American women now experience in the Twentieth and Twenty First century. They did not gain much in the form of rights during the revolutionary America era because of faulty reasoning and cultural relativism. Although women have always been vital to the success of a family, tradition held that a woman, if married, was the property of the husband, if unwed, the property of the father (Boss, Judith A). Over time these norms have changed quite drastically in large part by amending the Constitution. The nineteenth amendment clearly states “The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex” (Barron, Dienes 5th ed. Ph XC); effectively ending women suffrage, and marked the beginning of the voting bloc of women. The nineteenth amendment did not end discrimination towards women, however, the amendment expanded rights, under the Constitution, to all American women; granting in essence the liberty for women to choose if they want to participate in the democratic process or not.
African Americans in the eighteenth century were in most cases regarded not as human, but as property. “Revolutionary ideology placed a premium on such term as liberty and equality” (Martin et al. 5th ed. Pg 166.) It is ironic that the cause of liberty was frequently espoused, shouted, sung, and written about in revolutionary America, but was done so under the pretext of ethnocentrism. In 1776, one-third of the population was of African descent (Martin et al. 5th ed. Pg 166.) but had zero representation in government and almost no rights; in essence held in indefinite bondage. At the same time most Americans were not educated, and simply lack the critical thinking skills needed to overcome fallacious reasoning for such actions. To me the reason for this contradiction is ethnocentrism. Most people of the eighteenth century held traditional worldviews that other ethnic minorities were inferior to theirs. For English-born Americans, the fallacy of hasty generalization towards all Africans as savages is a cause for a grotesque treatment of them for so many years.
The thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth amendments of the Constitution ended slavery and gave voting rights to African American men, but they did little to change the fundamental problem at the heart of the unjust and inhumane societal tradition of slavery. Whether or not the lives of Africans change immediately after the end of slavery is not important here; what is however is yet another example of how the Constitution is used to expand rights. The fourteenth amendment states all persons born in the United States, are citizens of the United States, and no state shall deprive any person life, liberty, or property without due process of law (Barron, Dienes 5th ed. Pg LXXXVI). After slavery and the American Civil War came Jim Crow laws of segregation, separate but equal, mostly in southern states. These laws, as proven through history did not solve the problem of ethnocentrism at the heart of both slavery and Jim Crow. In 1915 the US Supreme Court decided in Guinn v. United States that Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional by disenfranchising blacks and minorities the right to vote provided under the fifteenth amendment. In this case the judicial interpretation of constitutional law, an implied power provided in the tenth amendment, set a precedent in civil rights law by exploiting the fallacy of division at the root of Jim Crow.
To conclude, in the eighteenth and even early nineteenth century, standard worldviews were as such that women were inferior to men; blacks were inferior to whites; and the poor were inferior to the wealthy. Tradition held that the higher your social status was the closer you were to God and your skin color determined your human worth. The Constitution, the seven original articles; the bill of rights, and proceeding amendments have for over two hundred years lived as a testament to basic human liberty in the face of tyranny and overreaching federal authority. The constitution broke barriers in civil and individual liberty hundreds of years before its time. I rest by saying the US Constitution, should be considered a living document, one left by the founders of our country for future generations to “seek a more perfect union.”
Martin, James Kirby, Roberts Randy, and Mintz Steven et al. America And Its People 5 th Edition. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007.
Barron, Jerome A., and Dienes C. Thomas. Constitutional Law In A Nut Shell 5th Edition. St. Paul MN: Thomas West, 2007.
Schwartz, Bernard. The Great Rights Of Man. New York: Oxford Press, 1977.
Carr, Nicholas et al. "Did You Know". Encyclopedia Brritannica. 2009 http://www.britannica.com/facts/5/95624/habeas-corpus-as-discussed-in-Ex-Parte-Merryman-law-case
No comments:
Post a Comment