How does the Constitution Guard against Tyranny

Introduction

Tyranny represents the concentration of power in too few hands, or in the hands of individuals who are not accountable to the people or the rule of law. Tyranny might culminate in the rise of a dictator, despot, autocrat, or absolute monarch. There are various forms of tyranny, including alternating fast and slow modes of tyranny, but all forms involve either a dangerous concentration of power in the hands of a single person or an oligarchy, or a government operating not in keeping with the rule of law that expresses the will of the people.

The presence of tyranny and the abuse of power have been common throughout history, stemming from the timeless knowledge that humankind is selfish and power is all too tempting to abuse. The greatest political thinkers—and leaders—throughout the ages have known this and worried about it.

Philosophers have offered a variety of definitions of what tyranny could mean. The framers did not only study political theory about tyranny; they studied tyranny in action. They knew from experience the subtle and not-so-subtle tendencies of those in power to abuse power for selfish interests. History thus has a fundamental bearing on American constitutionalism. The Constitution was designed and ratified by Americans from divergent political, social, and economic backgrounds, people who saw tyranny in the British Empire and who used over two millennia of literature on the concept as well as a decade of experience with their own democratic state constitutions to safeguard against it. They knew a branch-by-branch prescription of power was best. And with this focus on history, this is the single best approach to investigate the Constitution itself.

Separation of Powers

The Constitution of the United States is a complex and sophisticated document, whose numerous principles and provisions provide vital safeguards against tyranny. One of these principles, the separation of powers into three different branches of government, is particularly crucial. Under our Constitution, the vast powers of government are divided among three branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. Each branch has its own unique functions and powers, which cannot be exercised by the others. One branch writes the law, another applies it to specific cases, and a third can veto or approve changes to the law. By dividing governmental powers in this way, the idea is that each branch may be confined within its proper sphere and prevented from infringing on the freedoms or powers of others.

This notion of the separation of powers is ancient. Proto-versions were found in various historical texts, but the best-known version of the principle of the separation of powers is due to a prominent philosopher. In his work, he set "political liberty" as his highest political goal and outlined his plan to achieve it. This plan was based upon two key laws: first, the protection of individuals from government tyranny demands the separation of the power to make laws from both the power to execute laws, and the power to judge cases under those laws. If the same person or group of people held any two or all three of these powers, nothing, including justice and fair treatment, would prevent that person or group from obtaining absolute power and tyranny.

The constitutional separation of powers is a masterpiece because it accomplishes this separation by creating three branches of government, each with different functions and powers so that the powers of one are correlated to the functions of another and vice versa. Article I of the Constitution creates the legislative branch. Article II creates the executive branch, and Article III creates the judicial branch. These distinct powers prevent the branches from encroaching upon each other too much. Additionally, there are a series of checks and balances in the Constitution - instances where a branch has some power over the other's activities. For example, the President has a veto over legislation, but Congress can override that veto. Congress alone can write and pass laws, but the President can veto a law that Congress is unable to override. In practice, checks and balances are an important aspect of the successful functioning of democracies, and a weak or broken system of checks and balances can result in undemocratic governance. The separation of powers guarantees liberty for the citizens of a republic; the checks and balances secure that liberty.

Federalism

Federalism – the division of powers between the national government and the state governments – is arguably one of the most complicated and impactful aspects of the Constitution. The purpose of federalism is to divide the power of the national government to prevent it from becoming too powerful and potentially tyrannical. To this end, the Constitution clearly defines what powers are specifically reserved for the states and what powers are specifically enumerated for the national government in the Constitution itself. As a result of this clear division between the powers of the national and state governments, they are required to work together. One cannot function without the other in at least some respects. This ensures that each government has at least some control over the other and that these two governments will continue to work together in harmony. In other words, federalism has the potential to combine discretion in local concerns with a power for the general purposes desired at a national level.

The use of federalism came about when the Constitution was being drafted; it did not appear in the Articles and was a cause for contention. Federalism is broadly written into the U.S. Constitution, but the very notion of federalism and what it looked like was not and has not been settled. In interpreting the framers' intent behind federalism on a historical level, there has been a history of "dueling federalisms," pointing to the many issues touched upon in the above response. Most prominent about this debate is the question of dual sovereignty and how the Supreme Court has approached it. Throughout our nation's history, there have been countless landmark Supreme Court decisions based on federalism. These cases have outlined when and where states' rights individually are trumped by national interests. The debate has also not moved very far from the vision of federalism that was seen all those years ago. The debate over states' rights reaches near climactic heights during both Reagan and Bush Sr.'s tenure in office where the Supreme Court's paradox is seen reflected in public debate as conservative judges consistently make rulings constraining power to the states.

Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights is composed of the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Together, they provide protection of individual liberties and legal and social protections. There was serious concern among Americans at the time of the Constitution’s ratification about the lack of specific protections of certain fundamental rights against potential government overreach. The amendments introduced in 1789 were ratified by the states in 1791. Throughout U.S. legal history, these rights and freedoms have been interpreted, expanded, and in some cases, limited in a variety of landmark Supreme Court cases, mostly under the Fourteenth Amendment, which extended federal individual rights protections to interactions between individuals in states.

While there is ongoing assessment and criticism of the role of these rights in contemporary society and legal doctrine, the Bill of Rights remains central to debates over individual rights and the scope of American democracy. A consistent view is that the Bill of Rights contains only those rights and principles that can and should be interpreted as applicable against only federal rather than state and local governmental power. Many historians and legal scholars agree that the amending of the Constitution to include a Bill of Rights was essentially a political response to antifederalist criticisms of the proposed national government. The fundamental principles and freedoms represented such rights as the First Amendment freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, and petition; the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms; and the prohibition in the Eighth and Eleventh Amendments on cruel and unusual punishment and quartering troops in homes, respectively, have continued to inform American public and law.

Conclusion

The Constitution of the United States itself guards against tyranny. While it allegedly has governmental branches that seem ambitious and wrestle against their confinements of power, against the usurpation of one another. If it is true that right now privacy seems to ebb away more precisely, far faster than the federal government, is this particular Constitution still a sufficient guardian of our liberties and justice? Numerous complaints used to distinguish a tyranny from a republic. The first five of the ten amendments the people in time forged for this Constitution as limitations on its power continue to distinguish tyranny from justice. They are read against the conception of this principle held at the time of the Framing, which entails that tyranny does not consist in an excess of lawful power under our liberty but in any tyranny, public or private, against it.

The separation of powers, federalism, and rights and justice protect against tyranny. The US Constitution needs to be strengthened to ensure the people are protected. Reforms should be made as soon as possible. Avoiding tyranny requires justice and freedom and has led to success in the past. The Constitution guarantees liberty and does not need to be changed. The significance of the Constitution was emphasized during the Civil War. We must strive to achieve democracy and uphold the principles of the Constitution.

Did you like this example?

230

12