U.S. Constitution: Civil Liberties, Amendments, and Historical Transformations
Managing Historical Problems in the Evolution of the U.S. Constitution
The Constitution is the fundamental law of the United States that divides the responsibilities between the branches of government and guarantees civil liberties. The U.S. Constitution was first adopted and ratified on September 17, 1787, and has undergone many changes over the past two centuries. Transformations, additions of amendments, and reinterpretations are a natural part of the life of the Constitution, seeking to accommodate a changing society and respond to emerging issues promptly. This section will present some of the most severe and familiar constitutional transformations related to emerging historical issues.
Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists
The adoption of the Constitution involved serious debates among representatives of the 13 former colonies, who disagreed on specific administrative, social, and cultural issues. Once the Constitution was written, the natural question of ratification arose, for without legitimacy, it would not have received broad support and would not have become a founding law for the United States for the following centuries. The debate led to the emergence of two opposing groups, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists: the latter feared that the excessive centralization of power would lead to an infringement of citizens’ rights and state autonomy. To solve this problem, the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791, which significantly expanded the original articles of the Constitution with amendments to guarantee civil liberties and rights.
Slavery
Another historical problem of the existing political system in the United States was slavery. The issue of slavery was known to be particularly acute in debates between the Southern and Northern states, which created contradictions and did not lead to the unity of power. The disputes were so deep that they led to the outbreak of the Civil War between the states – only the northern states’ victory and the southern states’ subsequent annexation allowed them to lobby for the abolition of slavery, which became the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Women’s Rights
It is also worth mentioning the expansion of women’s rights: at the beginning of the last century, active social movements for suffrage began in the United States. The earlier Constitution did not address the gender issue and gave power to individual states, creating a geographic discrimination policy. Women activists made many attempts to gain the right to vote, and it was not until 1920 that the Nineteenth Amendment, written by two suffragists, Anthony and Stanton, was passed.
These events suggest the reactive nature of the Constitution’s transformation. Change does not arise on a preventive basis but is realized only when political or public resonance is created. Such a phenomenon leads to a “polishing” of the Constitution, which expands over time, trying to take into account the rights of an increasing number of groups of citizens and solve the problems of administrative governance. Thus, to answer the question, historical problems have been solved long after they have been recognized and stated.
The Role of Each Branch of Government in Interpreting the Bill of Rights
As mentioned earlier, the Bill of Rights was a supplemental law that added ten new amendments to the original Constitution. The primary focus of this declaration was to protect civil rights and expand political freedoms. The Bill guaranteed everyone equal rights and claimed freedom of lifestyle, religion, and speech. In addition, citizens received rights to judicial proceedings, privacy, and equality before the law. This section offers an interpretive analysis of the Bill of Rights in light of the branches of government.
As in most countries of the world, the general government in the United States is divided into three branches: legislative, judicial, and executive. Each branch has its powers and is responsible for specific areas of government. For example, the executive branch in the U.S. is represented by the President and administrative agencies as the level of government entities. Their responsibilities include enforcing the law, shaping public policy, and responding to geopolitical events, including building foreign relations with partners.
The legislative branch (Congress), as the name implies, is responsible for passing laws, allocating the state budget, and controlling the executive branch’s functions. The third branch is represented by the courts, which interpret laws and resolve disputes between citizens and companies. The three branches of government create a balance of power and a system of checks and balances, as each branch is independent and empowered to solve its problems.
Judicial Branch
All three named branches of government are associated in one way or another with the Bill of Rights. The judiciary oversees and supervises the protection of the rights and freedoms enumerated in the first ten amendments. For example, citizens’ constitutional rights violations are grounds for litigation, and the judiciary is responsible for protecting them. In addition, the courts may interpret and construe the laws in the Bill of Rights when complex precedents arise. If a new bill is passed in the legislature, the judiciary must assess its constitutionality, including through compliance with the Bill of Rights.
Legislative Branch
The legislature is responsible for creating new laws or repealing existing ones: whatever changes are undertaken must be consistent with the Bill of Rights. Laws enacted must not conflict with the civil liberties of the First Ten Amendments, nor must existing laws be repealed. However, creating laws that decipher or supplement civil liberties is permissible without violating them.
Executive Branch
Finally, the President, as the guarantor of the Constitution, is the executive authority; accordingly, he or she has a direct functional role in interpreting the Bill of Rights. The President is responsible for enforcing amendments and signing laws related to civil liberties. If this compliance is violated, the President may be impeached, and there may be a decline in legitimacy with the consequent risk of not being re-elected.
Substantive and Procedural Interpretations of Individual Freedoms through Case Analysis
In U.S. jurisprudence, many episodes directly or indirectly relate to civil liberties. One of the most iconic is Roe v. Wade, which has become particularly relevant in light of legislative changes in abortion practices in the United States in 2022. Strictly speaking, Roe v. Wade, tried in 1973, consisted of a lawsuit brought by Roe (the fictitious name for the plaintiff’s defense) against Dallas County Attorney Wade (Tikkanen, 2023). Roe argued that the administrative ban on abortions in Texas was unconstitutional because it violated privacy: the judge ultimately agreed with her. This section examines this case in light of substantive and procedural interpretations of liberty.
Substantive Interpretation
From a substantive perspective, an embryo developing in a woman’s body is part of her life. Until the fetus develops vital organs and consciousness, a woman can make her own decisions about abortion. Because pregnancy involves health risks, psychological and physical risks, as well as financial burdens, a woman has the personal freedom to choose an abortion if there are no medical contraindications. Administrative interventions, which include a blanket ban on abortion, are a violation of civil liberties and cannot be found constitutional. It is for this reason that the judge approved Roe’s lawsuit, which led to an intense expansion of women’s reproductive and civil rights in the United States.
Procedural Interpretation
The same case can be viewed through a procedural interpretation of liberty. The Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment indicates that, among other things, states may not deprive a citizen of his liberty without proper justification. Imposing a blanket prohibition, as has been done in Texas, is an invasion of a citizen’s privacy and a nonviolent deprivation of rights, directly violating the Fourteenth Amendment’s tenets.
It is fair to note, however, that the court did not altogether remove the ability of local governments to regulate abortion practices. What has been added is the ability to regulate abortions based on demonstrated justification, which can be expressed through clinical contraindications or late pregnancy. Thus, the three-trimester system was introduced, and each state had the right to interpret this policy without violating a woman’s right to turn around. In other words, the procedural interpretation of this case was to appeal to the Fourteenth Amendment as the guarantor of civil liberty.
Philosophical Foundations and Public Policy Influences in U.S. Supreme Court Decisions
In continuing the discussion of the previously mentioned Roe v. Wade, a distinction should be made between the Supreme Court’s decision in 1973 and that court’s decision in 2022. Nearly 50 years ago, the Supreme Court gave all women in the country the legal right to decide the fate of an embryo during the first trimester: a woman could have an abortion at her discretion without medical contraindications (Tikkanen, 2023). Philosophically, this guaranteed that each woman’s freedom was inviolable and protected at the highest legislative level. Since then, a woman could not be refused an abortion if she had no contraindications.
This same decision had a direct impact on public sentiment in the United States as well. First of all, the Roe lawsuit showed that women could not be denied reproductive rights unless there was a good reason to do so. Thus, men in administrative offices could not decide for a woman whether or not she should have an abortion.
Second, it demonstrated the principle of non-discrimination, in which women could fight for their rights if they felt they were being unfairly disadvantaged. It is fair to emphasize that this case also created a public backlash among politicians, religious leaders, and social activists who had opposed views on the legality of abortion (Tikkanen, 2023). Put differently, the Supreme Court’s decision set a serious public precedent, affecting different population groups in very different ways.
Nearly 50 years after the Supreme Court decision went into effect, Roe v. Wade was reconsidered, or more accurately, it was overturned. The Supreme Court, in an associated case, concluded that Roe v. Wade. Henceforth, each state had the right to make independent decisions on abortion policy at the administrative level, with the result that at least nine states have already enacted blanket bans (Housman, 2022). This creates an even more significant public backlash because the reversal of an earlier decision is incompatible with a policy of tolerance, mutual respect, and unconditional recognition of civil rights. This decision has led to increased levels of public discontent and street protests.
In terms of philosophical interpretation, the return to delegating abortion policy to the administrative levels of each state is a restriction of women’s reproductive rights. The attempt to decentralize such practices has led to a total ban on abortion at will, which substantially infringes on women’s civil liberties and creates a policy of discrimination. Naturally, women, for the most part, may disagree with such policies, so the demand for clinics in states that have not banned abortion has increased meaningfully (Housman, 2022). On the other hand, prohibition can be seen as a concern for the moral and fundamental rights of unborn children, which further deepens the public debate about the nature of such a ban.
References
Housman, P. (2022). Roe v Wade overturned: What it means, what’s next. American University. Web.
Tikkanen, A. (2023). Roe v. Wade: Law case. Britannica. Web.