US Constitution

The US Constitution is the fundamental document establishing the national government of the United States of America. It describes the nature and limits of political power within the national government, as well as how the different branches of government are to be structured. The Constitution is widely considered an extraordinary document, both theoretically and historically. Knowing how this document was developed is important to understanding both its purpose and its impact.

Development

The Constitution of the United States was not the first—and some might argue that it is not the most important—of the founding American documents. The Constitution was developed eleven years after the approval of the Declaration of Independence. After declaring and then winning independence from Great Britain, the new nation spent a number of years governed by the Articles of Confederation. The Articles created a loose federation of states, which eventually proved too weak to serve the needs of the young nation.

In 1787 delegates from twelve of the states (all but Rhode Island) met to discuss ways of revising the Articles of Confederation to create a more adequate government. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 quickly decided that the basic premise behind the Articles of Confederation rendered them inadequate for governing the nation. The Convention began discussing a far more centralized form of government than was possible under the Articles of Confederation. One of the most controversial issues was how states would be represented in the central government. James Madison and Edmund Randolph, two Virginia delegates, proposed a totally new form of government divided into three branches. Their proposal, which came to be known as the Virginia Plan, included a bicameral legislature with seats apportioned based on states' populations, and therefore it won favor among delegates of more populous states. An alternative proposal, called the New Jersey Plan as it was introduced by delegate William Paterson of New Jersey, called for a unicameral legislature with one seat per state. It was favored by less populous states. Eventually these competing plans were combined through the Connecticut Compromise (or Great Compromise), which established a bicameral legislature with population-based apportionment for one chamber and equal representation for the other chamber.

After considerable debate and numerous other compromises (including the infamous Three-Fifths Compromise that determined enslaved people would count as three-fifths of a person for official state population counts), the Convention approved the Constitution of the United States and sent it to the states for their ratification. Debate and political maneuvering continued as each state considered the document. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay wrote several essays known as the Federalist Papers to explain the new government system and encourage ratification. Therefore, those who supported the Constitution and a strong central government became known as Federalists, while those who supported states' rights and were wary of strong central government became known as anti-Federalists.

While five states quickly ratified the Constitution, others objected to the lack of explicit protections of civil rights. However, in 1888 several states agreed to ratify on the grounds that amendments would quickly be made. In June 1788 New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify, and it was determined that the Constitution would go into effect in March 1789. The remaining states eventually ratified the Constitution as well, with Rhode Island the last in May 1790.

Basic Principles of the Constitution

One of the most unique aspects of the Constitution was that it was (and is) firmly based on a clear set of theoretical principles. To describe the Constitution as a document of the Enlightenment—an eighteenth century movement in European thought that celebrated the capacity of reason to solve human problems—would be to tell the truth but not necessarily the whole truth. Alexander Hamilton, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from New York, claimed that the US Constitution reflected what he described as a “new science of politics.” According to Hamilton, this new science was based on principles either unknown to or not fully understood by previous generations. It is generally acknowledged that the most fundamental principles of the Constitution are separation of powers, federalism, and republicanism.

Each of these principles is critical to a clear understanding of the American system of government, but each was developed because of the commitment of the Framers of the Constitution to a prior principle—the principle of limited governmental power. A government founded on the principle of limited powers must develop safeguards to ensure that the people who wield the powers of government do not go beyond the limits. Within the American constitutional system this is accomplished by the three principles cited above.

Separation of Powers

Separation of powers was a political principle advocated by English philosopher John Locke and French philosopher Baron de Montesquieu. The Constitution of the United States was the first national political document to apply this concept of government. Distinct governmental powers had long been recognized, but the Constitution of the United States was the first to place these powers in separate branches of government. The first three articles of the Constitution describe the location and authority of the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of government.

Article I, section 1 of the Constitution begins by stating: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” In addition to establishing the location of the legislative powers, this statement declares that those powers will be shared by two separate legislative chambers. Bicameralism (the term used to describe a two-chambered legislature) permits the two legislative chambers to provide internal checks on each other.

The notes taken at the Constitutional Convention reveal that disagreements over how the representatives to Congress would be apportioned and selected were the most difficult for the delegates to settle. At one point, delegates threatened to withdraw from the convention over this issue. The solution to this dispute produced one legislative chamber that represents states equally (the Senate) and another that represents states according to their population (the House of Representatives).

The Senate consists of two senators from each state in the Union. Senators are elected for six-year terms; the long term was intended to give them relative freedom from the passing whims of the electorate. One of the rationales for such long terms was that the Senate would be freer to speak to the long-term needs of the nation. The Constitution requires staggered terms for the senators so that a third of the Senate seats are up for election every two years. This requirement provides a degree of stability and continuity in the national government.

In contrast, the members of the House of Representatives hold two-year terms. These shorter terms keep House members in much closer contact with the American voters. By requiring that House members seek reelection every two years, the Constitution provides the voting public with regular access to national lawmakers.

Legislators who desire new laws or want to alter old ones must be able to persuade a majority of the lawmakers in both legislative chambers of Congress. By design, this process was not intended to be quick or easy. The legislature was meant to be a deliberative group that carefully examines all proposed laws. In a bicameral legislature, proposals that might be rushed through one chamber may be examined carefully in the second chamber. The Framers of the Constitution believed that it was more important that laws be carefully and thoughtfully examined than that they be approved quickly.

Article II, section 1 of the Constitution places the executive powers of the United States government in the hands of “a President.” The Constitutional Convention had considerable difficulties developing the executive branch of government. In part, this was attributable to their basic suspicion of executive power. They also realized, however, that one of the greatest shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation was the absence of a clearly defined executive branch. The first question was whether the executive authority should be placed in a single executive or multiple executives. The second question, and one of the last to be settled at the Convention, concerned the method for selecting the executive.

After much debate, the Convention settled on a single executive. In the words of Alexander Hamilton, only a single executive would provide the “unity and dispatch” modern governments required. This sentiment prevailed, and the Convention then had to determine how “the President of the United States” would be selected. The electoral college was the method upon which they eventually settled. This system utilizes the states as electoral units and follows the representative principle devised for Congress to distribute the votes among the states.

The president’s basic responsibilities are to see that national laws are faithfully executed, to serve as the commander in chief of the national armed forces, to appoint the executive officers of the different federal agencies, and to recommend judges to serve on the Supreme Court and the lesser courts established by Congress. In addition to these responsibilities, the president has a limited veto over the acts of Congress.

Article III of the Constitution describes the judicial branch of government. More specifically, it establishes the Supreme Court and any additional courts Congress may establish. One of the more unusual aspects of the Constitution is its establishment of an independent judiciary. Judges receive lifelong appointments, so they are as free from political influences as is humanly possible. The only qualification to this independence is that Congress has the power to impeach and remove judges if they behave in a manner that would warrant such removal. In this respect, judges are subjected to the same kind of scrutiny as are members of the executive branch of government.

One aspect of the separation of powers that is often given particular consideration is the concept of checks and balances. The Constitution provides that each of the three branches of government has certain “checks” on its power that are under the control of another branch. Congress, for example, controls the budget of the president and the judiciary. The president, on the other hand, can veto acts of Congress (Congress, in turn, can override a veto with a two-thirds vote in both houses). The president also appoints justices to the Supreme Court (with congressional approval). Finally, the Supreme Court can rule that the laws of Congress or the actions of the president are unconstitutional.

Federalism

This aspect of the Constitution is one of the more ingenious creations to grow out of the Constitutional Convention. Historically, national governments had been either unitary governments or confederal governments. Unitary governments place all power in the hands of a centralized authority. The British government is an example of such a system. In a confederal system, the ultimate power is decentralized among member states. Some responsibility may be given over to a centralized authority, but the real power remains with the decentralized units of government. This was the case under the Articles of Confederation. The federal system established by the Constitution was unique in that it created a governmental system in which the real powers of the political system were truly divided between the centralized and decentralized units of government.

The distribution of powers between the states and the national government has created considerable political tensions throughout American history. It is important to realize that these tensions were largely intended by the Framers. Federalism, like the separation of powers, was built into the constitutional system as a check on governmental powers. Article VI establishes the Constitution, acts of Congress, and treaties as the “supreme Law of the Land,” but the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution declares the limits of that supremacy: The states and the people possess all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution.

Republicanism

Article IV of the Constitution guarantees that every state in the union will have a republican form of government. The Federalist Papers, a collection of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay in 1787 and 1788, explain why a republican system of government was considered preferable to a democratic system. The tenth essay of this collection provides a detailed comparison of these two popular systems of government. The first advantage of republicanism is that governmental authority is delegated to a small group of citizens. The second is that republican governments can cover a much larger geographical area than a direct democracy can.

When a smaller group has the responsibility of representing a larger group, each of the representatives must speak for a variety of interests. By learning the interests and needs of a diverse number of groups, representatives approach governmental decision-making with a broader perspective than they would if they were simply advocating their own interests and needs. Public opinion is thereby filtered through a select group of representatives who must keep the many needs of their district in mind.

The advantage of a large geographical area is that it produces a great diversity of interests. This diversity decreases the likelihood that a single interest will constitute a majority on any given issue. For example, while chicken processors may hold a majority interest in Arkansas or oil producers may be a major political force in Texas, neither of these groups can dominate a large geographical area such as the entire United States. Together, these factors increase the likelihood that governmental decisions will serve the general interests of the nation instead of one or a few dominant groups.

The existence of these basic principles within the Constitution creates a significant barrier to government guided by passion as opposed to government guided by reason. The many checks within the system provide numerous obstacles to laws that are not in the interest of a fairly wide and diverse group of citizens. The system also places a substantial burden of proof on those who want to change existing laws or develop new laws. The cumbersome nature of the political process exposes any legislative initiative to a series of examinations before a number of different bodies.

Amendments

The Constitution has been a remarkably stable political document. The method described in Article V for amending the Constitution has not been utilized very often. By the early 2020s there were only twenty-seven amendments to the Constitution. The first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were passed within three years of the Constitution’s ratification.

Three amendments (thirteen through fifteen) were passed at the end of the US Civil War to make the institution of slavery unconstitutional and to extend certain citizenship rights to liberated African Americans. One of these, the Fourteenth Amendment, through its requirements of “due process” and “equal protection of the laws,” has been instrumental in expanding basic civil rights to a number of other groups as well. Several amendments (fifteen, nineteen, twenty-three, twenty-four, and twenty-six) have expanded the electorate. The Seventeenth Amendment instituted the direct election of senators, the Twenty-second Amendment limited presidents to two terms, and the Twenty-fifth Amendment provided for the transfer of power in cases of presidential disability.

One of the reasons often cited for the Constitution not having gathered more amendments through the years is the role the federal courts have played in determining questions of constitutionality. This process, known as judicial review, has permitted the courts to clarify and fine tune aspects of the Constitution. At times the courts have been accused of taking undue advantage of this authority. President Woodrow Wilson, for example, once referred to the Supreme Court as an ongoing constitutional convention.

The Constitution has proved to be one of the most durable political documents of all time. One of the key reasons for this durability is the document’s brevity. The Framers had a sense of what a constitution needed to specify and what it did not. Leaving many details unsettled, the Framers recognized that statutory laws, administrative law, and precedents could handle the more specific and transient details of government.

Controversies and Omissions

At times, however, the Constitution's lack of detail has generated significant controversy. At several points in history the document's uncertainty on specific issues has led to what have been termed constitutional crises. For example, in 1841 when President William Henry Harrison died in office, there was no direct indication of whether Vice President John Tyler would actually become president or simply carry out presidential duties until the next election. Tyler insisted on being elevated to the presidency, setting an informal precedent that would be followed until the Twenty-Fifth Amendment officially settled the issue of presidential succession at the constitutional level in 1967. Crises may also be sparked by debate over the meaning or interpretation of constitutional language, by political difficulties in implementing constitutional guidance (such as around disputed presidential elections), or by high-level institutional failure.

Major constitutional questions have continued into the modern era, especially as amendments became less common. Notably, in the early twenty-first century, voting rights remained a hot-button political issue. Many observers point out that the Constitution does not explicitly state a right to vote, and that its framers had often noted the potential dangers of a tyranny of the majority. Yet others argue that the language of the Constitution, particularly in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments, clearly implies a broad right to vote in the same way that it guarantees more widely accepted rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Another area of controversy has been the issue of privacy. The text of the Constitution itself does not mention any right to privacy, and though the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted that such a right is implied through several amendments—including the First and Fourth Amendments—legal scholars continue to debate the implications of this omission.

At times, politicians have sought ways to clarify such uncertainties beyond judicial interpretation. Given the typical difficulty in getting constitutional amendments passed by Congress and ratified by the states, some activists have called for changes to be made to the document through a provision in Article V that allows two-thirds of the states to call a new constitutional convention. One of the most prominent campaigns for a second constitutional convention in the early twenty-first century surrounded conservative efforts to create an amendment requiring a balanced federal budget. Several state legislatures officially passed calls for a convention focused on that goal in the 2010s and early 2020s, though the idea remained controversial. Critics noted that there were no parameters for how a second constitutional convention would be conducted, and some experts expressed concern that even a convention ostensibly focused on a single issue could snowball into drastic partisan changes to the Constitution. Nevertheless, some advocates across the political spectrum suggested that a convention could break partisan deadlock and allow important government reform.

Global Influence

The US Constitution not only proved central to the successful governance of the United States, but also had great influence in many other countries. Various nations, especially those with a history of colonial rule, drew on the document for their own constitutions. This ranged from close borrowing of language and phrasing to more general inspiration and focus on issues such as separation of powers. Soon after the ratification of US Constitution there was a burst of international interest in the American experiment, and countries such as Poland and France took up their own constitutions beginning in the 1790s. While many of these proved short-lived, the mid-nineteenth century and the twentieth century also saw waves of new national constitutions, and by the twenty-first century most democratic nations had some form of written constitution. Even those that diverge considerably in content from the US Constitution are widely recognized as ultimately indebted to the groundbreaking American document.

Nevertheless, by the twenty-first century some scholars also suggested that global constitutionalism was becoming less and less directly influenced by the US Constitution. Most significantly, analyses indicated that newer constitutions increasingly adopted generic language reflecting modern views on government structure and human rights. The US Constitution, therefore, was seen as something of an outlier, especially in its treatment of human rights. Experts debated, however, whether this indicated any broader decline in US global influence.

Bibliography

Azari, Julia, and Seth Masket. "The 4 Types of Constitutional Crises." FiveThirtyEight, 9 Feb. 2017, fivethirtyeight.com/features/constitutional-crisis/. Accessed 31 July 2024.

Belz, Herman, Winfred Harbison, and Alfred H. Kelly. The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development. 7th ed. New York: Norton, 1991.

Bloom, Allan, and Steven J. Kautz. Confronting the Constitution. Washington, DC: AEI, 1990.

"The Constitution of the United States." America's Founding Documents, National Archives, www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution. Accessed 31 July 2024.

Epps, Garrett. American Epic: Reading the US Constitution. New York: Oxford UP, 2013.

Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, and John Jay. The Federalist Papers. Ed. Clinton Rossiter. New York: New Amer. Lib., 1961.

Haydel, Judith. "Privacy." The First Amendment Encyclopedia, Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee University, 2 July 2024, www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1141/privacy. Accessed 31 July 2024.

Hulse, Carl. "A Second Constitutional Convention? Some Republicans Want to Force One." The New York Times, 4 Sept. 2022, www.nytimes.com/2022/09/04/us/politics/constitutional-convention-republican-states.html. Accessed 31 Oct. 2022.

Judson, Karen. The Constitution of the United States: Its History, Bill of Rights, and Amendments. Rev. ed. New York: Enslow, 2013.

Law, David S., and Mila Versteeg. "Is the Influence of the US Constitution Declining?" Modern Constitutions, edited by Rogers M. Smith and Richard R. Beeman. U of Pennsylvania P, 2020.

Mansfield, Harvey C. America's Constitutional Soul. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1991.

Marietta, Morgan. "The Right to Vote Is Not In the Constitution." The Conversation, 26 Aug. 2020, theconversation.com/the-right-to-vote-is-not-in-the-constitution-144531. Accessed 14 Sept. 2021.

McDonald, Forrest. Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution. Lawrence: UP of Kansas, 1979.

Perry, Michael J. Human Rights in the Constitutional Law of the United States. New York: Cambridge UP, 2013.

Scheppele, Kim Lane. "Perspectives on the Constitution: Constitutions Around the World." National Constitution Center, constitutioncenter.org/learn/educational-resources/historical-documents/perspectives-on-the-constitution-constitutions-around-the-world. Accessed 14 Sept. 2021.

"The United States Constitution." National Constitution Center, constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution. Accessed 31 July 2024.