Constitution Day, observed on Sept. 17 every year, serves as a reminder that more than 230 years ago, delegates in Philadelphia faced the immense challenge of uniting 13 independent states under a single framework. They came together to ratify the U.S. Constitution and, despite being centuries ago, it continues to be the legal and political doctrine of the United States of America.
In the 21st century, our judicial system has faced key constitutional tests. Amid an increasingly polarized nation with deepening partisan divisions, it is important Americans remember when our nation’s leaders came together to agree on government powers.
Eric Gonzalez Juenke is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at Michigan State University’s College of Social Science. Here, he answers questions about the history of the U.S. founding and how striking the correct balance of government power matters today.
Responses and excerpts are from an article published in Good Authority.
Why did the framers of the Constitution think government was necessary after winning independence from Britain?
When 55 state delegates arrived in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787, they faced a rare opportunity. They had been called to fix the Articles of Confederation, an ineffective “league of friendship” between the 13 state governments. Historically, national governments tend to develop this way, building in piecemeal fashion from what had existed before. Alternatively, new governments were also brought in by conquering armies.
These delegates — the “framers of the Constitution” — instead opted to create a new national government from scratch, attempting to turn the 13 independent and “united” states into the nation of the United States.
The difficulty of their task was enormous. Asking newly independent states to give up some of their sovereignty to an unknown but potentially dangerous new “novelty” government forced many political leaders of the era to ask a big question. And it’s the very same question that students and citizens today often ask political science instructors: Why do we need government?
Americans are well acquainted with all of the ways in which the framers feared government and protected us from its powers. But often we neglect the problem that brought the delegates to Philadelphia in the first place: Weak and ineffective government also puts our lives and liberties at risk.
How did the Constitution’s supporters view the balance between freedom and government power?
The supporters of the Constitution — the “federalists” — and their “anti-federalist” opponents in the states debated about the size and scope of America’s government. They all agreed, however, that government itself was essential to preserving the blessings of individual liberty. In “Federalist Papers, No. 2,” John Jay writes:
“Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.”
Think about that carefully. America’s founding leaders thought that to truly be free, individuals must give up some of their freedom. It sounds like a rhetorical trick — and indeed, many modern-day libertarian and anarchist thinkers believe this idea is a fiction created to “enslave a free people.” Fiction or not, leaders of the early American republic took this concept as a matter of political faith.
What does government do at its most basic level?
Government, at a bare minimum, is the entity with a monopoly on violence. Government solves the collective action problem of common defense that arises in a state of constant war or violence. Economist Mancur Olson, for instance, defined government as a “stationary bandit” that protects citizens from roving bandits in exchange for taxes.
These minimalist definitions of government follow from social contract theories more familiar to the framers of the Constitution, from authors like John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. In “Common Sense,” the influential January 1776 pamphlet that spurred colonists toward revolution, Thomas Paine called government a “necessary evil.” For authors like this, freedom from government leads to anarchy, and if there is any individual freedom found there it is “nasty, brutish and short.”
Beyond protecting people, what problems did the framers believe government could solve?
In “Federalist Papers No. 11” and No. 12, Hamilton discusses the economic benefits of a strong national government. Government creates efficiencies, he writes — not only with foreign trade, but also with interstate commerce. Hamilton famously wanted a national bank, a precursor to the Federal Reserve system, to create market stability so American business could thrive. The idea that government creates and enforces economic rules and therefore lowers transaction costs for businesses is also supported by modern social science theories.
Over time, politicians from all sides have argued that expanding national and state governments will also generate better economic, social and private freedoms. National defense concerns, for example, were one reason the federal government poured money into higher education in response to the Sputnik launch in the late 1950s. This funding, in turn, massively expanded university enrollment and scientific research. Cold War fears also accelerated America’s national highway system and the creation of the precursor to the Department of Health and Human Services. And politicians have also used national defense as a pretext to both expand and contract the nation’s openness to immigration throughout U.S. history.
For Americans, national, state and local governments have an impact on just about everything, from the roads we drive on, to the air we breathe, to the safety we often enjoy, to the food we eat, and the ways we communicate with one another. Some see this as massive government overreach. Many of the framers would instead be amazed at the size and success of the industry and individual freedom their fledgling government created. Our ability to pursue private opportunities, to move and think freely, and to do business with others is both freedom from government as well as protection by government.
How did the framers try to prevent government from becoming too powerful?
We spend a lot of time in government classes talking about the ingenious ways in which the framers of the U.S. Constitution broke up the political system to protect our liberties. Specific protections include the separation of powers, checks and balances, the Bill of Rights and a bicameral legislature. Some students inevitably ask, “If government is so scary, why not just get rid of it?” We forget that the prospect of a weak and too-small government was far more terrifying in 1787. After all, the framers were not sent to Philadelphia for a summer picnic.
The American political experiment is not just about navigating rough seas to avoid the looming dangers akin to Scylla, a monster that once threatened Odysseus and his ship. It is not just a fear of too much government. It is just as much about evading the other dangers of Charybdis — in this case, the void that develops when government is too small and ineffective.
Students and citizens alike must understand the seriousness of both fears as each generation takes up the struggle of American politics. The vacuum of weak government will be filled by tyranny from other nations, or private companies wanting to monopolize markets and control government. U.S. history also offers plenty of examples of the factional ways in which Americans tyrannize each other.
Attempting to solve this dilemma — creating a government strong enough to protect people’s liberties, but not so strong that it could be used to take away these liberties — is the genius of the constitutional project. The ongoing transformation of the U.S. Constitution into a better reflection of its ideals throughout the nation’s 250-year history continues this legacy.
