The Constitution was written to overcome injustices in Commerce. However, the Commerce powers were used opportunistically in correlation to the political ideologies of the period. The creation of the Tenth Amendment, in 1791, was indicative of the changing nature of the United States economy. The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation and established a central federalist government, subrogating states’ rights to a lesser role. This role was transformed as the economy developed. The idea of a big government stealing money and power away from the states did not sit well. This relationship was exacerbated by the institution of slavery along with a flourishing trade system. The expanding economy created a glaring need to regulate what would become the laisez-faire market. Court Justice John Marshall was the first judge to really push back in America’s highest authority. The passage of the Eleventh Amendment further substantiated the Court’s evolving interpretation of the Commerce Clause. As I will show, this interpretation was in direct relation to the ideological shift from the development of right wing social Darwinism, to a left-wing administrative state, and then eventually back to the neo-social Darwinism in the Court today. In order to show this transition, one must go back to the beginning of the nation building period between the mid Eighteenth to Nineteenth Century. The First and Second Industrial Revolutions manifested into an economic boom in America. As a result, business dealings grew lucrative and civil litigation skyrocketed. The passage of the Tenth Eleventh Amendments showed the Congressional need for maintaining this economy. The inherent nature of the free market brought many states’ every day dealing... ... middle of paper ... ...Darwin era endured the half century before, the newly packed Court was now upholding legislation by interpreting the Commerce powers in a way that was conducive to FDR’s New Deal. Commerce was not merely just a direct/indirect relationship but something tangible and real to the economies’ well being. The end to the liberalization of the Commerce powers was cemented in the case Wickard v. Filburn (1942). The Court ruled that Filburn could be subject to tax by the State since his agrarian output affected the interstate commerce of the nation. This is substantiated by the desperation to keep the U.S. economy afloat during the Great Depression. Congress enjoyed a period during the middle of the Twentieth Century where no act of Congress was struck down. By the late 1970s, however, the Court shifted back to neo- social Darwinist principles enjoyed a century before.
During the early nineteenth century, the United States began to expand rapidly. Industry and factories began to become the dominant economic powerhouse in the United States, quickly overrunning the traditional farmer industry. During this time period resources, state legislatures, and judges began to bend towards those that were seen as expanding the economy rather than the bystanders. Law began to favor dynamic property that was seen as expanding the economy and doing good for the people of the country, rather than static or not expanding property. The priorities of the country began to change and can be seen through trial outcomes and the actions of the state legislatures.
One’s ability to analyze the motives of the Framers necessitates some understanding of the sense of national instability instilled in the US its first form of government, the Articles of Confederation in granting little power to the central government; in particular, focusing on the economic turmoil and it’s effects on the Framers. In his analysis of America in the Articles, Beard comprehensively summarizes the failures of the Articles as compromising to the “national defense, protection of private property, and advancement of commerce,” (Beard, 36) in the US. Additionally, Beard utilizes these indisputable truths to establish a case for what he believes to be the self-interested influences that urged the Framers to craft an undemocratic Constitution. As Beard puts it, the state centered control of the US under the Articles caused the economic
During the time period of 1860 and 1877 many major changes occurred. From the beginning of the civil war to the fall of the reconstruction, the United States changed dramatically. Nearly one hundred years after the Declaration of Independence which declared all men equal, many social and constitutional alterations were necessary to protect the rights of all people, no matter their race. These social and constitutional developments that were made during 1860 to 1877 were so drastic it could be called a revolution.
Beard, Charles Austin. An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1998. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed February 23, 2014
The Constitution of the United States is one of the most iconic and important documents of all time. However, when it was first generated, its writing and ratification caused some major concerns. The purpose of the Constitution was to address the great number of issues of a new nation. To be more specific, the Constitution was meant to resolve the political, economic, and social problems of the country. Nevertheless, the document spurred much discussion and concern over people’s rights, the economy, and political corruption.
...ailable. Charles A. Beard argues this point in his book An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, stating that “The Constitution was essentially an economic document based upon the concept that the fundamental private rights of property are anterior to government and morally beyond the reach of popular majorities.”
3. Beard, Charles A. "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States". American Politics. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, MA. 1999. (Pages 27 -- 33).
Despite the downfall of the Federalist Party in the early nineteenth century, John Marshall continued to exert a strong Federalist influence on the government, which acted as a catalyst to ignite political controversy. In the McCullough vs. Maryland trial of 1819, Marshall deemed Maryland taxing the second bank of the United States as being unconstitutional, which gave even more power to the central government. (Doc D) Majority of the American population was against his ruling and refuted it because many people believed that having a strong central government was bad because if a bad decision was made, it would have affected the entire union, whereas if there was a strong state government, a bad decision would have just hurt the state. However, this was not the only time where the economy had failed in the early 1800’s. In 1816, John Randolph addressed congress and stated that it was unjust to tax the poo...
During and after the turmoil of the American Revolution, the people of America, both the rich and the poor, the powerful and the meek, strove to create a new system of government that would guide them during their unsure beginning. This first structure was called the Articles of Confederation, but it was ineffective, restricted, and weak. It was decided to create a new structure to guide the country. However, before a new constitution could be agreed upon, many aspects of life in America would have to be considered. The foremost apprehensions many Americans had concerning this new federal system included fear of the government limiting or endangering their inalienable rights, concern that the government’s power would be unbalanced, both within
Expansive growth was the moniker which expressly defined the Gilded Age. Industry in all sectors, witnessed massive growth leading to the creation of an American economy. Due to the rapidly changing nature of industrialization important men of both the public and private sectors attempted to institute their own controls over it. However this transforming landscape integrated both economic and political changes, but also cultural and social interactions. In turn, those who controlled the flow of business would also steadily impact the American social scene by extension. Alan Trachtenberg, professor of American studies at Yale and author of The Incorporation of America, argues that the system of incorporation unhinged the idea of national identity that all American’s had previously shared. As a result incorporation became the catalyst for the great debate about what it meant to actually be American, and who was capable of labeling themselves as such. Throughout his work Trachtenberg consistently tackles the ideas of cultural identity and how those ideas struggled against one another to be the supreme definition of Americanism. This work not only brings to life the issue of identity but it attempts to synthesize various scholarly works into a cohesive work on the Gilded Age and demonstrates that concepts developed during the incorporation of the time period have formed the basis for the American cultural, economic, and political superstructure. The Incorporation of America sets a high standard for itself one in which it doesn’t necessarily meet; however the work is still expansive and masterful at describing the arguments of the Gilded Age.
The years after the civil war left one half of America, the north, satisfied and the other half, the south, mostly dissatisfied. Therefore the last third of the nineteenth century, 1865-1900, was a time period in which America was mending, repairing, improving, reshaping, and reconstructing its society, economy, culture, and policies. Basically it was changing everything it stood for. This continual change can be seen in the following events that took place during this time. These events are both causes and effects of why America is what it is today. These are some examples: the reconstruction of the south, the great movement towards the west, the agricultural revolution, the rise of industrialism, the completion of the transcontinental railroad, and America's growth to gaining world power. All of these are reasons and events that characterize America as being an ever-changing nation.
During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms. Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused. The “lackluster leadership” of the critics of the new constitution claimed that a large land area such as America could not work for such a diverse nation.
Throughout the first half of the 19th century, and especially after the War of 1812, America has taken on yet another revolution. In this time period, the country saw a rapid expansion in territory and economics, as well as the extension of democratic politics; the spread of evangelical revivalism; the rise of the nation’s first labor and reform movements; the growth of cities and industrial ways of life; a rise in abolitionism and reduction in the power of slavery; and radical shifts in the roles and status of women.
Sequentially, they used their power to prevent controls by state legislatures. These circumstances effect the way one characterizes the capitalists who shaped post-Civil War industrial America and it is valid that they would be properly distinguished as corrupt “robber barons”.
3. Divine, Breen, Fredrickson, Williams, eds., America Past and Present Volume II: since 1865 sixth edition (New York: Longman 2002).