'Assess the view that the US Constitution often ensures limited government.'
Written by Finlay Mairead Jan 2013.
Introduction : Definition of a limited government – that the size and scope of the federal government is limited to an extent in which it is necessary only for the common good of the people. Founding Fathers wanted to ensure limited government introduced three independent yet co equal branches that check the power of others.
Separation of powers : Adopted from writings of Montesquieu, powers are shared through an elaborate series of checks and balances.
Examples : Congress has legislational power – power checked by presidential veto
Supreme Court can decide laws and actions are unconstitutional through power of judicial review. – Discovered in the 1803 Marbury v Madison case.
Presidential appointments need to be confirmed and presidential treaties ratified with advice and consent of senate p.g. 16/17
Synopticity : UK has fusion of powers executive being drawn from legislature and also responsible to it ( a parliamentary executive) As a result, there are fewer checks and balances.
Criticisms; system offers an “invitation to struggle” as a result of power struggles between branches can result in institutional gridlock – with little being achieved. Some may argue this leads to a weaker government, and difficulty in making decisions
Evaluation: whilst there is criticism for separation of powers, ultimately does ensure more often than not limited government. System mean branches of government must work co-operatively which leads to consensus seeking.
Bill of Rights : Founding Fathers were concerned above all to protect rights and liberties of citizens under new Constitution – Declaration of Independence. Potential tyranny of an over powerful government. 1 st and 10 th amendment in particular also laid out in constitution that citizens are given inalienable and entrenched rights.
Citizens rights entrenched and is supreme law, ensures constitution is sovereign and therefore rights are guaranteed in the Constitution and cannot be breached by government.
All rights protected by Supreme Court however can give alternative interpretations over time
Synopticity: Rights are not entrenched or guaranteed in UK, discuss Human Rights Act briefly.
Evaluation : Ultimately helps to ensure limited government, however does incur problems.
Federalism: define , constitutions can be unitary or federal, origins of US Constitution as a federal constitution lay in Articles of Confederation.
Arguably provides an additional set of checks and balances on the exercise of power, guards against an over powerful central government.
Criticism: Over fragmentation of government can also lead to gridlock .Can result in states refusing to conform. E.g. 1954, refusal of the southern states to de-segregate after

Brown v Topeka decision, claiming states rights allowed them to refuse.
Significant economic inequalities between rich and poor states such as Louisiana and
Connecticut – only federal government can solve this problem.
Evaluation : Does more often than not ensure limited government, in words of Madison avoids “the danger of too much power in too few hands” – another set of checks and balances on the exercise of political power.
Conclusion
Discuss different provisions considered in constitution, conclude that the US constitution often ensures limited government.
Assess the view that the US Constitution often ensures limited government
Introduction
The US Constitution , written in Philadelphia in 1787 by the Founding Fathers, was the product of the revolutionary war of independence, with it's foundations strongly influenced by the works of political theorists such as Jean Jacques Rousseau and John
Locke1. The Founding Fathers favoured a government that prevented any individual or particular group using its power to damage the interests of other people. Furthermore, they strongly opposed the notion of excessive government power, seen as a potential threat to individual freedom, wanting to protect minorities as well as the population as whole, from arbitrary or unjust rule2. Consequently, the Founding Fathers outlined main provisions within the US constitution in order to avoid potential tyranny : the separation of powers, a federal structure of government and also providing citizens inalienable and entrenched rights through the implementation of the Bill of Rights. Arguably, these provisions as a result mostly ensure , as the Founding Fathers had hope to achieve, limited government; in so much as the size and scope of the federal government is limited to an extent in which it is necessary only for the common good of the people3. However, some critics argue that on the contrary, that problems arise due to provisions laid out by the Founding Fathers, such as potential gridlock ,amongst other issues ,hinders limited government. Moreover, the evolving nature of federalism does not always ensure limited government. Therefore, in order to assess as to whether the US Constitution more often than not, ensures limited government, it is important to consider and evaluate the main aspects of the US constitution that outlined limited government before coming to a reasoned conclusion.
Separation of Powers
The separation of powers prevalent in the USA , whereby political power is distributed between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary branches of government, were adopted from the Founding Fathers by the principles of Montesquieu, who argued for a separation of powers into legislative, executive and judiciary branches in order to avoid tyranny4. This framework of government implies not only the independence of government between the three branches, therefore a separation of personnel ( for example both Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama had to give up their Senate seats when becoming

President and Secretary of state5) but also interdependence of the branches of government. The interdependence of the branches laid out within the constitution arguably, as some may regard, creates limitations on federal government, due to the series of checks and balances that occur between them. Therefore, this can be seen to prevent any of the branches from becoming too powerful. For example, Congress has legislative power, but this power is checked by the presidential veto, whist the presidential veto is checked through the use of a congressional override, requiring a super majority in both house of Congress. Moreover, the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review upon the other branches, enabling them to declare laws and actions unconstitutional6. This acts in stark contrast to the UK, whereby there is a fusion of powers, with the executive drawn from the legislature and also responsible to it.
Consequently, this arguably leads to less effective checks and balances due to the lack of separate personnel prevalent, leading to a concentration rather than a diffusion of powers7. As a result, this has lead some to consider that these fusion of powers leads to executive dominance, or as Lord Hailsham remarked, an “elective dictatorship”8.
However, the system of the separation of powers within the USA has been criticised, leading some to question as to whether the system put in place by the Founding Fathers in order to restrain an excessive government, actually effectively prevents this possibility.
Arguably, the system offers an “invitation to struggle” as a result of power struggles between branches which can ultimately lead to institutional gridlock. This can lead to little being achieved, and could lead to a potentially weaker government. For example, in
1995 tension between the Republican controlled Congress and the Democrat President
Clinton over the passage of the federal budget lead to parts of the federal government to close when funds had run out9.
Moreover, some may argue that the checks and balances put in place still create an inequality in the distribution of power. This has lead some critics to argue that certain branches have substantial power over others, which could contradict the notion of limited government.
For example John Dumbrell has argued that the era of the “war on terror” has involved new concentrations of power in the executive branch in general as well as the White
House, with presidential power being able to thrive in emergency,with the powers returning upon the September 11 th atrocity in 200110. This enabled Bush to use his
“inherent” power to override Congress on pre- emption, enabling Bush to order military action to pre-empt hostile attacks against the USA. Furthermore, Schlesinger has argued that the checks and balances established by the Constitution and the acquired powers of
Congress have been put into jeopardy by the “imperial” executive, due to the “assault” of the Congressional power of declaring war being overridden. It has also been seen in
President Nixon’s reign, through the impoundments of funds, allocated for particular purposes by Congress11.
Nevertheless, some critics argue that the judiciary are the final arbiters of what is meant by the principle of separation of powers, which therefore provides the judiciary with subordinate levels of power12. Moreover, Chief Justice Hughes concluding that the
“Constitution is what the judges say it is” due to the ability to interpret the constitution13.

In America, although Congress may pass new laws affecting courts, ultimately judges decide.
Evaluation
Ultimately, it appears that the framework of a separation of powers put into place within the Constitution can be seen to result in a limited government, however it does encounter problems such as gridlock. Although, it seems apparent that the system does mostly create a spirit of bipartisanship, with branches of government working co operatively in order to achieve success, leading arguably to more consensus seeking. Moreover, it can be argued that the checks and balances ensure limited government and retain the liberty of citizens due to the provision of more levels of government, providing greater access for citizens, and therefore keeping the government responsive to the people. Therefore, leadership is difficult precisely because the framers of the constitution wanted it to be so, as Thomas Crown and Michael Genovese once suggested “opportunities to check power abound, therefore opportunities to exercise power are limited” . Consequently, checks and balances put in place on separation of powers leads to a limited government in favour of the people.14
Federalism
Federalism is a theory of government by which political power is divided between a national government and also state governments with each having their own area of substantive jurisdiction15. The origins of the US constitution as a federal constitution lay in the Articles of Confederation Federalism essentially involves a degree of decentralisation as power is dispersed between two levels through the division of power between the national (federal) government and the 50 individual states16. As a result, this federalist structure is often refereed to as dual sovereignty. This acts in stark contrast to the unitary system prevalent in the UK, whereby there is a principle of parliamentary sovereignty, as power is centralised and concentrated in Parliament.
Arguably the federalist structure of the USA does often ensure limited government , as it avoids as Madison remarked “the danger of too much power in too few hands”17, due to being seen to provide checks and balances on the exercise of power, preventing an excessively dominant central government. Moreover, pluralism is often associated with decentralisation, as federalism arguably implies that neither federal or state governments can excessively dominate, therefore limiting government18.
However, the nature of the federal state relationship has developed and changed over time and has not always resulted in limiting federal government. This is evident in the era of Co-operative federalism, referred by political scientist Morton Grodzins as a phase of federalism seen as a “marble cake”, due to the partnership that evolved between the two levels of government, that undoubtedly saw a huge expansion of federal government intervention after the Great Depression. This was also seen in the period of the Great
Society under Lyndon John son’s administration of the 1960's, where money was given to the states but with strings attached, so there was arguably more control by the federal

government. As a result ,the constitution can be seen as not always ensuring limited government. Moreover, critics such as Anthony Bennett have suggested that federalism can also lead to gridlock which can result in an “atomisation of both politics and society.”19 In the sense that the federalism can lead to over fragmentation, which can lead to states being obstructive and refusing to conform. For example, the refusal of southern states to de-segregate after the Brown decision in 1954, claiming the states rights allowed them to refuse. There is also the issue of significant economic inequalities between rich and poor states such as Louisiana and Connecticut, with only federal government having the ability to solve this problem.
Moreover, the “supremacy clause” of the Constitution ensures that federal government law prevails in a dispute and this has been upheld in several Supreme Court rulings over the implied powers, such as in the McCulloch v Maryland (1819) case which established this. The courts interpretation paved the way for later rulings upholding federal over state power.
Evaluation
The implementation of federalism by the constitution in theory can be seen to limit government due to fragmenting the power between the layers of government and avoiding its concentration. Yet, in reality it seems the prevalence of the Supreme Court rulings in recent years, and the developing nature of federalism itself that has gone through various phases of federalism whereby federal government power has both increased and diminished depending on the government in power, certainly creates doubt as to whether the constitution truly ensures limited government.
The Bill of Rights
The first ten amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, came into effect in 1791, limiting the powers of the federal government of the United States whilst also protecting the”inalienable” rights of all citizens, residents and visitors in American territory20 for example the 1 st Amendment ensures freedom of speech, whilst the 10 th Amendment concerns reserving state rights.
In the original provisions of the constitution, Madison felt that th e constitution did too little to protect citizens or for that matter, the states from an over powerful federal government, and the Founding Fathers were concerned above all in ensuring the protection of the rights and liberties of citizens under the new Co nstitution, keen to prevent potential tyranny of an over powerful government21. The constitution, in particular reference to the Bill of Rights, were designed by the Founding Fathers to limit government's role to what was regarded as government's most essential functions: To preserve individual liberty and protect private property.
As a result, the Bill of Rights ensures that citizens rights are entrenched and is supreme law. This ensures that the constitution is sovereign and therefore rights cannot be bre ached by government and are guaranteed by the constitution. On the contrary, within the UK, whilst Parliament has passed the Human Rights Act in 1998, citizens rights are neither entrenched nor guaranteed due to their being no equivalent Bill of Rights. J udges within the UK do not have the power of declaring an act unconstitutional using judicial review unlike in the

US, only the ability to declare an “issue of incompatibility” if a new law contravenes with the European Convention of Human Rights incorpor ated into the Act.
However, rights have not always been fully protected by the Bill of Rights, with the US arguably having a poor record of civil rights and liberties22. This has lead some to argue that rights, despite constitutional protection, merely de pends upon the events and climate within any given period of time. For example, the denial of voting rights to women till
1918, and the denial of voting and civil rights to black Americans after the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments, when Jim Crow laws a nd segregation prevailed in southern states. In more recent times, the introduction of the Patriot Act passed by Congress , regarding the use of anti terrorism measures such as electronic surveillance was deemed by many as undermining constitutional rights . Nevertheless such apparent infringement was not declared “unconstitutional” by the Supreme Court23. Consequently, some consider that whilst the judicial review power limits government, as to whether it is at the extent to which is necessary for people’s liberties is another matter.
Evaluation
The Bill of Rights outlined within the Constitution by the Founding Fathers appears to, more often than not ensure limited government, primarily due to the judiciary's power to interpret the constitution and wheth er Acts are unconstitutional or not. This power can as a result be seen to limit the power of federal government to a means as which it is necessary for the people, protecting their “inalienable rights”. However, due to the fact that civil rights and liber ties have not always been fully protected by the Bill of Rights certainly does call into question as to whether government is limited at a detriment to citizens rights, or perhaps that the federal government is still able to be over powerful, for example t he Patriot Act put in place in recent years.
Conclusion
Having looked at the main provisions outlined by the Founding Fathers in the hope of ensuring a limited federal government, such as the separation of powers and the checks and balances that such a s ystem occurs, federalism and the Bill of Rights, it does appear the overall, the Constitution does often ensure limited government. This is primarily through the entrenched rights given to citizens. However, that is not to say the constitution in terms of limiting government does have certain faults, such as the recurrent issue of gridlock, which can be seen to limit government to it's detriment, by effectively weakening government as certain issues and provision remain dead locked.
Yet ultimately, the US constitution does appear to often ensure limited government.
Bibliography
Harris, Colleen “The Politics of the USA” Hachette, 2012
Lynch , P. & P. Fairclough ( 2010 ) “UK Government and Politics”, UK: Hachette

Watts, Duncan (2003) Understanding US/UK Government and Politics, Manchester
University Press.
Bennett J. Anthony (2001) A2 US Government and Politics Exam Revision Notes, Phillip Allan Press
Dumbrell, John, (April 2006) Politics Review:Revising US Presidential Power
Ashbee, Edward (April 2006) Politics: Presidential Power: Gridlock?
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/cooray/btof/chap174.htm
http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/briefhistory/declaration-of-independence.html