Freedom or Liberty

We expect our government to pass and enforce laws that protect our safety, but who gets to decide what defines safety? Drinking large sodas is unhealthy, but does the government have the right to ban us from guzzling down a two liter? Does the government have the right to outlaw burkas because they disagree with Muslim values

“Liberty or death!” This phrase was used by both Patrick Henry and Malcolm X in their speeches. Even though these men gave their speeches almost two centuries apart their goal was the same. They both wanted to convince their audience to fight for freedom. Through the use of rhetorical strategies, Patrick Henry was successful in convincing the colonies to fight for their freedom from Britain and Malcolm X was successful in convincing African Americans to fight for their rights.

Americans only see few ways to affect real change on government because politicians are too reliant upon large donations. Groups contribute money, and later on receive a kickback of bill that favors them or supports their positions. “Candidates who raise lots of money say it indicates broad support. Candidates with little money point out that voters, not donors, decide elections” (2012 Presidential). Candidates spend large amount of time fundraising, which decreases people’s confidence in the government’s ability to do their

Today, career politicians are constantly looking for what will aid them in getting reelected. They become more loyal to their campaign fund contributers than to the people whom they represent. This increases the likelihood of having corrupted politicians in office, as they use the government as a vehicle to further their own career (Kurfirst, 1996, p. 123, 129). George Will, a well-known political journalist, was quoted as saying “[The] worst feature of professionalism in politics is that it obliterates the proper distance between the representatives and the represented” (Kurfirst, 1996, p. 125). Even James Madison agreed that legislators were meant to represent the people, not hold office as a career. In The Federalist No. 57 (1788), he wrote, “From this change of men must proceed a change of opinions; and from a change of opinions, a change of measures.” The lack of new faces in Congress today symbolizes that the American legislative branch is straying from its intended purpose.

In 1787 representatives from twelve of the thirteen states met in Pennsylvania for a constitutional convention. Delegates voiced great concern over the protection of individual liberties and personal property. For southern delegates one of the most important liberties was the right to own slaves. While they wanted a federal government that would protect their rights, they did not want a governing body that would emancipate their slaves. There was a notation that the pursuit of happiness was tied to property. As strongly as people might adhere to the notion of liberty and freedom, they adhere just as strongly to the notion of property.

Nearly the late year of 1787, the U.S. Constitution was established, stating the basal laws and fundamental principles that the United States would be governed by. Many philosophers and political thinkers furnished a great comprehension for the modern day structures that are very active today. Our Founding Fathers created a system which divides different acts of government into the legislature, executive, and judicial branches. Following in the form of the Separation of Powers, the checks and balances system ensures that political power isn’t contributing to any individual or group that enables them to gain an abundant amount of power. For the instance of this, “the Constitution provides a method for change, as the Founders created it this

In 1787, the Constitution of the United States was just written on September 17th. During this time, the common man was still under the power of the Articles of Confederation, a weak document that loosely connected the 13 former colonies. Although the Articles didn’t give the United States of America the strong centralized power that it needed, opposers to the new Constitution would argue that the Constitution took away the rights of the common man and gave that power, that the individual once had, to the federal government. Although this statement is correct, the federal government’s newly given power was used to protect the fundamental rights and liberties of its citizens and create a powerful government in the hopes that it would benefit

Have you ever wonder the process that the Founding Fathers of America had to go through to create our system of government? One of the vital pieces to establishing this government was the famous document known as the Constitution. The Constitution was a highly argued document, because many people were concerned about if it would protect the newly-separated country of america from the tyranny that they had faced with their previous king. The Constitution ended up being the people's’ savior after the delegates signed it in September 1787, and protected them from tyranny in their country even better than before. All and all, the Constitution guarded the United States against tyranny creating a system

In 1863, Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address defined the American government as an institution “of the people, by the people, [and] for the people”. Lincoln had an idealistic view of the government as an instrument for societal change. He, as well as the founding fathers, intended for the government to act in support of the people’s will or the majority rule. This democratic definition of the government has remained true throughout the course of American history. By placing all of its power on its citizens, the government itself did not decide the course of history but rather followed it. This follower mindset is seen through the government’s positive interactions with marginalized groups’ who in their attempts to overcome exclusion gained

Within the past few years, the United States has become increasingly divided. Not only is this divide becoming more and more prevalent, but both legislators and civilians are also becoming more intractable. Many leaders in the Congress, in the Senate, and even in the White House are unwilling to work with leaders of different political parties simply because they do not want to seem as if they are faltering in their beliefs of their party’s ideals. Legislators choose to represent the interests of those who funded their campaign instead of lobbying for the best interest of their constituents. When lawmakers represent billionaires instead of average people, they become out of touch and the government becomes less “for the people by the people” and more “for the one percent by the one percent.”

When one thinks of government, one thinks of The White House, the president, healthcare, and money. Yet, from reading the chapters now one will think a bit about the history of our government, the people that began to embrace the opportunity to stand up for what they deemed right or wrong. Then we think about the people who started and molded our government and all the costs and values that came after. The Federalist, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and George Washington, believed the government was meant to be run by the privileged and wealthy of the states, while on the other hand The Antifederalist; Patrick Henry, George Mason, Gerry Elbridge, and George Clinton thought the government should be for the people and opportunity.

Certain interests do not change over time in our society. Over 200 years ago, the prominent concern that led to the framing of the Constitution regarded the establishment of a government that was “for the people and by the people.” The framers of the Constitution, with concern of an over powering central government in mind, provided a basis for the structure of the federal government of the United States. The powers of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government are laid out strategically in a way that no one branch can have more power than the other. The national concern of maintaining a legitimate government has not shifted since the initial days of the framers. Although the capacity of the government has grown over time, the system of checks and balances that was adapted in the framing of the Constitution allows for the structure and powers of the federal government to remain in order today. Other than providing a structural map for how the government will operate, however, the additional aspects of the Constitution fail to administer practical framework for addressing 21st century interests. This document was written over 200 years ago and it has not been altered substantially since then (Lazare). While certain Amendments have been added to assist the Constitution in staying relevant, such as the abolishment of slavery and the addition of women’s right to vote, there has been practically nothing added to help in applying the framers’ intentions

The phrase, “We the people”, holds a lot of meaning to American citizens. As the first three words of the United States Constitution, it signifies a core value intended to act as a unifying factor in America’s democratic society: popular sovereignty. This is the idea of a majority rules, or to put more simply, the one with the most votes wins. The U.S. system of government relies upon the fact that the American people are capable of coming together to make informed decisions about matters that will ultimately better the lives of everyone. Despite this, however, there are certain instances in which a minority group will impose on or have more influence than the majority group. This phenomenon occurs all the time in politics, as politicians tend to regard the predilections of small groups of citizens as opposed to the general populace.

We, the people, do not have the power or influence to create laws in our interests. In today’s “true” democracy, we elect representatives to run the government for the people’s interest; however, the representatives we elect, for the most part, have only the interest of themselves to consider.

Just as every plants and animal as evolved and changed throughout the course of its existence so has the definition of freedom while its’ meaning has stayed constant. Freedom has a perpetual meaning, however, humans have tried to change the definition based upon moral, ethical, social, and legal ideals that have through history been debated upon and never satisfied all. Freedoms’ perpetual meaning is that everyone, no matter race or gender, has the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. As time progresses and new ideas flourish the definition of freedom either flourishes along with society or takes a drastic spiral downward usually with the opinions of humanity. In this essay we will be