Politics and Freedom

By Stacy A. Bryan

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines Civil Rights as the non-political rights of a citizen; especially : the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to United States citizens by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress "Civil Rights." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2007. http://www.merriam-webster.com (17 Jan. 2007). Since the Declaration of Independence, the citizens of the United States continue on with their pursuit of equality within civil rights. Beginning with our independence from England, this pursuit has taught us the lessons of acceptance, equality, and freedom. While most of us agree that equality in race, equality of the sexes, and the freedom of religion is necessary to Civil Rights; some of us wonder where this pursuit will lead. We have already witnessed controversies abound in topics such as sexual orientation, illegal immigrants, and the definition of marriage.

The progression of Civil Rights begins within a broad scope, yet narrows as time moves on. First, the pursuit of Civil Rights seemed to apply to all; beginning with our separation from England, which freed the United States from financial and political obligations to the King. As evidenced in this paper, our pursuit of Civil Rights has been a long battle as inhabitants of our great nation have had to earn their way towards Civil Rights. Not only can one see that our struggle with equality has been constant; it has been an uphill battle. Such a battle is now more objectively found in a person's opinions, rather than in his skin color.

Today, certain moral issues may clash with another person's definition of Civil Rights. Some people in the United States do not believe that gay marriage is necessary or moral. Since the issue is not addressed in the Constitution; the question of what Civil Rights a person deserves may need to be decided by the Supreme Court. It seems to me that we all need to recognize that we live in a society where many things are now considered acceptable as opposed to the time when our Constitution was written. As gay rights activists continue to pursue their Civil Rights however; will the rights of others, including freedom of speech and religion, be affected? Who is to judge whether our beliefs are correct? It seems that this argument has been a critical issue in the past, and shall certainly be in the future. Another question that I pose is how our evolving society will begin to deal with Civil Rights; as such rights begin to be infringed upon by developing technology.

July 4^th, 1776 began our pursuit for Civil Rights with one of the most important documents created, the Declaration of Independence. In this historical document, Thomas Jefferson and the members of Congress declare the thirteen Colonies as independent states, which then formed the United States of America. For many, this document stands as the foundation of freedom and a declaration of equality in all citizens. Evidenced in the words of Thomas Jefferson, one should understand what the United States is supposed to be about. In the preamble we find, "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;" Don Nardo, The Declaration of Independence: A model for Individual Rights (San Diego: Lucent Books, 1999)

One need only read the Declaration of Independence in order to understand why Thomas Jefferson and the other authors found it necessary to pursue their civil rights in a new nation; free of the tyranny and oppression from the King of England. This document outlined the power of the people to self govern, and also described the limitations on government power. The primary reason for such a document, however, was to list the causes which motivated the colonies to separate from England:

"...for quartering large troops among us, for protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States, for cutting off our trade with other parts of the world, for imposing taxes on us without our consent, for depriving us in many cases of the benefit of trial by jury, and for transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences." The Declaration of Independence, 2007. Retrieved 01/19/2007, from http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/.

In addition to establishing the United States of America as a free nation under its own self government, the authors also protected themselves from an established government religion. The Church of England had no place in the United State's new government; and the government had no place in the religion of the new United State's citizens. Thus, another civil right is enacted; the freedom of religion.

The First Amendment is a straight forward proclamation of early civil rights. Found in the first ten amendments to the constitution, one can read: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceable to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." History 449 Readings Booklet: Constitutional History of the United States to 1877. Page. 17.

While our religious freedoms are well protected in the United States, I foresee problems as the increase of freedoms of some, may impede on the freedoms of others. An example is in the two measures that are currently under consideration in the house and the senate; H.R. 4682 and S.1. These measures could directly violate the First Amendment by restricting Churches' free speech rights by classifying them as "grassroots lobbying firms" which would then be subject to governmental regulation. By placing restrictions on a Preacher's First Amendment rights; certain moral and political views would be regulated by the government, thus limiting the foundation of beliefs and positions that these churches have held since the beginning of their existence. How the Grassroots Lobbying Bills Would AffectChurches and Other Non-Profit Organizations. Retrieved from http://www.aclj.org/. on (01/19/2007).

Presently, one may be overwhelmed by constant arguments of such topics as what defines a marriage or whether a homosexual can adopt children. Although the United States Constitution doesn't address the issue of who can marry, we seem to have a Country divided by the very question. Gay Rights advocates believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry in order to receive the same benefits as heterosexual married couples. Groups that oppose such measures are usually considered "right-wing" or religious fanatics because they believe that the definition of marriage is derived from words written in their holy books such as the Bible, Koran, or Torah.

My opinion on the subject can only emanate from my understanding of the bible, which states that marriage is between a man and a woman. Although I would probably be described as an oppressor of civil rights because of my view, I believe that my first amendment rights guarantees me such a view. Thus, in today's age, social progressions seem to be changing quicker than some would like. At present, I believe that it is best to leave such issues up to individual States, and my suggestion would be for every state to leave the vote up to the people.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees us the right to a well regulated Militia, and the right to bear Arms. It may seem that the National Rifle Association is the only group which pushes to keep firearms legal; however, it is a right secured to us in order to guarantee a free state. An insightful book which discusses such rights is called ‘Uncommon Sense', and is written by an anonymous man in Bozeman, Montana.

In his book, the author talks about potential problems with the first amendment. When talking about the right to bare arms he states; "When do you have the right to shoot? When the Government comes to disarm you." Unknown Author, Uncommon Sense, (Bozeman: Big Sky Publishing, 1990). There are many scenarios that one could offer as a reason to take away our right to own weapons. When one reads the Second Amendment in its entirety, one may realize why the second Amendment is so important in order to protect our freedoms.

Another move forward in our pursuit of civil rights is the right to be heard. As citizens, we have the right to petition the government in order to change legislation. Some citizens would like to use this right to ban guns in order to protect society. The problem with this theory is that it seems to go against what the authors of the Second Amendment intended. Although many may feel that banning guns will protect us; some believe that it would actually hurt us. With freedom comes conflict, and such conflict must be battled in the courts over whether our constitution should be protected, or changed.

Another crucial document that ensures our civil rights is the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This amendment spells out our right to be protected from illegal searches and seizures, and reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." History 449 Readings Booklet: Constitutional History of the United States to 1877. Page. 17. This civil right has been fought in the courts on numerous occasions, and is now a cornerstone to our civil liberties.

Mapp vs. Ohio was an important case that was brought to the United States Supreme Court. In the case, police searched Dolree Mapp and her daughter's house with the suspicion that the family was harboring a fugitive bomber. Although Mrs. Mapp asked for a search warrant, the police entered the house illegally. In the illegal search, police found obscene material which was illegal to possess in the State of Ohio. After appeal; the Supreme Court found that the evidence was obtained illegally, via the exclusionary rule, and the case was thrown out of court. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). One could argue that such a rule may make it more difficult to apprehend or convict a person for criminal behavior. I believe, however, in the guarantee that as United State's citizens, that we are innocent until proven guilty.

While the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments read as though freedom and equality should apply to all of the United State's citizens; one may not realize that during the time that these amendments were made, African Americans were not considered citizens. As whites have exuberantly celebrated July 4^th since 1776, I wonder whether African Americans feel a certain amount of ambivalence towards the holiday. Frederick Douglass answered the question of how blacks felt about America's "independence day", at his speech in Rochester, New York on July 4^th, 1852. In his speech Douglass states,

"What, to the American slave, is your 4^th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery..." We are the People: Voices from the Other Side of American History. Nathaniel May (Thunder's Mouth Press, New York, 2003).

Tough words for a supposed free nation; Douglass goes on to state what July 4^th means to the black man in 1852,

"...a tin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour". Fredrick Douglass, from a July 4^th, 1852 speech. We are the People: Voices from the Other Side of American History. Nathaniel May (Thunder's Mouth Press, New York, 2003).

How many citizens of the United States have even considered that their Constitution, while so assuring to most of us today, could be interpreted into quite the opposite? If we were to place ourselves into Douglass's mind during that speech, one would probably realize the contradiction that society placed on minorities at the time. It seems wrong for the legal citizens to celebrate the Declaration of Independence, which guarantees their new found freedom; yet at the same time oppress another group who should be protected under the same freedoms.

One of the most important cases of the Supreme Court pertained exactly to this subject. Dred Scott was an African American slave who petitioned the courts for his freedom, based on the fact that he traveled with his slave-master to free territories, and that he lived in a free territory for a certain amount of time. The case made it all the way up to the Supreme Court. The court ruled in Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) that African Americans were not included under the protections of the United States Constitution since they were not considered part of the political community. Therefore, blacks were not at liberty to bring forth suit in the courts. In addition, the court, led by Chief Justice Taney announced in its decision that blacks were regarded as, "so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect". Michael L. Levine, African Americans and Civil Rights: from 1619 to the Present (Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1996).

The Dred Scott case elated the South, yet infuriated the North. Thus, the gap between pro-slavery and anti-slavery widened; pushing the nation closer towards a Civil War. The effects of Dred Scott v. Sandford can be described as a bad decision which would bring dangerous political consequences. Michael L. Levine, a civil war historian wrote;

"The answer of Republicans like Abraham Lincoln was so contrary to precedent, and so repugnant to a large part of the population did not immediately become binding on the other branches of the government or upon the American people as settled law of the land." Michael Levine, African Americans and Civil Rights: from 1619 to the Present p. 71(Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1996).

When Abraham Lincoln became President in 1860, the South seceded, and thus the Civil War began. In 1863, the Emancipation Proclamation freed all slaves in any States that were in rebellion. In 1864, the Thirteenth Amendment was passed by Congress. This amendment to the United States Constitution states; neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Slaves were finally free, yet the pro-slavery South's answer was in segregation. Southern states instituted what was called Black Codes, which meant blacks were unable to enter distinct professions, and they were victims of unfair punishment which was unequal to other citizens, and finally, they were segregated from certain communities. It seems that the Black Code was a way for pro-slavery advocates to sidestep the thirteenth amendment.

The new development towards segregation in the South, prompted many moderate Republicans towards the "Radicals" group, which was led by Thaddeus Stevens. These Radicals hoped to establish a society where all males, regardless of color, had equal legal status and voting rights.

Steven's stated: "This is not a ‘white man's government.' to say so is political blasphemy, for it violates the fundamental principles of our gospel of liberty. This is man's government; the government of all men alike." Michael L. Levine, African Americans and Civil Rights: from 1619 to the Present. Page. 96 (Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1996).

By early 1866, Radicals and a majority of Republicans promoted legislation promoting social welfare of freed people and assuring them of equality before the law. Soon after, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

Finally, one finds the rights and guarantees of the United State's Constitution applied to African Americans. The pursuit of Civil Rights for blacks has begun, and for the first time, they are recognized as a part of the political circle, as they are given the right to vote. The main content of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 is found in Section 1, which reads:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." "Citizenship and Civil Rights." Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia, 2007. http://www.wikipedia.org/. Accessed 01/20/2007.

This Act constituted the reversal of that portion of the Dred Scott decision which had ruled that blacks could not enjoy any of the privileges or protections of the Constitution. The Authors of the Fourteenth Amendment had inserted this principle in the Constitution so as to stop the Supreme Court from declaring it unconstitutional for Congress to pass such a law. While it seems that the American people's pursuit of Civil Rights has was been won in a long uphill battle; there was still a long way to go for true freedom and equality of all.

The Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified in 1870 and contains this freedom and equality in political form as it declares: "the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged...on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude". The Bill of Rights and Beyond: Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution. Library of Congress. Page 62 (1991). One will notice that this amendment does not spell out voting rights for women; however, they successfully followed their own agenda in their pursuit of Civil Rights.

The Civil Rights Act of 1875 seemed that it would have provided a guarantee of equality to access for all in public transportation, hotels, theaters, and other places of amusement. The Act lacked enforcement, and the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in the Civil Rights Cases (1883). Michael L. Levine, African Americans and Civil Rights: from 1619 to the Present. Page. 105 (Phoenix, Oryx Press, 1996). Regardless, despite the rise of the Klu Klux Klan and continued Democratic opposition, African Americans continued to move forward in pursuit of their Civil Rights which brought the United States acclaimed Civil Rights leaders such as; Harriet Tubman, Martin Luther King, and Rosa Parks. Continuing on in this long struggle one may notice a broad beginning which was based on Civil Rights for all to a more narrow concentration of Civil Rights movements today.

Perhaps the largest Civil Rights issue that we face today is the effect technology has on our privacy. Who, when writing the Constitution would have ever thought that the Supreme Court of the United States would have to answer such issues as video surveillance, phone taps, and the Patriot act? Some Americans believe that such issues are an attempt of our government to invade our privacy. This isn't a new subject, as Benjamin Franklin once said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve either liberty or safety..." "Benjamin Franklin on Liberty" (2006). Retrieved 02/02/2007, from http://www.freerepublic.com/focu/news/848955/posts.

It is difficult to decide what constitutes an infringement on our Civil Rights when we must face threats such as terrorism in a high tech world. Current topics of discussion that can be heard all across the United States include questions such as whether our government has the right to monitor phone calls, and whether the use of surveillance cameras could be considered a search and seizure.

A case that illuminates this very issue is found in Katz v. United States. In this case we find a United States Supreme Court decision that questioned whether a wiretap on a public telephone booth constituted a violation of our Fourth Amendment rights. Recall that our Fourth Amendment rights guarantee us protection from unreasonable search and seizures without a warrant. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).

In the Katz case, an interesting fact which relates to our Civil Rights was in Hugo Black's dissenting opinion. Justice Black argued that the modern act of wiretapping was analogous to the act of eavesdropping, which was in existence during the time that the Bill of Rights was drafted. Black's argument was if the authors of the Fourth Amendment had intended for the protection against eavesdropping, then they would have included it in the correct language. The court ruled in favor of Katz, however, and the Courts opinion stated that the Amendment protects people and not places.

In light of such a decision, one can foresee the ambiguity that may exist in future cases of wiretapping and surveillance; especially in the age of terrorism. It will be interesting to see whether the fourth Amendment will need to be adjusted as the future of our Country proceeds with technology. Our pursuit of civil rights will some day have to answer such questions. Arthur, John, and William H. Shaw. Readings in the Philosophy of Law. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2006).

United States Citizens have continually proven their resiliency and determination in their pursuit of their Civil Rights. Most of us will never understand to what extent African Americans have suffered in order to persevere in a country that had been divided for so long. I have never been in such a position to have to question our Government's or Supreme Court's intentions when passing laws and interpreting our Constitution. I understand now, how important such a document is in our every day lives.

As time moves on; technology, security threats, and Civil Rights will continue in our courts. The most important thing that we can do as United States citizens is to read our Constitution, stand for our beliefs, and participate in the political process. If we can do these things, then we can be assured that our pursuit of Civil Rights will continue to keep us a free people.

Citations:

"Civil Rights." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2007. http://www.merriam-webster.com (17 Jan. 2007).

Don Nardo, The Declaration of Independence: A model for Individual Rights (San Diego: Lucent Books, 1999)

The Declaration of Independence, 2007. Retrieved 01/19/2007, from http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/.

Unknown Author, Uncommon Sense, (Bozeman: Big Sky Publishing, 1990).

History 449 Readings Booklet: Constitutional History of the United States to 1877. Page. 17

How the Grassroots Lobbying Bills Would AffectChurches and Other Non-Profit Organizations. Retrieved from http://www.aclj.org/. on (01/19/2007).

Michael L. Levine, African Americans and Civil Rights: from 1619 to the Present (Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1996)

"Citizenship and Civil Rights." Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia, 2007. http://www.wikipedia.org/. Accessed 01/20/2007.

"Benjamin Franklin on Liberty". Retrieved 02/02/2007, from http://www.freerepublic.com/focu/news/848955/posts.

We are the People: Voices from the Other Side of American History. Nathaniel May (Thunder's Mouth Press, New York, 2003).

John Arthur, and William H. Shaw. Readings in the Philosophy of Law. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2006).

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).

John Marshall makes clear the right of the Supreme Court to judicially review federal legislation. Marshall uses Article VI where he finds that the courts had the right to decide whether a law is in fact, constitutional. This decision grounded the right of judicial review into American law. In Marbury the case answered the question of whether the Supreme Court could change the original jurisdiction of a writ of mandamus which was filed by Marbury. In Marbury, Marshall put to use the power of judicial review for the first time in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court, and we find in Marshall's opinion, the application of judicial review in which he compares the statute with the constitution.

Several supreme court cases demonstrate a broad right to judicial review, but in Marbury, we just see a demonstration of judicial review of judicial powers.

In Marbury v. Madison, Marbury was confirmed to the Supreme Court in 1801. All of the appointees for the District of Columbia were confirmed except for four Justice of the Peace appointees to whom Madison had failed to deliver commissions. One of the appointees whom wasn't confirmed was William Marbury. As a result, Marbury filed a writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court in order to force Madison to deliver his commission. In his case, Marbury cited Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789. In the conclusion of this case, the Court issued the writ, only to lead to Madison's refusal to deliver it once again. Several issues were made clear in Chief Justice Marshall's opinion; first, he stated that Marbury should be confirmed, second, that President Jefferson and Madison had no legal grounds to deny him of his commission, and lastly, that the performance of Madison's ministerial duty to deliver Marbury's commission was not discretionary.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) set the course for the emergence of a modern national state after the civil war. This case concerned the issue of whether a State could tax a bank's operations, and the challenge was to decide whether the charter establishing the Bank of the United States was unconstitutional. In this case, Chief Justice Marshall makes clear that the Congress and the people hold the ultimate authority in deciding the meaning of the Constitution. In his decision, Marshall found that the bank was constitutional, and furthermore he went on to uphold a broad interpretation of the powers of the federal government as defined in the constitution.

In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, we find the case that sets precedence for the Supreme Court to hold authority over state courts pretaining to federal law. The Martin case involved the State of Virginia and its legislation which allowed the state to confiscate Loyalists' property. Martin sued citing that a treaty with Great Britain protected Loyalist property. After the Virginia Supreme Court upheld the confiscation, the finding led to the decision that the U.S. Supreme Court did not have authority over cases which were first heard in the state court. On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the state courts decision, finding that federal law cases were within its jurisdiction.

In studying the cases concerning the law of privacy, generally you can see that people's expectation of privacy and the legal rights of privacy can be vastly different. For example, a person's expectation to the right of privacy was challenged in Katz. Katz believed that he had complete privacy even though he was on a public telephone. Whereas, the prosecution's case demonstrated that the phone was in a public place and that he had no right to privacy. In the case of Kyllo, the expectation of privacy was in regards to his own home. He expected that what he did within his personal residence was private. Yet, the police office entered the home with a warrant based on heat coming from the outside walls.

As our society has advanced, the issue of privacy has become more convoluted. At the time that the constitution was written, there were no such things as telephones, computers, surveillance cameras, or wiretapping. In addition, our world has become less secure and there is much more of a need to protect the members of society. As the cases previously decided by the courts have been challenged due to these advances, most cases need to be reviewed prior to any and all cases that are coming forth. Finally, cases such as Roe v. Wade, are being challenged in their merits because of advances in our society.

There are various medical advances that have made abortion safer than at the time of Roe v. Wade. One such medical advance is RU-486. This advance can assist in terminating a pregnancy before one knows that they are pregnant. Abortions are now much safer and are done more routinely in medical clinics rather than the "back alley clinic". Also, an abortion is much more socially acceptable, or more commonplace, than during the time of Row v. Wade. Birth defects are now being treated in-vitro which can have an outcome of a healthier fetus, thus not requiring an abortion. Furthermore, there are now neo-natal doctors that can also medically assist after the birth, thus not needing to terminate the development of the fetus.

On the other side, the challenge is that with more routine and social acceptance of an abortion, there are individuals and groups that feel that violence is the only way to enforce anti-abortion sentiment. Also because of advances, there is the need to have parental consent. This is done to ensure complete knowledge prior to any choice.

The issue of surveillance has also challenged individual and society's thoughts on privacy. As technology has advanced, one must realize that we have many different ways we are being "watched". These ways include satellites, cameras at stoplights, and pinhole cameras.

As Thomas Jefferson stated; "The man who gives up his freedom for security deserves neither." Thus, each one of us needs to choose complete freedom or the choice of a secure society. For example, we have the need to protect ourselves from terrorist groups. Do we want to have complete freedom where we are not watched at all and have freedom to do anything that we so choose without the fear of being caught? Or, should we be watched a little more because society as a whole needs to be protected from terrorist groups?

The Fourth Amendment is being challenged due to the need of our governments need to monitor citizens to ensure society's safety. America is a "melting pot" of many cultures, and each person is welcomed freely, but this may also include an extremist. Thus, does our government not have the right to monitor each and every citizen without the government itself becoming extreme?

As the issue of privacy is being debated, shall the freedom of what we do in public places, such as in Katz, be given up in order to ensure that all public gatherings are safe? For example, if phone calls are monitored on all public phones, it may prevent conversations between individuals of a terrorist group from attacking our country.

As in the case of Kyllo, the expectation of what we do in our private residence is also being challenged. Our Fourth Amendment guarantees that one will not face unreasonable searches or seizures, however, to protect ourselves as a society the Fourth Amendment may have to be defined more precisely.

Protection of our privacy also needs to address other members of society deciding to take law into their own hands. This brings up the challenge of racial profiling, especially during a time where we have had an increase in terrorist activity. Since our Constitution and Bill of Rights do not protect us from other members of society, the intrusion of one wanting to take vigilante justice on another race, religious group, or economic class may occur.

One must have some expectation of privacy with all members of society; members of our own government or a fellow member of society. Fear should not take over, thus erasing all privacy.

When studying the federalist vs. the anti-federalists goals, one might wonder if these groups could find any common ground regarding the eminent ratification of the Constitution. It is my contention, however, that the end results that each group were striving for, weren't opposites. The groups divisions over how such goals should be attained, however, were quite different.

The anti-federalist's goals seemed to be self serving, as most goals are, due to the fact that most anti-federalist's were shopkeepers, debtors, or small farmers. There biggest fear was that of an elite and powerful government, out of which factions may rise up and impose a tyrannical government. It was the anti-federalists' belief that power should be held by individual state government, and the rights of the individual should be foremost protected.

Also to the anti-federalists, the potential for an elite or aristocratic government could lead to an abuse of power by individuals to achieve their own goals; contrary to the well being of the people as a whole. They interpreted the Constitution in a light that provoked them to fear the executive and federal judiciary branches as having no responsibility to the people.

It was also the anti-federalist's contention that without smaller representation, deriving its power from the individual state, the populous would feel a distancing from their government, thus making them more inclined to disobey the law. In addition, they felt that unless there was a great governmental presence visible in order to enforce the law; these laws would have no effect.

To the anti-federalists, the Supremacy Clause, or the necessary and proper clause, directed too much power to the government over the people. These fears led the anti-federalist to campaign for a bill of rights which would limit the governments control over the people. The federalists, on the other hand, believed that a bill of rights would weaken governmental authority, yet later realized that it would be necessary in order to maintain our freedoms.

The federalists' desire for a national government focused on the extension of governmental power to the "elite" in society. This was probably due to the fact that most federalists were well-to-do property owners, merchants, and creditors. Democracy, to the federalist, should by no means be "excessive", and individual rights of the minority were not a high priority for their movement. While the anti-federalists believed that the election of representatives should be similar to the voters; the federalists saw no such need. They believed that although their representatives should govern for the people, some degree of independence should be maintained.

It was also the contention of the Federalists that the fear of a government overrun by aristocratic leaders was unfounded, and the real fear lays in the popular majority which might be brought together by some "impulse", opposite of the needs of the people. To the Federalists, the opposing side need not look any further than the constitution to find such remedies that the anti-federalists struggled with. It was also the federalists hope that the government would hold a wide range of power that would suit it with the ability to protect itself from foreign interests or threats. In addition, a broader plan for government would allow the expansion of its commerce and economy, inevitably for the betterment of all people.

In conclusion, the lines seemed to be drawn between the federalists and the anti-federalists. While it seems that their goals for government and power were extremely different; one may claim that their actual goals for liberty and governmental functions were actually very similar; it was in fact their route towards these goals that were so starkly different.

Democracy in the United States, in its ideal sense, seeks to serve the people, as its power is derived from the people. This is achieved through a representative democracy, where United States citizens elect politicians in order to represent their best interests. Additionally, majority rules in the United States, however, great care is taken to protect the rights of minorities as well.

In Federalist no. 10, it was the intention of James Madison to promote the federalists' agenda to seek support towards ratifying the United States Constitution. At such a point in time, the anti-federalists' fear of majority rule, could lead to a tyrannical society. Madison answers the anti-federalist's fears by making clear that the solution to protecting the United States government from "devious" and sometimes "violent" factions can be found in the Constitution.

Madison concedes that because we elect to live in a free society, the complete eradication of factions is not possible. Therefore, he states that the only way to limit the harm caused by such factions is to control its effects. This, as Madison explains, can only be done through a larger government; one that will limit the individual interests and desires that may surface in a smaller government, offering protection from an elite few.

The Federalist No. 51 seeks to answer another fear of the anti-federalist, that of the surfacing of an overbearing, tyrannical government. In paralleling the Federalists' desire to implement a larger Federal government, Federalist No. 51 seeks to outline the need for a system of "checks and balances" between the various branches of the United States government.

Such a system seems to work quite well in our governmental system today. It seems that the reason our democracy does work well, is due to the fact that the competing interests of our political parties are kept in check. For example, when today's majority party seeks to pass legislation, the executive branch, or the president, has the power to veto bills that have passed through congress. The legislative branch, however, has the power to override the president's veto power.

In conclusion, our system of democracy, as outlined in the United State's constitution, seeks to implement the desires and concerns of all parties; giving them the opportunity to be heard, yet ensuring that the power is in the hands of the people to elect our representatives and thus promoting our interests and desires in congress. In studying our form of democracy, and the Federalist papers no. 10 and 51, one can better understand that it is in our nation's best interest to allow the concept of "majority rules", while still respecting the rights of the minority. Through the vehicle of checks and balances, we reduce the dependency of each branch upon the other. This ensures a fair representation of the citizens' interests in our great democracy.

The nature of the right of privacy as it is now is dependant on the arbitrary viewpoints of a representative of our government; this includes police officers, lawmakers, and judges. One may think that it is okay to search a home if they feel that the person is doing something illegal because of the way that they act, talk, or look. However, another person may feel like that home should not be searched without a solid backed justifiable cause, as opposed to "just a hunch".

Our right of privacy should be based on reasonable expectations. This would include that all members of our society should be treated equally when a representative of our government decides that a home needs to be searched. Also, we should have the reasonable expectation that if we are in a public place, that our actions are not private.

The kinds of conduct that I believe should be protected by the Constitution and remain private are our religious beliefs, sexual practices, and speech. In regards to our religious beliefs, we should be able to freely practice our religion without the intrusion of a government controlled state religion, and without the fear of persecution due to our religious beliefs. Each consenting adult should be able to use any form of legal birth control. They also should be able to choose if they have children, or not, and how many they would like to have. Each consenting adult also should be able to have privacy "in the bedroom", as was decided in the Griswold case. We should be able to freely speak our viewpoints as long as it does not threaten our government.

Our conduct should remain private in privately owned residences. Yet, any conduct should not be expected to be conducted in our society's public places. This would include: public restrooms, public parks, and public buildings. Conduct performed in a public place should not be expected to be private for the action could be viewed by any member of society. Thus, this conduct is forcing a viewpoint onto others.

My viewpoint can be explained rationally in the fact that I should be able to expect complete privacy in a private residence. As we are allowed to decorate our homes as we choose, we should be able to live our life in private. Yet, we should also be aware that our actions should not harm others around us.

I feel that public places should be more controlled. I see this as a sense of safety for all members of society, and offer us protection as we venture out to conduct our lives. If public places were considered private, I would fear to send my children in a bathroom, for what they may witness that I would not want them to see. This could include illegal drug use or sexual conduct.

If precedence in privacy cases had been differently decided, the privacy we have now would be so greatly altered, that I would fear that we would live in a dictatorship. As in the case of Griswold, if the police could have obtained warrants to check if one was using contraceptives or not, many frightening outcomes could have occurred. There would be children born to people who would have no desire to be parents, or children born to parents who could not emotionally or financially support them, and possibly more abortions than we have now.

In the case of Roe v. Wade, forced sterilization could have been a possible outcome if the case had been decided differently. It would be a frightening thought to think that a representative of our government could force a person to not have a child. This representative could have made this decision based on ones religion, race, or economic background. This decision could also be to control our population, or certain races within our society.

In summation, while I expect my government to keep me safe and secure, I believe that it should not impose on my personal beliefs or practices. If I do not threaten others around me, or the government, I should be able to expect privacy to conduct my life as I see fit. Although I do not agree with abortions, I can see why the outcome of Roe v. Wade and Griswold are such important cases for our society.