For the Benefit of the People: The Economic Constitution of the United States

The constitution was created to govern a nation "by and for the people." In the 1780s, as it has been through most history of the United States, the people have made a living through capitalism. Would it not makes sense then that constitution be based off tailoring regulating the economy for the benefit of the American people? The constitution of the United States of America nearly purely focused on the economy, because the economy is how the "people" make a living.

The purpose of such an economic document is to allow the people of the United States to gain as much from trade as possible. Therefor, many of the amendments and statutes put in to place are focused around bringing as much wealth into the United States as possible. They accomplished this by mandating a singular currency, allowing slavery, and allowing for the individual to attempt to achieve the "American dream." Many of the amendments have both social and economic considerations, such as the First Amendment. The First allows for the freedom of speech, and by allowing this, the congress allows for both every citizen to have a say in the government, but also for businesses like papers to be able to say whatever pleases their customers without interference from the government (with the exception of libel, ect.) The revolution was started by businessmen, as was the constitution. There was simply no way that those businessmen were going to shoot themselves in the foot by creating a constitution unfriendly, or simply not in favor of, allowing the maximum business possible.

Articles of Confederation: A Train Wreck

The Article of Confederation, for the purposes of running and maintaining a successful government, are completely flawed in three main areas. Firstly, the articles don't mandate that there is a single currency for the United States. By not creating a unified currency, the individual states had free reign to create and use their own currency, on top of the federal currency that was being minted at the same time. This is the first of two major problems because it does not allow for easy trade with the West Indies and Europe, the two places the United States needed to trade in order to survive as a country.

Secondly, the congress had no way to write tax law or enforce any taxes. By not allowing for any taxes to be levied, the congress was disabled in providing public services such as education among other things. It also meant that congress had no way to purchase land or items, or provide the money expeditions. Imagine, the U.S. not having the monetary means to sponsor the Lewis and Clark expedition. However, and more importantly, it disabled the congress in funding any sort of military.

Finally, the Articles of Confederation banned the congress from creating an army. This essentially made the U.S. very vulnerable. This is because if one state is to be attacked, there is no motivation for another state to send its own militia to defend it. This leaves the entire U.S. open to attack, as a super power such as Great Britain (who had motivation at the time), could simply start attacking states individually and start taking them out one by one. It also prevents any westward expansion, because without a good army to both explore and defend the settlers, there a lesser motive to expand. Imagine again, attempting to try and find a Lewis and Clark (both of whom had military experience in real life) without a military institution already in place.

In conclusion, the Articles of Confederation were simply a hindrance to the early United States, and provided near nothing in terms of organization. They just merely showed where the U.S. needed to improve upon their constitution.

Unjust Laws: A Study in the Security and Freedom of the People

The rule of law was brought about by the general population agreeing on one point that aides or protects the vast majority. This law of law creation, if you will, has as all things become by time twisted and skewed to assist those in power of control of the general population.

Overtime, the rule of law has attempted to find the essential balance between freedoms of the people and security of the people that determines the difference between just and unjust laws. For instance, say the balance of Madam Justice's scale were to break in half and flying up comes personal freedoms. The socialist reforms that do protect society today would be rendered useless, anarchy and personal responsibility will run rampant. Being the creatures that humans are, slavery and militarized weapons would be among one of the first things that comes into the hands of the populous. By allowing this, the security of others, either by being forced into slavery or being killed by some military grade bio-agent, is threatened therefor creating unjust law by creating no law. However, increasing the security to the point is not the solution either.

Security of the population is a priority, however when it is increased too far, it can rear its' head and burn out any possibility of freedom. Laws of security used with too much force turns those laws into not laws, but an excuse for government to do anything. Dictatorship, in whatever form, is an unjust. It may and has reared its' ugly head as a oligarchy, monarchy, republic, democracy. No matter what shape it takes, at the point where personal responsibility becomes the responsibility of the government is the point at which a law is unjust.

In conclusion, neither extreme freedom nor extreme security come together to form just laws. It is the combination, the middle ground that is where the laws that benefit the most are found. Just laws are not found easily, and so it is easy to create laws that make a very unjust situation, and so a point must be made to watch these laws and tend to the flock, less they become vicious creatures. The rule of law is ancient, but constantly fluctuating to meet the needs of freedom and security in the hopes of finding justice.