American Political Theory: Contextual Influences To Frederick Douglas Decisions On The US Constitution (Coursework Sample)

Name
Tutor
Course
Date
American Political Theory
Question 1
Frederick Douglass was born into slavery, and thus his views on the constitution were derived from personal experiences. He was born in Maryland, where he worked as a slave until 1838 when he escaped to New York (Douglas 5). Douglass' mentor Garrison was of the opinion that the constitution was pro-slavery because it did not expressly outlaw the enslavement of African-Americans. Douglass adopted this view in his initial years as a political leader, which was mainly because of his mentor's influence on his own perception on the issue. As a member of the abolitionist movement, Douglass was exposed to divergent opinions on whether the constitution was either supportive of slavery or it was not. In 1848, Frederick travelled to Europe and established a newspaper; at this point in his life, notable alterations to his original stand on the constitution were noticeable. In 1851, he publicly started sharing his belief that the constitution could facilitate emancipation, especially within federal jurisdiction.
Understandably, Garrison, Douglass' mentor, did not approve of this argument and this breakaway in opinion led to the end of their friendship. Previously, Douglass believed that the constitution complicated the emancipation process, which made it supportive of African-Americans bondage. This opinion was supported by arguments such as Congress' limited control over state issues was integrated in the constitution to appease leaders from the South who were pro-slavery. However, Douglass' new position on the US supreme law was based on an evaluation of its original intent during formulation. He argued that the mere phrasing of the preamble, which begins with 'We the people...' was an all-inclusive statement that clearly expressed an intent for an America where everyone was treated equally. The principles of justice, social progress and liberty were core in the framing of the constitution, and thus Douglass believed the drafters of this document envisioned a free America where slavery had been abolished after the 20-year limit outline in Article 1. In 1852, when Douglass was given a chance to speak during a July 4th celebration, he castigated the declaration of independence as being an illusion. Douglass believed that as long as some Americans remained under bondage, then the country could not declare independence.
In contrast, Abraham Lincoln believed that the declaration of independence expressed a desire by a majority of liberty-loving Americans to have a free country. Lincoln, however, believed that the constitution could have offered a terminal solution to the problem of slavery than what the drafters achieved. Nonetheless, Lincoln's support for the constitution remained, mainly because he believed that the document and the declaration of independence were charters of freedom for every American. Abraham's perspective was based on a realization that lack of faith in either of the two charters would be retrogressive on the achievements the country had made towards democracy.
Comparatively, both Douglass and Lincoln supported the constitution, although they believed it would have served the abolitionist movement better if it expressly terminated slavery. Lincoln's opinion on the declaration of independence offers a more rational approach to the issue, as he understood that freedom could only be achieved progressively and not wholesomely as Douglass argued. Several centuries later, Lincoln was right because slavery is now outlawed in the country, and other discriminated groups have been granted freedoms that were not included during the formation of the Union. The Constitution and the Declaration had an integral relationship in terms of facilitating a free country; nonetheless, Douglass' castigation of the Declaration was understandable as he had grown up a slave and thus he could not understand the celebration of freedom yet his people were still under bondage. Arguably, the difference in opinion between the two leaders was on which between the two charters was the political and moral basis of the new Union. Lincoln believed it was the Declaration that gave the Constitution its mandate and authority, whereas Douglass believed it was vice-versa.
Question Two
Marbury v. Madison (1803) is a precedent case on judicial review that was led by John Marshall, the Chief Justice during that period. This case affirmed doctrine of judicial review and the powers of the Supreme Court to declare laws unconstitutional. The ruling outlined that the president, Thomas Jefferson, had acted unconstitutionally by preventing William Marbury from assuming office in the District of Columbia. Another precedent set in this ruling was the establishment that the 1789 Judiciary Act unconstitutionally gave this arm of the government mandate to extend its powers into the executive's scope. Therefore, the ruling established that the court could not force the president, or his secretary of state to seat William Marbury. John Marshall's written decision highlighted that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land, and thus any congressional act that conflicted with this legislation could not be imposed in the judiciary, as the latter's principal responsibility and allegiance was to the Constitution. Marshall argued that a core function of the judiciary was to adjudicate issues where two legislations differed, and thus this arm of the government had the choice to decide which law was applicable in a case.
In McCulloch vs. Maryland, Marshall highlighted that states were not ultimately sovereign as their ratification of the constitution ceded authority to the Union. Marshall also affirmed Congress' mandate to pursue a goal that was within its powers as long as the Constitution did not forbid it and it was related to the pursued objective. This argument held that the Necessary and Proper Clause as contained in the Constitution was not aimed at limiting powers of any arm of the government, but was meant to enlarge the scope of authority whenever necessary. Marshall's position on judicial review and congressional powers was influenced by his desire to establish the supremacy and legitimacy of the Supreme Court in issues of judicial adjudication; furtherance, he posited a firm belief in federal legislature being superior to state ones. The approach adopted taken by Marshall was a Federalist one, which conflicted with Jeffersonian Republicans who were intent on giving ultimate authority to Congress. These legislators aimed at diminishing the role of the judiciary, which Marshall interpreted as establishing congressional acts as being superior to th...