全屏显示专题章节

Early colonists experimented with a variety of governing structures. Some colonies tried to enforce established religions. Others wanted rights that had been granted in England under the Magna Carta². Still others wanted separation of powers so that no part of the government became too strong. Colonists tried these and other ideas during the colonial era, and the lessons learned were used to create the U.S. government. A key idea that emerged from the colonial era was the notion of representative governments. This meant that people elected representatives to carry forward citizen issues and to protect the interests of the voters. This idea was a key element in the creation of the U.S. government and those of the various states.

At the time that America won independence, the early colonies were self-governing and more like independent countries than the states they would later become. Small states also feared the power of big states. Primarily because of these factors and the continuing wariness about strong central governments, the 13 original colonies’ first attempt at a national government was a system provided by the Articles of Confederation in 1776 in which there was a unified country with a weak national government. By the mid-1780s, many key American leaders such as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton had become very dissatisfied with the government under the Articles of Confederation and initiated efforts tomove forward with a new government.

The constitution that was created during the hot summer of 1787 was developed by a diverse group of men that consisted of farmers, military men, politicians, businessmen, statesmen, and schemers. Their average age was only 42, and they came from throughout the colonies to design a better government for the newly independent country. Constitutions can be very important documents: they can serve as vital living contracts—the highest law in the country—between citizens and their governments. If ignored or trampled by leaders who are not held accountable, however, constitutions can become meaningless pieces of paper. Fortunately, the framers of the U.S. Constitution were serious-minded men who wanted a strong central government with separation of powers and checks and balances on the powers of important leaders and institutions.

To this end, the Constitution’s framers developed three branches of government: the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Each not only had powers identified in the Constitution but also had its powers checked by the other branches. The executive branch is headed by the president, and this section of the government is charged with enforcing the law and administering government. The legislative branch, which is Congress, was established with two houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives. This branch is responsible for making laws for the country. The judicial branch serves as the system of justice, and the U.S. Supreme Court is the highest court. The judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the laws of the United States. As designed by the framers, there were many checks and balances established to keep the separation of powers strong and to keep any one branch from becoming too dominant. The checks and balances contained in the Constitution are many, and they have served their purpose well through time. Various attempts have been made by one branch of government or another to usurp additional powers, but most have been successfully resisted. The repeated tests of the U.S. Constitution produced a republic that has lasted for more than two centuries, and few changes have been made in the original document. Clearly, the framers were brilliant visionaries.

The only changes to the Constitution come in the form of amendments. These can be made by a lengthy and difficult process. To amend the U.S. Constitution first requires either a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or of state legislatures （or state conventions） to propose an amendment. The proposed amendment then must be ratified （approved） bythree-fourths of the states through either the state legislatures or state conventions. With this challenging process, changes to the U.S. Constitution are infrequent when compared with those of most other countries.

From the implementation of the Constitution in 1789 until 2008, only 27 amendments have been ratified. The first 10, called the Bill of Rights, were adopted immediately after the Constitution was implemented, when James Madison introduced them into the House of Representatives. The other 17 amendments have been the only changes to the Constitution in more than 200 years. This is less than one change every 13 years. The last was adopted in 1992.

Think for a moment about your surrounding landscape, or the “look of the land” in America. How much of what you see is a part of the political cultural landscape? Actually, nearly everything you see has been affected in some way by political decisions. Public schools are paid for by taxes, the flags that wave above the buildings represent the state and nation, the street is public, and cars are licensed by state and county. Transportation （vehicle, rail, air, pipeline, and other） and communications that reach your community are government licensed and regulated. Your community no doubt has a number of public buildings, such as a city hall, a post office, and a number of other local, county, state, and federal office buildings（depending on the size and function of your community）. Outside of the community, much of the land may be owned by the state or the federal government. Everywhere you look, the imprint of government is etched on the landscape.

A close relationship exists between a country’s government and political stability （or instability） and its economic growth and development （or stagnation）. For more than two centuries, the U.S. has been a model of steadiness in both of these keys to human well-being. Regardless of the political party in power, the government has risen to the occasion when faced with a critical challenge. Of course, there are always critics whose shrill cries of outrage bemoan what they believe is injustice. The Senate would be composed of two members from each state, ensuring that every state regardless of size had equality in at least one of the chambers of Congress, and senators initially would be indirectly elected. Those congressmen who were to sit in the House of Representatives were to be directly elected, and the bigger thepopulation of a state the more members it was entitled to, thereby guaranteeing the bigger states greater say and voting power.

The concept of the separation of powers as applied to the U.S. Constitution was influenced by the writings of the political philosopher, Montesquieu, which were, ironically, based on his misunderstanding of the working of the British constitution. The powers refer to the three branches of government established by the Founding Fathers and the idea behind separation was that each branch would carry out a different function: the Executive （which was regarded with most suspicion by Americans） would carry out government; the Legislature would debate and pass laws; and the Judiciary, or at least a Supreme Court, would enforce the law, although the scope of its powers was vaguely defined.

The idea that no person should be a member of more than one branch of government at any one time was also part of the concept, with the one exception of the Vice-President who was entitled to sit in the Senate, but not to speak or cast a vote other than in the event of a tie. The separation was designed to ensure that too much power would not be allowed to accumulate in any branch of government or with any one individual. It could also be argued that the 10th Amendment to the Constitution which distinguished between state powers and federal powers was also an attempt to separate powers.

The term “limited power” needs to be considered carefully because limited power simply implies that there were rules created which restricted the scope of federal government, and it does not necessarily mean that federal government had little power. It is also worth considering the idea of limited power from two perspectives. If the 1787 Constitution is compared with the Articles of Confederation clearly the power at the centre had been increased massively at the expense of state sovereignty. For example under the new Constitution the federal government could levy taxes, regulate foreign and interstate trade and pass laws more easily than under the Articles, so if the word “limited” is taken to mean reduced then clearly this was not the case in comparison with the Articles which had left the concept of state sovereignty firmly intact.