The United State Constitution was established by the Framers as a guide or plan for the nation’s government rather than a comprehensive code that established every aspect of how the government should work (Ginsberg et al., 2013). Accordingly it is quite simple in structure. To be sure, the Constitution can be divided into three main parts, namely the Preamble, the articles, and the amendments. The Preamble is basically the introduction to the document (Ginsberg et al., 2013). It expresses the reasons the Framers had to establish a new government and the purpose of drafting a constitution. According to the Preamble, the Framers wanted to establish a better government than had existed before, a government that ensure justice and protect liberty, welfare and security of the people, while facilitating domestic harmony between the states and the national government. Moreover, the Preamble states that the Constitution was drafted as a memorialization of the Framer’s goals as well as a guide to help achieved them. The articles, all seven of them, set out the structure of the national government and detail the powers, duties and responsibilities that each part or branch of the national government will have (Ginsberg et al., 2013). It also details the relationships each branch will have with one another, as well as the relationship between the national government and the individual states. It is important to note, that According to the first three articles that national or federal government is divided into branches, namely the legislative (Congress), the executive (the President) and the judicial (Supreme Court). Lastly, the amendments, which currently number 27, represent changes made to the Constitution that have been able to obtain broad majority support from the public (Ginsberg et al., 2013). The first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights focus on the rights and protection provided to the people that the government may not generally infringe upon or ignore.
The federal government, as mentioned, is divided into three parts, with each part given specific duties and responsibilities. While many of these duties are independently exercised by each individual branch; some require the working with another branch in order to be effectively carried out or implemented. This is best illustrated in the creation and implementation of public policy (Bianco & Canon, 2012). Public policy here refers to a specific government response to an issue or problem that needs to be resolved. The development of a public policy allows the government to achieve its goals by defining the problem, deciding on a solution, and putting people, resources and funds into bringing about the decided solution (Bianco & Canon, 2012).
Using homeland security as an example, we can illustrate the policy process. The first step required the recognition of a problem or issue that requires. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were probably the most important threat to the nation’s homeland security since World War II. After the government realized that the current state of the U.S.’s civil defense system was inadequate to resist a domestic terrorist attack. In essence, the attacks forced to government to come to the realization that the nation was susceptible to modern terrorists and that this vulnerability needed to be addressed in order to ensure the nation’s security. Second, as both Congress and the president share responsibility for the nation’s security, each set out to determine the best ways to resolve the problem of America’s security vulnerability. Consequently, both branches set out agendas to list, prioritize and analyzes the issues involved in increasing security. For example, some of the issues that were on the agenda concerned the lack of coordination and information sharing between the numerous government agencies that were responsible for the nation’s civil defense. Third, after a comprehensive analysis of all the issues on the agenda; such as congressional hearings on homeland security and presidential task forces reviewing agency procedures; a policy is formulated. For instance, in 2002, President Bush proposed that Congress create a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as an answer to the nation’s security vulnerability. In consideration of Bush’s proposal, Congress held further hearings and reviews to determine its suitability. After consideration Congress adopted the proposal with the passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Not only did the act create DHS, it also defined its authorities, duties and responsibilities as well as set aside funds for its budget. Soon after its passage, Bush signed the act into law. This in effect, created a new public policy addressing the nation’s domestic security. Once the policy was adopted, the next step and final step is its implementation. This occurred when DHS became fully operational in 2003 and set out to archive its mission of preventing terrorism and enhancing domestic security. Periodically, DHS reviews its operations to see if it is indeed achieving its goals and if not what can be done to help that it does. These reviews are also used by the president and Congress to determine the best method that will allow policy goals are achieved.
While the judicial branch does not play an active role in the public policy process, it nevertheless often does play a role albeit a passive one. As the official interpreter of the Constitution, which the Framers made the supreme law of the land, the Supreme Court role in the public policy process if to determine if the law or policy created by Congress or the president complies with the Constitution (Ragsdale, 2011). If it does not comply, then it is illegal. Consequently, it cannot be implemented. For example, if the Homeland Security Act was found to be unconstitutional, the DHS would not be able to be established, which would mean that Congress and the president would have to think of another way to solve the nation’s vulnerability problem. The key to understanding the Court’s power to review the actions of government, formerly known as judicial review, is that it cannot be exercised unless a case requiring review is properly brought before the Court (Ragsdale, 2011). In other words, once a law is enacted or a policy instituted, the Court cannot on its own take steps to review its legality. For example, if no one claims that the Homeland Security Act is unconstitutional and bring a case to the Court asking it to review its legality, the act will remain enforceable and in force whether or not it was indeed unconstitutional. Alternatively, once a case is properly brought before the Court, and the Court finds it illegal, the other branches must obey the Court. As mentioned, the Court’s opinions are, in essence, also policy in that they either confirm or reject government actions. A rejection will either result in another policy or law being made or no new action from Congress or the president which will keep the status quo.
References
Bianco, W. T. & Canon, D.T. (2012). American Politics Today, 3rd ed. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company.
Ginsberg, B., Lowi T. J., Weir, M., Tolbert, C.J., & Spitzer, R.J. (2013). We the People: An Introduction to American Politics, 9th ed. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company.
Ragsdale, B.A. (2011). The Federal Courts in Our Constitutional Democracy: A history of the federal judiciary. Retrieved from http://www.americanbar.org/publications/insights_on_law_andsociety/12/fall/the_federal_courtsinourconstitutionaldemocracy.html
