Constitutional, Economic, and Privacy

Changes in the Past 40 Years

Sean Diment

Magnet Honors English 10

Mrs. Graves
June 3, 2016

American Political Ideology Changes 2

WHAT I KNEW/WANTED TO KNOW
Our Constitution of the United States is the most important document that guides our
lawmakers to govern our beloved nation. Without our Constitution, power would have corrupted
to one individual, and tyranny would be as prevalent in our lives as it is in other countries such as
Russia and North Korea. Our Constitution set the gold standard of other countries who adopted
our superior form of Constitutional Republicanism. Our Constitution is a mash-up of all the great
enlightenment thinkers ranging from John Locke, Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Rousseau. Written
by our founding fathers in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, it promoted separation of
powers, limited government, and protection from the government for private citizens. This is
why I love our Constitution so much. The ideology of monarchs and governments with large
executive branches was not to serve the people, but to serve the sovereign. Contrary to
monarchy, the Constitution promoted we the people as the rulers of the nation. With this project,
I hoped to examine how, if any, the perspectives of people in the United States have changed on
our Constitution by highlighting economic and privacy changes.
When I began researching this topic, I already had a good knowledge of the Constitution,
different political ideologies, economic issues, and privacy issues as well. I have been involved
in a mock government on Instagram for nearly a year, and thus have been exposed to many
different perspectives on the constitution and laws that have been passed and repealed since the
birth of our nation. This topic is essential to the survival of our nation, and for determining the
future of our United States of America because based on our perspectives and actions now, it will
determine the strength or the weakness of our country in the future. It will determine whether we
or our grandchildren live in a united country with a strong middle class, economic growth, and a
non-intrusive government that governs based on our Constitution, or we and our grandchildren

American Political Ideology Changes 3

live in a divided country with widespread poverty, economic turmoil, and an intrusive
government involved in each portion of our lives and abuses the Constitution.
When the time for deciding a topic for my I-Search paper became prevalent, I knew
exactly what I was looking for in my research and what I planned to do. This topic spoke to me
so well because I have a sincere love for the betterment of all Americans. I also had interests at
the time for researching space and medicine, but it our country, science and medicine have
become huge political topics with the rise of new diseases, new space exploration desires, and
the subject of global warming. Since these matters due tie into the greater subjects of our
economy through government spending, and regulation of peoples lives affecting privacy, I
knew this topic would be key in both helping my understanding for the functions of our
government, and having an excellent research topic. Thus, it led me to my research question:
How have peoples perspectives on the Constitution, highlighting economic and privacy issues,
changed over the past 40 years?
THE SEARCH
I already had a solid understanding of the fundamentals of our Constitution when I began
researching my topic. I knew where to go to find my sources since I listened to both conservative
and liberal podcasts ranging from Mark Levin to Ed Schultz who both promoted their favorite
websites when talking about politics today. As a teenager who has been following politics since
2008, I was very familiar with the language of politics, so understanding the articles I was
finding was not difficult at all. I found many great resources online from old newspaper articles
from the 70s, even the 30s, and also had my handheld pocket Constitution from the Cato
Institute. I also found the Heritage Foundation to be extremely useful since they try to promote
expanding the Constitution and politics to young adults.

American Political Ideology Changes 4

The first subject of my topic that I researched was the 14th Amendment to the United
States Constitution. Using my pocket Constitution, I was able to read the 14th Amendment, and
give my perspective about it. I was lucky enough to find a Constitutional Dictionary book from
the Ocean Lakes Library as well, which thoroughly explained and cleared any questions that I
had about it. The book explained how people take both founders, referring to the people who
made the amendment, not the founding fathers, and literal text form interpretations of the
Amendment meaning based on the text of it. I had very good success in researching this subject
matter. For Example, former Justice Scalia was a strong believer in the founders interpretation,
while someone like Justice Ginsburg takes a more, whatever text says.
Another focus of my research was the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is an extremely
controversial subject matter, as it involves government spying of normal, everyday individuals.
Even right now, there is the possibility my blog was being reviewed by NSA members for my
high criticism of this law. I had no problem at all researching this, and found many books and
online articles about it. My main source, however, was Privacy Rights and The Patriot Act.
This book was a literal goldmine for my research in this area, as it explained both the pros,
cons, and sides of the Patriot Act very well. I found the book to be better than any online
article, so I stuck with the book the whole way when researching this matter.
I couldnt have written this paper without researching the General Welfare Clause, as
it directly coincides with government spending and the power of the purse, or the ability of
Congress to make a budget and levy appropriate taxation to cover the costs. This subject
matter I had a more difficult time to view sources that assumed the Hamiltonian view of the
general welfare being unlimited, and to the discretion of the Congress. I easily found
views from Madisonians who believe there should be limits on the Congress ability to

American Political Ideology Changes 5

appropriate funds for certain matters. Nevertheless, I was able to find an opinion article
from a newspaper written in 1936 online. This was during the Great Depression, and during
the time where the General Welfare Clauses power was greatly expanded through the
creation of FDRs New Deal, which created Social Security, hundreds of new agencies
geared at employing the public, and providing more federal government sources of relief.
For the Madisonian view of this clause in the Constitution, the heritage foundation provided
me with a very thorough, detailed, and more strict constructionist view of the Constitution.
So all in all, I had very mixed success and failure when researching this portion of my
topics.
NAFTA, or the North American Free Trade Agreement, was another subject that I
researched to go along with economic ideological changes in the past 40 years. I was able to
find websites of many pros and cons about this specific free trade agreement, and also
looked to current quotes from presidential candidates such as Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and
Republican Nominee, Donald Trump (R-NY), who bashed this free trade agreement heavily.
The article that I found about it was NAFTA Pros and Cons which was very self-explanatory.
This article went very in-depth about NAFTA including the history behind it, and its results.
The search for my interview was a long, tedious, yet successful process. I originally
had my sights set on former Federal Trade Commissioner Director of Policy, Dr. James C.
Cooper, a law professor who specializes in economics and privacy at the University of
George Mason. He originally agreed to do the interview, but once I revealed the questions to
him, he decided it wouldnt be appropriate to do it since my questions were more based on
Constitutional Law and governments role in the economy while his expertise was on the
private sectors role. I then turned to Mrs. Pohl who teaches both AP U.S. History and AP

American Political Ideology Changes 6

Government, but she said she was new to teaching AP Government, and thus I went to my
economic teacher, Mr. Brown, a political science major and teacher of government as well.
Mr. Brown was one of my last resorts because he and I often engaged in debates in class
regarding economic theory, principles, and justifications for regulatory agencies.
Regardless, I did the interview with him, and got other perspectives to my views on the
Constitution, and the change that has been occurring in the United States over the past 40
years.
During my interview, Mr. Brown brought up a topic I did not think to include at first:
Citizens United versus FEC. This is an extremely controversial Supreme Court case which
included a ruling that corporations and unions could donate unlimited amounts of money
into elections. I looked towards the Citizens United Website, along with a page that delved
into the pros and cons of both the ruling, and the reasons why the rulings were listed as so.
THE RESULTS
The 14th Amendments view point has shifted greatly towards a modern perspective.
Since the amendment was supposed to be created in order to protect the newly freed slaves
rights. Now, however, people have shifted this idea by suggesting that the 14 th Amendment
protects those who are denied liberty in the modern times as well. Especially on the subject
of clean air and gay marriage, people say that because some states have cleaner air than
others, the government has a role in ensuring that a generally good air quality is maintained
nationwide. According to Lee (2015), Clearly, it is unconstitutional for the EPA to develop
rules and regulations since Article 1 Section 1 clearly defines that as a function of congress
to legislate, but setting guidelines to advise Congress is well within the power of a federal
agency. Gay Marriage bans were also ruled as unconstitutional because they were rights in

American Political Ideology Changes 7

some states, and not in others. Some criticism for this came from conservative
constructionists who argued that the 14 th Amendment was to protect slaves, and not this
generation of people. Therefore, if marijuana is considered legal in some states but not
others, the 14th Amendment could give justifiable liberty. Interpretations of this amendment
have varied in the past 40 years. Theres evidently been a shift to modern perspective of this
specific amendment.
In regards to the Patriot Act, 143,074 "National Security" Letters (NSLs), essentially
warrants not granted by a judge which is highly unconstitutional, were served by FBI agents
between the years 2001-2007. That number is probably much larger now. 2,000 letters were
also issued without the proper authorization from an already unconstitutional process. In
1978, NSL's were also available, just much harder to obtain. These were done in order to
find Soviet Spies which also shows the desire to put national security first in front of
Liberty even 38 years ago. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft responded to notions
similar to mine that this act was a direct attack on Liberty and our constitution by saying,
"To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost Liberty, my message is this:
Your tactics only aid terrorists- for they erode our national unity and diminish our
resolve Marcovitz (2008 p. 78). The Government may also wiretap and listen to your
conversations with people, and review your emails and all your discussions without the
ability of your internet providers or private corporations to say no. Supporters say that this
Patriot Act does allow for government to find and prevent terrorism through these
provisions, but people against it argue that here have been very few plots stopped with this
act which is statistically true.

American Political Ideology Changes 8

The General Welfare Clause of the U.S. Constitution is clearly written as: The
Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the
Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1. Congress has long debated, when appropriating the funds to
certain events, whether or not providing money to a local or state area is beneficial to the
United States as a whole. According to Eastman (2011), "To many today, those two purposes
are so broad as to amount to no limitation at all. The contemporary view is that Congresss
power to provide for the general welfare is a power to spend for virtually anything that
Congress itself views as helpful. To be sure, some of the Founders, most notably Alexander
Hamilton, supported an expansive spending power during the Constitutional Convention;
but such proposals, including an explicit attempt to authorize spending by the federal
government for internal improvements, were rejected by the Convention. In 1987 in South
Dakota v. Dole, the Supreme Court ruled that the spending power for the general welfare
was to be determined by the Congress. According to the American Bar Association (1936),
the Madisonian view on the General Welfare Clause "does violence" on the plain language
of the constitution. This article seemed to cite a more hardline text view on the Constitution,
and was also probably bias because this was the era of the New Deal by FDR, which greatly
expanded the power of the executive branch and loosened views on the spending power of
Congress. It was challenged by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS), but if the SCOTUS ruled in
favor of the Constitution, they would have had millions of angry Americans marching in
DC. When I asked Mr. Brown a specific question about the general welfare and its limits, he
said Government does not match with the will of the people. When money interests control
government elections, you develop a Congress that does not meet the interest of the people.

American Political Ideology Changes 9

Yes it has limits, not a free lunch, but the question is if it is the will of the people to do
something, are they willing to pay taxes and the economic will to do that Brown (2016).
The North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, cause increased trade as
evident by the additional $1.15 Trillion in the American Trade Market from 2015.
5 Million Jobs were created in the United States as a result of this, though roughly 700,000
manufacturing jobs were lost. The new jobs created were more technology and engineering
based due to technological advancements as a result of this trade deal. U.S. Factory workers
received more suppressed wages due to the cheaper labor opportunities in Mexico, however,
and Mexican workers were also exploited because of this. Brown (2016) reaffirmed this idea
during my interview by saying Pressure from candidates from Bernie Sanders and
Elizabeth Warren are pointing out these issues. Donald Trump is representing a false
narrative, gaining on protectionism. If NAFTA was enforced how it was supposed to be, it
wouldve been a better deal for America. If people arent making enough to buy the product,
it is exploitation. If people are allowed to make it low but sell it for obscenely high, there is
a problem. The environment was being exploited because of this trade deal as well. The
U.S. began heavily subsidizing U.S. farmers in 2002 due to the Farm Act, and as a result,
American goods could be exported for a cheaper price. This crushed the Mexican agriculture
portion of the economy, forcing usage of chemicals and pesticides in order to compete. This
runoff from the fertilizers infiltrated the ground water as well. However, U.S. goods farming
goods came at "cheaper" prices. The subsidies came from tax payer money, obviously, so the
money still circulated to the same end point. The U.S. also became less dependent on
Middle Eastern Oil as a result of NAFTA. Mexican oil became more readily available and
for a cheaper price, absolutely crucial since the conflicts with Iraq, Iran, and the rest of the

American Political Ideology Changes 10

Middle East have been extremely high in the past 20 years. American opinion of this trade
deal has increasingly declined as candidates such as Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have
cited a contrary view that the trade deal only returned lower paying jobs instead of higher
paying jobs. TPP has also been under extreme criticism by both Republicans and Democrats,
so its fair to say protectionism is being supported more than free trade, thus the American
conception of the commerce clause which promotes free trade is also being changed.
According to Bentley, The Court majority (Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Scalia,
and Thomas) argued: Limiting the amount of money contributed by independent groups in
an election also limits the freedom of speech. The First Amendment protects speech for
everyone, not just an individual's right, but a group's right. Consequently, the first
amendment protects unions and corporations to donate money. Government alone has no
right in determining what corruption is in donating to political campaigns. Spending limits
prevent what is heard by the public. The Court minority (Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer,
and Sotomayor) argued: Individual Speech is protected by the First Amendment.
Government does have the right to prevent corruption, and because there is the realm of
possibility for it to be corrupt spending, it cannot be barred. Money limits on corporations
and union spending are authoritative expressions that must exist in order to protect the
public. Because Corporations are richer, they may reach the public more readily than the
people. Its evident, however, that this was a widely unpopular ruling, and no candidate
other than Bernie Sanders from Vermont was a bigger critic of this court case a ruling.
According to Sanders (2016) Six years ago, as a result of the disastrous Citizens United
Supreme Court decision, by a 5-to-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court essentially said to the
wealthiest people in this country: you already own much of the American economy. Now, we

American Political Ideology Changes 11

are going to give you the opportunity to purchase the U.S. Government, the White House, the
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House, Governors seats, legislatures, and State judicial branches as well.
The Citizens United decision hinges on the absurd notion that money is speech, corporations are
people, and giving huge piles of undisclosed cash to politicians in exchange for access and
influence does not constitute corruption.
To answer my big overarching question, How have Americans perspectives of the
Constitution changed in the past 40 years, it can be answered simply by saying: Its changed a
lot, but it hasnt gone one way, its gone two ways. The divide between Americans and their
views has continuously grown and people arent compromising that well anymore. Republicans
and Democrats will stand only by their principles, and when someone reaches across party lines
to achieve goals, theyre viewed as evil by their side. The Constitution itself and the most sacred
principles of the United States have been told by both sides of the political spectrum that it is
under attack. People who say they have a founders perspective turn a blind eye to some areas
while people who take a modern point of view take founders perspectives in other areas.
Though, the general trend overall is loose constructionism. The Constitution is being viewed by
many as a modern document, and thus should not be subject to the founders point of view.
WHAT NOW?
The first thought that comes to my mind about this topic is perhaps pursuing a statistical
analysis of peoples views of the Constitution and some of these matters. I can test for
independence of this generations point of views versus the older generations, and compare them.
I would suspect them to be different, and using data analysis (disgusting but necessary), I can
and will have good results.

American Political Ideology Changes 12

Another outlet I could have with this is going to do a research project about
environmental law. When looking and talking to Dr. James Cooper, I saw that there was a former
EPA advisor of environmental law at George Mason University. This field is growing, and I
could possibly mentor under other environmental lawyers locally since our area is also a very
environmentally concerned community.
Going off of the NSA, I would absolutely love to work with the American Civil Liberty
Union. They have been loud critics of the Patriot Act since its origin, and also seek to defend
civil liberty for all individuals rather than the selective few that fits their values. Its evident that
this group is seeking the protection of all individuals, and in a nation of growing disunity, and
organization that seeks liberty for all is something I would be greatly interested in.
Delegate Scott Taylor of Virginia Beach is someone that I somewhat know and appreciate
dearly. Though a longshot, I would love to research a topic vital to Virginia and our area, and go
on the House Floor to reach out to the delegates of Virginia. If thats not possible, I know I can
definitely do so in our city council by researching a topic related to the environment, or
Constitution local to here.
The last outlet I could potentially have from my research in this paper is to mentor under
government teachers, and teach a class to younger students, making them aware of the
Constitution, and our nations documents at a younger age. Its very clear that the Constitution
matters a lot to me, and teaching the nations youth would be an absolute dream goal of mine in
the future.

References

American Political Ideology Changes 13

Amdeo, K. (2016, March 23). NAFTA's Advantages Outweigh Its Disadvantages.
Retrieved June 06, 2016, from http://useconomy.about.com/b/nafta-pros-and-cons.htm

Bentley, N. (2012). What is Citizens United? | An Introduction. Retrieved June 06, 2016,
From http://reclaimdemocracy.org/who-are-citizens-united/

C.Brown (personal communication, May 26, 2016)

Eastman, J. C. (2011, January 13). Enough Is Enough: Why General Welfare Limits Spending.
Retrieved June 06, 2016, from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/01/

General Welfare Clause: The Hamiltonian and Madisonian Views. (1936, February).
The American Barr Association, 22(2), 115. Retrieved June 6, 2016, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25712036?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Lee, M. (2015). Our lost Constitution: The willful subversion of America's founding document.
New York, NY: Penguin Group.

Marcovitz, H. (2008). Privacy rights and the Patriot Act. Edina, MN: ABDO Pub.

Sanders, B. (2015). Get Big Money Out of Politics and Restore Democracy
Retrieved June 06, 2016, from https://berniesanders.com/issues/money-in-politics/