The United States Government and the Principle of Protection  

            The framers of our Constitution saw the role of government as one that protected an individual's civil rights, but felt that government need not concern itself with factors affecting the day to day life of its citizen, such as in industry and commerce.  Having fought a war to free themselves from the oppression of the overbearing and interfering British monarchy, they felt a central government was important; but mainly to provide protection to its citizens from aggressive foreign nations, to protect the minority's rights from abuses by the majority, and to guarantee personal liberties.  Their main concern was creating a government which could not become tyrannical and abuse the rights of its citizens.  Although it would take over a hundred years for all United States citizens to fully realize all of their civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, including the right to vote, the framers' belief that a government needed to protect the civil rights of its citizens was clearly evident from their writings.  Their vision of a non-intrusive yet protective government spelled out in our nation's Constitution and Bill of Rights served that purpose fairly well the first hundred years of our nation.  But eventually due to the expansion of the nation's land boundaries and its exponentially increasing population and the industries that arose to meet the needs of that population, it became necessary for the government to take on a more regulatory nature.  Recent recalls prompted by the Food and Drug Administration of unsafe food and drug products sold to American consumers illustrate the monumental change in the government's role in the protection of its citizens from the time of our Founding Fathers to what it is today.  

            Having labored under the suffocating rule of the British crown and parliament, the framers of our Constitution were concerned that giving too much power to the central government would lead to abuse, not protection, of citizens.  Patrick Henry feared that without the Bill of Rights to protect citizens from governmental abuses, that "They may, unless the General Government be restrained by a Bill of Rights, or some similar restriction, go into your cellars and rooms, and search, ransack and measure, everything you eat, drink, and wear" (79).

Thomas Jefferson also believed a Bill of Rights was necessary.  In a 1787 letter to James Madison, Jefferson writes, "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth" (Monk 113).  However, not all of the founding fathers believed the Bill of Rights was necessary to protect citizens.  Alexander Hamilton, for example, writes "the truth is, after all the declaration we have heard, that the constitution is itself in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, a Bill of Rights" ( Hamilton 81).  Whether or not they believed a Bill of Rights was necessary, it was of paramount importance to the framers of our Constitution that the government protect individual civil liberties. 

            In his First Inaugural Address, Thomas Jefferson writes, "Still one thing more, fellow-citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.  This is the sum of good government." ( Jefferson )  Clearly, then, Jefferson did not see the need for the central government to concern itself with commerce or industry.  But the importance of the government guaranteeing and protecting its citizens' civil liberties was deeply ingrained in his belief system.  Also in his First Inaugural Address, Jefferson reiterates the rights guaranteed by the first ten amendments, then states:

These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through the age of revolution and reformation.  The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have devoted their attainment.  They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety. ( Jefferson )  

James Madison saw a two-fold role of governmental protection of citizens.  One, he felt it should protect the rights of the minority from the demands of the majority, and, two, it should govern itself so that it not abuse its power. In his article "Separation of Powers and the Madisonian Model" author George Carey indicates that, despite what other historians assert, the tyranny Madison refers to in Federalist 47 is governmental tyranny which Carey states "quite simply, involves those in positions of authority using their powers arbitrarily and capriciously to abuse nongovernmental portions of society" (154), not the tyranny of the majority over the minority.  Carey argues that Madison , along with other architects of the Constitution, tried to guarantee protection of the citizens from governmental tyranny by setting up the system of checks and balances between the three branches of government. It appears that Carey is right in his assumption because in Federalist 51, Madison states, "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this:  you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place to oblige it to govern itself" (Monk 25).  By providing the system of checks and balances, Madison and the other framers of the Constitution tried their best to create a central government which could not gain too much power and abuse the rights of its citizens. 

As stated, the protection of the minority from the majority was also a pressing issue to Madison .  He writes, "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts . . . [these] fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. (O'Brien 255)  

Since Madison and the other framers did not regulate industry in the Constitution other than by giving congress the right to oversee interstate commerce as a way to avoid disputes between states, it is clear they did not see the role of government as one in which they needed to protect citizens from industry.  And, as stated, our central government maintained a laissez-faire attitude toward industry for the first hundred years our nation existed.  Then in 1906, Upton Sinclair's The Jungle was published.  It was meant to "show the evils of a raw capitalistic society" (Friedman 61) and further the socialist cause.  It depicted the tragic life of a Lithuanian immigrant who worked in a meat-packing factory: "There are vivid, horrifying descriptions of conditions in the meat packing plants… moldy sausage would be 'doused with borax and glycerin' then 'dumped into hoppers,' and later sold to the American public.  The meat was stored in rat-infested rooms; the companies put out poisoned bread to kill the rats; but the rats, bread, and meat would all end up as processed products. (Friedman 60)  

The book understandably upset the American public and there was a great outcry for the government to take action. The Jungle also upset President Theodore Roosevelt and prompted him to appoint investigators to determine the accuracy of Sinclair's descriptions of the conditions in meat-packing plants.  Roosevelt recognized that industry was here to stay and that large conglomerates which would only concern themselves with their profit margin could not be "repealed by political legislation" ( Roosevelt 12).  His solution, then, was "that the same kind of degree of control and supervision which should be exercised over public-service corporations should be extended also to combinations which control necessities of life, such as meat, oil, and coal, or which deal in them on an important scale" (12).  It is plain to see that Roosevelt believed it to be the government's duty to protect its citizens from coming to harm from manufacturers that produced the necessities of life.  The hands-off attitude of the central government toward big business and industry was coming to an end.  Roosevelt writes, "The duty of Congress is to provide a method by which the interest of the whole people shall be all that receives consideration." (13)  He furthers his argument when he states, "The National Government belongs to the whole American people, and where and when the whole American people are interested, that interest can be guarded effectively only by the National Government" (19).  Clearly, Roosevelt 's idea of the government principle of protection of its citizens went much further in scope than that of our Founding Fathers. 

When the investigators confirmed the shocking conditions in the meat packing plants that Sinclair had written about in The Jungle, Roosevelt successfully pushed for passage of the Food and Drug Act of 1906 which  

rested on the regulation of product labeling rather than pre-market approval. Drugs, defined in accordance with the standards of strength, quality, and purity in the United States Pharmacopoeia and the National Formulary, could not be sold in any other condition unless the specific variations from the applicable standards were plainly stated on the label. Foods were not defined according to analogous standards, but the law prohibited the addition of any ingredients that would substitute for the food, conceal damage, pose a health hazard, or constitute a filthy or decomposed substance.   (Swann)  

Prior to 1937, the FDA could only seize harmful drugs and get them off the market.  However, after a scandal erupted involving products that contained sulfa, the FDA gained "the power to keep these drugs off the market in the first place" because only drugs that received FDA approval after FDA testing could be marketed.  In addition, the FDA was given authority over the regulation of over-the-counter drugs and cosmetics. (Friedman 199) 

Throughout the years, the FDA has been successful at limiting the harm done to American consumers by food and drug manufacturers.  Although the products it kept from being marketed or removed from the market are too numerous to list, a couple products do bear discussing.  The FDA protected pregnant American women from using thalidomide, a stomach-calming drug meant to control nausea which caused severely malformed babies when it was taken by pregnant women in England during the 1950's and 1960's.   This is worth mentioning because the product was approved in England for use by pregnant women.  Although the FDA was, and continues to be, accused of using burdensome procedures which cause delays in drug approval, it obviously worked in the American publics' favor with the drug thalidomide.  In 1974, the FDA forced the makers of the Dalkon Shield, an intrauterine birth-control device, to recall and discontinue production of the device when it was determined that it was causing "miscarriages, congenital defects in babies born to women who used it, pelvic infections, sterility, and even death" (Friedman 329, 368).  This is noteworthy because while the makers of the Dalkon Shield denied the device caused harm, they did bow to pressure from the FDA and recall and quit producing the device. 

In May 2006, MSNBC (along with numerous news channels and newspapers) reported that, according to the FDA, "at least 76 dogs nationwide are believed to have died as a result of contaminated food."  Again this past March, MSNBC announced there was another incident involving pet food and the contaminated product was recalled.  Only a week ago, and much more important than the pet food recall to most consumers, news programs, newspapers, and news websites released stories stating that the FDA had announced that Dole had recalled bagged salads in nine states due to E. coli contamination.  Fortunately, it appears no one became ill due to the product's contamination because it was recalled so quickly.  However, last year, an E. coli outbreak linked to baby spinach, again packaged by Dole, led to the death of three people and hundreds of others became critically ill.  (MSNBC).  On September 26, HealthNewsDigest.com announced the FDA was alerting "health care professionals and consumers to concerns over the use of Fentora (fentanyl buccal) tablets" that are used in the treatment of cancer patients when they have pain that cannot be controlled by the usual narcotic treatments.  Apparently the drug caused serious adverse reactions, even death, in certain circumstances.

It is evident if one visits the FDA website that the FDA's main concern continues to be the protection of American consumers.  However, over the years, the power and scope of the FDA has changed several times due to many factors.  In fact, according to the Food and Drug Administration's website, "Changes in the work of the FDA have come rapidly in the past 20 years, shaped at least in part by political pressure, consumer activism, and industry involvement."  Currently, the FDA monitors such products as over-the-counter and prescription drugs, medical devices such as pacemakers, hearing aides, and contact lenses, biologics such as vaccines and blood products, animal feed and drugs, cosmetic's safety and labeling, radiation emitting products such as microwaves and cell phones, and combination products such as drug-device, drug-biologic, and device-biologic products.  However, while the FDA is responsible for "ensuring that foods are safe, wholesome, and sanitary," it does not oversee the safety and labeling of meat and poultry.  That falls under the jurisdiction of the US Department of Agriculture's Food and Safety Inspection Service (Swann). 

The formation of the FDA led to a plethora of other "alphabet" agencies meant to protect Americans from almost any imaginable harm.  Many of these governmental agencies are still in effect and others have been formed, and they continue to work to protect United States citizens from all manner of injury; they protect citizens from unsanitary food preparation in restaurants, from toxic pollutants, from unsafe products, and even from terrorist threats, to name a few.  It is obvious that the government principle of protection is still at work in today's United States society.

The history of the FDA and other agencies meant to protect American citizens is filled with change, just as the history of the governmental principal of protection is fraught with change.  The framers of our Constitution wanted to safeguard civil rights, and protect American citizens from tyranny and governmental abuses.  They felt they did this by creating equity of power in the three branches of government with its built-in checks and balances, and by guaranteeing individual's liberties with the Bill of Rights.  They could not foresee the changes the nation would undergo, and felt the central government they created would provide enough protection for American citizens.  Had the nation remained as it was, no change in the government's role in protection of its citizens from industry would have been necessary.  But when our country experienced an industrial revolution, it became necessary for the government to take a more active role in watch-dogging industry to protect the American citizen from dangerous food and drug products.  Thus, the Food and Drug Administration was created.  The government could no longer maintain its laissez-faire approach to industry or the manufacture of consumer products, and this opened the floodgates for many more governmental agencies meant to protect United States citizens.  The change in the role of government and the principle of protection from what it was during the framers' time to what it has become now was inevitable in order to protect our nations' citizens.            

Works Cited

AP.  "Dole salads recalled for E. coli in US, Canada ."  MSNBC.com. 18 Sept. 2007.  27 Sept. 2007. <http://msnbc.com/id/20826172/>.

AP.  "Owners watching pets closely after food recall."  MSNBC.com. 21 Mar. 2007. 27. Sept. 2007. <http://msnbc.com/id/17650025/>.

AP.  "Toxic pet food may have killed dozens of dogs."  MSNBC.com. 10 May 2007.  27 Sept. 2007. <http://msnbc.com/id/17650025/>.

Carey, George W.  "Separation of Powers and the Madisonian Model: A Reply to the Critics."  The American Political Science Review, Vol. 72, No. 1. (Mar., 1978), pp. 151-164.  27 Sept. 2007. < http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00030554%28197803%2972%3A1%3C1 51%3ASOPATM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7>.

HealthNewsDigest.com.  "FDA warns of Potential Serious Side Effects with Breakthrough Cancer Pain Drug."  26 Sept. 2007. 27 Sept. 2007. <http://www.healthnewsdigest.com> path: FDA warns of Potential Serious Side Effects with Breakthrough Cancer Pain Drug.

Hamilton, Alexander.  "The Constitution Does Not Need a Bill of Rights (1788)."  Opposing Viewpoints in American History, Volume 1.  2^nd Edition. Eds. William Dudley and John Chalberg.     Detroit :  Greenhaven Press-Thompson Gale, 2007.  

Henry, Patrick.  "The Constitution Needs a Bill of Rights (1788)."  Opposing Viewpoints in American History, Volume 1.  2^nd Edition. Eds. William Dudley and John Chalberg.     Detroit :  Greenhaven Press-Thompson Gale, 2007.  

Swann, John, Ph.D. "History of the FDA." Food and Drug Administration. 1998.  27 Sept. 2007. <http:www.fda.gov> path: FDA History, About FDA. 

Friedman, Lawrence M.  American Law in the 20th Century.   Yale University Press:  New Haven , 2002.

Jefferson, Thomas. "First Inaugural Address - March 4, 1801." Thomas Jefferson Digital Archives.  University of Virginia Library . March 1993.  27 Sept. 2007. <http://etext. virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2wwwsingleauthor?specfile=/web/data/jefferson/texts/jefall.o2w&act=text&offset=4795190&textreg=2&query=protection>.

Monk, Linda R.  The Words We Live By Your Annotated Guide to the Constitution.  Hyperion-A Stonesong Press, 2003.

O'Brien, David M.  "The Framer's Muse on Republicanism, the Supreme Court, and Pragmatic Constitutional Interpretivism."  Review of Politics 53.2. (1991): 251-288.  Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Azusa Pacific University Library, Azusa , CA. 27 Sept. 2007 <http://0-search.ebscohost.com>.

Roosevelt, Theodore.  Social Justice and Popular Rule Essays, Addresses, and Public Statements Relating to the Progressive Movement (1910-1916).  Charles Scribner's Sons: New York , 1926.