The principles of American democracy are the foundational ideas that explain why the United States was created and what its government is meant to do. These principles reflect the deeper values that guide it: liberty, justice, equality, and the belief that government exists to serve the people.

These ideas were heavily influenced by Enlightenment thinkers, especially John Locke and Montesquieu. Locke believed that governments are formed through a social contract: people agree to give up some freedoms in exchange for protection of their natural rights, including life, liberty, and property. He believed that government must have the consent of the governed and if the social contract is broken the people should revoke that consent. Montesquieu contributed the idea that power must be limited and divided among different branches of government to prevent tyranny. These concepts directly shaped the founding documents of the United States, especially the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Since the founding era, the United States has claimed to be guided by principles such as the rule of law, which holds that no one is above the law; due process, which ensures fair legal procedures; equality under the law, which requires that all individuals be treated fairly by the government; and popular sovereignty, the idea that political power comes from the people themselves. These principles stem from a belief in natural rights. Natural rights are rights all people are born with and that government is meant to protect.

While the nation has not always lived up to these principles in practice, they have remained the standard by which the government is judged and improved over time. They are the goals of the American system. The “why” behind its structure and purpose. Understanding these principles is essential to understanding how American democracy works, what it stands for, and how it continues to evolve.

Activity:

Select one of the following:

A fictional government (e.g., The Hunger Games, Divergent, V for Vendetta, 1984)
A real-world example where democratic principles were challenged (e.g., internment during WWII, unequal voting access, abuse of executive power)

If you select a real-world case, focus on U.S. government examples. Avoid personal opinion and stick to observable facts about government action or structure.

In a written response, answer the following:

Identify the setting: What fictional world or real-world example are you using?
Select 2 principles from the list above that are absent, violated, or weakened in this example.
Describe what happens as a result of the absence of those principles.
Explain how this example shows the value of those principles in American democracy.
(Optional but encouraged) Can you think of a time when one of these principles was challenged in U.S. history or politics?

The Social Contract

The social contract is a political theory that explains why governments are created and what gives them legitimate power. While different philosophers have developed their own versions of the social contract, the one that most influenced American democracy came from John Locke, an English Enlightenment thinker whose writings shaped the ideas of Thomas Jefferson and other Founding Fathers.

Locke argued that all people are born with natural rights, including life, liberty, and property. In a state of nature, people are free and equal, but their rights are not always secure. To protect themselves, individuals agree to form a government. This agreement is the social contract: people give up some of their absolute freedom in exchange for law, order, and protection of their rights.

Locke emphasized that government power is not automatic or permanent. It must rest on the consent of the governed—the approval of the people. If a government fails to protect natural rights or abuses its power, the people have the right to withdraw their consent, alter, or abolish that government. This made Locke’s version of the social contract both a theory of legitimate government and a defense of revolution when government fails.

Although closely related to popular sovereignty, which means that all political power originates with the people, consent of the governed refers more specifically to the people’s active agreement to allow government to use that power. Popular sovereignty tells us where power comes from; consent of the governed tells us how it is properly exercised.

The principle of the social contract appears clearly in the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson wrote that governments exist to secure people’s rights, and that their just powers come from the consent of the governed. He also wrote that when a government becomes destructive of those rights, “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.” These statements were not philosophical speculation—they explained why the American colonies were breaking away from British rule.

The American Revolution was a real example of consent being revoked. The colonists believed that Britain had broken the social contract through repeated violations of their natural rights. These included taxation without representation, quartering of soldiers in civilian homes, dissolving colonial legislatures, and denying fair legal trials. Because the colonists no longer consented to British rule, they believed they had the right to form a new government that would better protect their liberty.

After independence, these ideas were carried into the design of the U.S. Constitution. The opening words— “We the People”—affirm that the Constitution itself is based on popular sovereignty. It is a written agreement made by the people to create a government with specific powers and limits. Through this framework, the people give their consent to be governed.

That consent is not a one-time act. It is renewed and expressed in many ways, including elections, voting, petitions, peaceful protests, and amendments. The Constitution allows the people to revise or expand the social contract over time. It also requires government officials to swear an oath to the Constitution—not to a leader, but to the rule of law created by the people.

By grounding American government in both the social contract and the principle of popular sovereignty, the Constitution ensures that the government remains accountable to the people it serves. It reflects the belief that political power must begin with the people, be exercised with their consent, and be used to protect their natural rights.

Links:
Lecture: John Locke and the Social Contract
Audio Book: Two Treatises of Civil Government by John Locke
Video Summary: What did the founders learn from John Locke?

Separation of Powers and Limited Government

A core principle of American democracy is that government must be limited in order to protect individual freedom. This means government should not be able to do whatever it wants. Its powers must be clearly defined, divided, and held in check. The political theory behind this idea is called limited government, and it was popularized by Enlightenment thinker Baron de Montesquieu. In his 1748 book The Spirit of Laws, Montesquieu argued that liberty could only survive when government power was separated into three distinct branches that could check each other.

The Framers of the United States Constitution built this idea into the structure of the government. They created three separate branches: the legislative branch, which makes the laws; the executive branch, which carries out the laws; and the judicial branch, which interprets the laws. This system is known as separation of powers. Each branch is given its own responsibilities, and no branch is supposed to control the others. But each branch also has some power to limit the others. This creates a system of checks and balances, imagine a complicated game of rock, paper, scissors.

These principles are meant to prevent tyranny, encourage cooperation, and keep the government accountable to the Constitution and to the people.

In practice, each branch of government has powers that allow it to check the other two. For example, Congress can pass laws, but the president can veto them. If Congress disagrees, it can override the veto with a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate. This happened in 2008 when Congress overrode President George W. Bush’s veto of a farm bill.

The president has the power to nominate federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, but those nominations must be approved by the Senate. In 1987, the Senate rejected President Ronald Reagan’s nominee, Robert Bork. This showed how the legislative branch can limit the president’s influence over the courts.

The judicial branch also checks the other two branches. Through the power of judicial review, the courts can strike down laws or executive actions that are unconstitutional. This power was established in the Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Another important case was United States v. Nixon in 1974, when the Court ruled that President Nixon had to turn over audio tapes during the Watergate investigation, rejecting his claim of executive privilege.

Congress can also remove officials from the executive and judicial branches through impeachment. The House of Representatives brings charges, and the Senate holds the trial. Three presidents, Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump have been impeached, though none were removed from office. In 2010, Congress did remove a federal judge, Thomas Porteous, for corruption.

The principle of limited government also applies to national defense. The president is commander in chief of the military, but only Congress can declare war. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to limit how long a president can send troops into combat without congressional approval.

All of these examples show how the Constitution puts the principles of separation of powers and limited government into action. Power is divided, not concentrated. Each branch must work within its limits. This protects individual rights and helps ensure that no one part of government becomes too powerful.

Links:
Video Summary: Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances
Audio Book: The Spirit of Laws by Baron de Montesquieu

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the principle that no one is above the law, not kings, presidents, lawmakers, or citizens. It means that government must act according to laws that are written, stable, and enforced equally. In a nation that follows the rule of law, power is not based on personal will or status but on legal authority. Laws apply to everyone the same way and must be followed by everyone, including those in positions of power.

This principle dates back to the Magna Carta of 1215, one of the most important early statements of the rule of law. In it, English nobles forced King John to agree that his power would be limited by written law and that he could not rule as if he were above it. This idea that law comes before rulers helped shape later democratic systems, including the government of the United States.

When the Framers wrote the U.S. Constitution, they carried this idea forward. They created a government based on laws, not individuals. They limited each branch of government with written rules and established that the Constitution is the highest law of the land. This creates a system where power comes from law, not from personal authority or unchecked control.

The Constitution puts the rule of law into action by placing limits on all three branches of government. For example, Congress cannot pass laws that violate the Constitution, and if it does, the courts can strike them down. The president cannot issue orders that go beyond what the law allows. Even the Supreme Court must explain its decisions based on the Constitution and precedent.

One example of the rule of law in action is when elected officials are investigated or punished for misconduct. In 1974, President Richard Nixon resigned after it became clear he would be impeached and removed for obstruction of justice. The Watergate scandal showed that even the president is not above the law.

The Constitution also requires that all laws be made through a public process. Congress must debate and vote on bills, and the president must sign them or give a written veto. No one person can secretly create or enforce a law. This openness supports fairness and accountability.

Another example is how laws must apply equally to all people. If a mayor breaks a traffic law, they are just as accountable as any citizen. This equal treatment is part of what separates a nation ruled by law from one ruled by power or influence.

The rule of law also protects against sudden changes in government behavior. Laws cannot change from day to day based on the opinions of whoever is in office. This stability helps people understand their rights and responsibilities and trust that government will act consistently.

By placing law above individual power, the rule of law protects liberty and preserves order. It is one of the most important principles in any constitutional democracy and a key reason why the U.S. system has endured.

Links:
Video Summary: The Rule of Law
Video Summary: Why Was Montesquieu Important?
Essay: Rule of Law

Due Process

Due process is the principle that the government must act fairly and within the boundaries of the law when it limits a person’s rights. It protects individuals from arbitrary treatment and ensures that laws and legal procedures are applied in a consistent and just way.

There are two forms of due process. Procedural due process focuses on how the government acts. It requires fair steps, like notice, hearings, and legal representation, before the government can punish someone or take away rights. Substantive due process focuses on what the government is allowed to do. It protects certain fundamental rights like privacy, family decisions, or bodily autonomy even if the government follows the correct procedures.

Both types of due process are essential to a constitutional democracy. They limit government power and help ensure justice.

Due process protections appear in both the 5th Amendment, which applies to the federal government, and the 14th Amendment, which applies to the states. Together, these amendments require that no person be deprived of “life, liberty, or property” without due process of law.

A major case involving procedural due process is Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that states must provide a defense attorney to criminal defendants who cannot afford one. Clarence Gideon was denied a lawyer by the state of Florida and was convicted without legal help. The Court held that this violated his right to a fair trial, which is a core element of due process.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) added further protections. The Court ruled that individuals taken into police custody must be informed of their rights before being questioned. These rights include the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. The Court's decision ensured that confessions are not coerced and that people know how to protect themselves within the legal system.

An example of substantive due process is Roe v. Wade (1973). In this case, the Court ruled that a Texas law banning most abortions violated a woman’s constitutional right to privacy. The justices found that the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment includes a woman’s decision to end a pregnancy within certain limits. The Court emphasized that some rights are so fundamental that even a properly passed law cannot restrict them without a compelling reason.

These cases show that due process protects people both from unfair procedures and from unjust laws. Whether someone is facing trial, being questioned by police, or challenging a law that affects their personal life, the Constitution requires the government to act fairly and respect individual liberty.

Due process helps ensure that power is not used unfairly and that the government remains accountable to the people it serves.

Links:
Video Summary: Due Process of Law

Equality Under the Law

Equality under the law means that all individuals must be treated fairly and equally by the government, regardless of race, gender, religion, or background. This principle guarantees that laws must be applied the same way to everyone and that the government cannot create unfair distinctions between people without strong justification. It is a foundation of civil rights protections and reflects the idea that justice must not favor one group over another.

Equality under the law does not mean that everyone will have the same outcomes in life. Instead, it means that the law must give everyone the same opportunities and protections, and that no one is above or beneath the law because of who they are.

The principle of equality under the law is written into the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, which says that no state may “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This has been used by the courts to evaluate whether laws treat people fairly and without discrimination.

In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court ruled that laws requiring racial segregation were constitutional as long as the facilities were “separate but equal.” This decision upheld laws that allowed racial separation in schools, transportation, and public spaces. In practice, however, the facilities and services provided to Black Americans were not equal to those provided to white Americans. The ruling gave legal support to segregation and discrimination for more than half a century.

That changed with Brown v. Board of Education (1954), when the Supreme Court overturned Plessy. The Court ruled that “separate but equal” public education was unconstitutional because separate facilities are inherently unequal. This case marked a major turning point in civil rights history and reaffirmed the Equal Protection Clause as a tool to challenge racial discrimination.

The principle of equality under the law continues to influence how courts evaluate laws related to education, voting rights, and public services. It reminds us that in a constitutional democracy, justice must be impartial, and the government must not treat people differently without a valid reason based in law.

By requiring equal protection, the Constitution helps ensure that the rights of all individuals are respected regardless of race or background.

Links:
Video Discussion: Becoming Equal Under the Law
Text Resource: What is the Difference Between Equality Before Law and Equal Protection of Law

Popular Sovereignty

Popular sovereignty is the idea that all political power comes from the people. In a system based on this principle, government does not rule by force or tradition. The authority to make laws, enforce them, and govern the nation comes from the consent of the governed. If the government no longer represents the will of the people, the people have the right to change it.

This principle reflects a major shift from older systems where monarchs claimed power by birth or divine right. In the American system, the people are the source of political legitimacy, and government exists to serve them not the other way around.

Popular sovereignty is at the heart of the American founding. The Declaration of Independence declares that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed,” and that when a government becomes destructive of the people's rights, “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.” This belief justified the colonists’ decision to break away from British rule.

The U.S. Constitution begins with the words “We the People,” clearly stating that the government is established by its citizens. This opening line reflects the idea that all government power originates with the people and must operate with their approval.

In everyday practice, popular sovereignty is carried out through elections. Citizens vote for representatives at the local, state, and federal levels. These representatives are accountable to the people and can be replaced if they do not fulfill their duties. In addition to voting, people also exercise their power through petitions, referendums, public protests, and civic involvement.

The amendment process in the Constitution also reflects popular sovereignty. Amendments can be proposed and ratified only through processes that involve elected representatives and state legislatures, keeping the people involved in shaping the highest law of the land.

Popular sovereignty remains a guiding principle in the United States. It explains not only how government gains power, but also why citizens have the right and responsibility to participate in public life. It ensures that government serves the people, and not the other way around.

Links:
Video Summary: What is popular sovereignty?
Activity: Popular Sovereignty

Natural Rights and Natural Law

Natural rights are the basic freedoms every person is born with, such as life, liberty, and property. These rights exist independently of government. They are not created by laws or leaders they belong to individuals simply because they are human. The purpose of government, in this view, is to protect these rights, not to grant them.

Natural law is the idea that there are universal moral principles that can be discovered through reason. Thinkers like John Locke argued that people, by using logic and observing human nature, can understand what is just and unjust. Natural law provides the standard by which human laws should be judged.

Philosophers use a thought experiment called the state of nature to imagine what life might be like without government or laws. It is not a historical period—there is no record of a real time when people lived in this exact condition. Instead, the state of nature is a theoretical concept used to explore why people might choose to form governments. Different philosophers had very different views of what this imagined condition would be like. Thomas Hobbes believed the state of nature would be violent and chaotic, where life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” In contrast, John Locke imagined a state of nature where people had natural rights and were generally reasonable but still lacked a common authority to protect those rights consistently. According to Locke, this uncertainty and lack of protection led individuals to create a government by entering into a social contract. In doing so, they gave up certain freedoms in order to gain the security and order needed to safeguard their rights.

The American Founders believed deeply in natural rights and natural law. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote that all people “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” including “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” He stated that governments are created to secure these rights, and that when a government fails to protect them, the people have the right to change or replace it.

The Constitution reflects this belief by limiting the power of government and creating a system designed to protect individual rights. The Bill of Rights lists several of these rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and protection from unreasonable searches. These are called enumerated rights—rights that are specifically listed in the text of the Constitution.

But the Founders also understood that not all natural rights could be listed. To protect unlisted rights, they added the 9th Amendment, which says that the people retain rights “not enumerated” in the Constitution. This amendment reinforces the idea that natural rights are broader than the text itself, and that the government cannot claim people have only the rights written down.

Courts have drawn on this idea when interpreting liberty protections. While not every right is named in the Constitution, many are still protected because they are rooted in long-standing principles of liberty, fairness, and human dignity.

Natural rights, natural law, and the 9th Amendment remind us that the government exists to serve people, not control them. Justice does not depend on power or permission. Justice depends on reason, moral truth, and the recognition that individuals have rights simply by being human.

Links:
Video Summary: Natural Law Theory
Video: John Locke and Natural Rights

Individual Liberty

Individual liberty is the principle that every person has the right to think, speak, believe, and live according to their own conscience unless they violate the rights of others. These personal freedoms are essential to a free society and are protected by the U.S. Constitution. The Founders believed that liberty was not granted by the government but was a natural right that government must respect and defend.

Liberty does not mean that people can do anything they want at any time. In a constitutional system, liberty is balanced with order and the rights of others. Government may limit individual freedoms, but only for legitimate reasons and with due process of the law, such as protecting public safety or national security.

The clearest expression of individual liberty in U.S. law is found in the First Amendment to the Constitution. It protects five key freedoms: speech, religion, the press, assembly, and petition. These rights allow people to express opinions, gather publicly, practice their faith, and challenge government policies without fear of punishment.

Over time, courts have interpreted individual liberty broadly. For example, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Supreme Court ruled that students wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War were exercising protected symbolic speech. The Court held that students do not lose their constitutional rights at the "schoolhouse gate".

Religious liberty has also been protected in cases such as Engel v. Vitale (1962), where the Court struck down official school-sponsored prayer. The decision reinforced that public schools, as government institutions, cannot promote religious practices, preserving freedom of conscience for all students.

At the same time, the government can place limits on liberty when necessary. For example, speech that incites violence or creates a clear danger can be restricted, as seen in Schenck v. United States (1919). In that case, the Court upheld limits on speech that posed a “clear and present danger” during wartime, showing that even fundamental rights have boundaries.

When reviewing laws that may restrict liberty, courts apply constitutional tests to decide if the restriction is valid. These tests ask whether the law serves a legitimate public interest and whether it is narrowly written to avoid unnecessary harm to individual rights.

Individual liberty remains one of the most important principles in American government. It ensures that each person can participate freely in civic life, express their beliefs, and make personal choices.

Links:
Video Summary: Civil Rights & Liberties

Equal Protection

The principle of equal protection requires that laws be applied fairly and equally to all individuals. Rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it ensures that no person or group is given special privileges or subjected to discrimination under the law. This principle is one of the central pillars of civil rights protections in the United States.

Equal protection means that people in similar circumstances must be treated alike by the government. If a law treats people differently, the government must provide a valid reason for that distinction. In cases involving deeply rooted social issues—such as race, gender, or religion—the courts apply heightened scrutiny and require the government to demonstrate a compelling interest for any unequal treatment. In other situations, the government must at least show a legitimate and rational reason for different treatment.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment serves as the legal foundation for evaluating whether laws and government actions violate this principle. Throughout American history, courts have used this clause to assess the fairness of public policy in areas ranging from school desegregation to voting rights to marriage equality. Landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education and Obergefell v. Hodges demonstrate the profound influence of equal protection in shaping U.S. law and society.

Today, the principle of equal protection continues to inform a wide range of legal and political decisions. It plays a key role in debates over public education access, gender equality in employment, the treatment of minority groups by law enforcement, and the availability of public services. As American society becomes more diverse, equal protection remains an essential tool for ensuring that government power is exercised justly and that all individuals are afforded the same rights and protections under the law.

Links:
Video Summary: Equal Protection
Further Reading: Interpretation: The Equal Protection Clause