After the Revolutionary War ended, George Washington was seen as the military savior of the United States. Soon after, he would become the political father of the nation. During this time period, George Washington was everybody’s top choice for president. Due to the non-descriptive nature of the Constitution, it was George Washington’s job as the first President to provide meat to fill in the skeleton that the Constitution framed. As the first President of the United States, it was inevitable that his actions would play a deciding factor in the attitude of his successors and the impending future of the nation. While the Constitution outlined the basic principles of the Executive branch, the daily out workings left much open to interpretations. Both a careful and able administrator with sufficient understanding of the historic implication of his decisions, George Washington set several key precedents that greatly impacted the role of the presidency and the everyday.

Some of the first precedents set by George Washington were simple, yet remain as common practice today. One of the first decisions made by President Washington concerned the title of his position. Many debates led by Vice President Adams took place during Congressional meetings. Two possible selections were "His Highness, the President of the United States and the Protector of the Rights and Liberties of the Same." and "His Highness, President of the United States and Protector of their Liberties." In order to avoid the pompous and over elaborate ceremonies associated with the European Royal Courts, Washington preferred “Mr. President” to any of the other rather majestic suggestions. This title remains today and symbolizes the Nation’s separation from bombastic and superfluous attitudes towards the position of the presidency.

Not all precedents set by George Washington were of the same superfluous nature; a few were indispensable in the actions and attitudes of the nation and remained intact for over one hundred and fifty years of the nation’s history. In the early years of his administration, President Washington made a point of establishing the country’s position of neutrality in war. This decision had the greatest impact on the nation out of all of the precedents set by Washington, because it ensured a cautious leadership and supported a more stable future for the United Sates. During the fragile first years of the nation, Washington felt that the nation had more to lose than gain by involving themselves in the disputes of European powers. Both the French and the English were pushing for alliances. Despite conflicting opinions by opposing parties of the time period, Washington remained steadfast in his decision of neutrality until his farewell address in 1797, contending that alliances should be avoided whenever possible. His course of action remained a precedent until 1942, when the Japanese attacked Peal Harbor initiated American involved in World War II.

Another imperative presidential precedent on the part of George Washington came in the form of the Cabinet. While no advisory board for the President was mentioned in the Constitution, the President was expected to turn to the Senate for advice. Upon discovering that the Senate was merely a political party concerned with elections and the promotion of their own political parties, President Washington took it upon himself to form his own executive advisory board. Formally known as the United States Cabinet, this board consisted of departments concerning foreign affairs, finance, and war. This precedent probably had the greatest impact on the American Presidency. This action by Washington ensured that the Executive Branch would contain a sufficient number of qualified leaders to advice and support Presidential decisions. In addition, the purpose of this cabinet was to put aside party issues and concentrate on concerns other than re-election. This precedent has effected the actions and behaviors of future presidents the most because of the radical affects it had on the executive branch. For one, it established the executive branch as one aside from the interests of political parties. Secondly, it ensured that the President was equipped with the support and intelligence of the most qualified people. To this day, the Cabinet is elected by the President and exists chiefly to advise the President and be singularly loyal to his administration.

The final and most unintentional precedent set by George Washington came with his decision to serve only two terms as president. While his reasons for doing so were personal and the establishment of this act as a presidency was unintentional, future politicians chose to limit the Presidency to two terms in 1947. Until Franklin D. Roosevelt, no president served more than two years as President. This precedent eliminated the possibility of the attitude that one man could own the position. The position of the presidency was not intended to be one of a continually elected monarch. Rather, this precedent ensured that the position would be able to fluctuate with the changing interests of the country.

As an able administrator, George Washington established many important precedents concerning issues that were not clearly defined in the Constitution. From issues such as the title of President and the number of terms a President should serve to policies of neutrality and the formation of the Cabinet, President Washington was cautious and committed to setting an example of vigilance for all of his successors. His actions set the tone for the attitude and behavior of the nation and his precedents still remain to influence the role of the presidency today.

O'Conner, Karen. American Government: Roots and Reform. Pearson: New York. 2009.

Sabato, Larry J. American Political Science: Continuity and Change. Person: New York, 2006.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."


The Fifth Ammendment is probably one of the most cited and well-known amendments to the United States Constitution. Thanks to pop culture and the overwhelming number of television cop dramas, the phrase “I plead the fifth” is used when people want to avoid saying something that could incriminate them in a court of law. What most people don’t realize, it’s that the Fifth Amendment actually says so much more. In addition to protecting the people’s right to remain silent, the Fifth Amendment also guarantees the right to a trial by a grand jury, the right to not be tried or punished for the same crime more than once, and the right to not being tried without due process of law.

In the opening lines of the Fifth Amendment, the right to a grand jury is addressed. Known formally as the grand jury clause, it reads, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” This is often seen to protect the accused from an unfair trial by corrupt government. Juries are formed by common citizens, and therefore take the power away from the government and put it into the hands of the people.

Also present within the Fifth Amendment is what is known as the “Double Jeopardy clause. This clause protects the right to not be tried or punished for the same crime more than once. It reads, “nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” In the modern court system, this clause is interpreted to apply in any case where the defendant is at a position to be punished, not just where his life is in jeopardy. In some cases, an exception exists, such as when a case is retried, due to new evidences or the first case is found to be fraudulent in some way.

Lastly, the Fifth Amendment also protects the right to not be tried without due process of law. The Fifth Amendment reads, “No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” While this is not the only amendment that touches on the issue, it does help establish the issue within the constitution. All the same, there is some debate over what the terms life, liberty, or property really mean. In some cases, the ambiguity of these terms allows the Supreme Court and legislatures to stretch their powers in the lives of American people.

While the Fifth Amendment is one of the better-known amendments, it is also probably one of the least understood. The Fifth Amendment is not merely limited to the right to remain silent and avoid self-incrimination. In addition to protecting the people’s right to remain silent, the Fifth Amendment also guarantees the right to a trial by a grand jury, the right to not be tried or punished for the same crime more than once, and the right to not being tried without due process of law.



O'Conner, Karen. American Government: Roots and Reform. Pearson: New York. 2009.

Sabato, Larry J. American Political Science: Continuity and Change. Person: New York, 2006.

Every week on Bones, the Forensic anthropologists at the Jeffersonian have worked countless hours extracting crucial evidences and have discovered the murderer all to put everything on hold and wait for a proper warrant for search and seizure, sometimes fifty-nine minutes into the episode. In one case, they knew who committed the crime, but couldn’t arrest the man due to lack of conclusive evidences; they had to settle knowing he’d be locked up for life on other charges. Viewers are often dismayed with the knowledge that to some extent our national system actually works that way. Some may try to tell you that these rights enumerated in the fourth amendment to Constitution are important because it protects our absolute right to privacy but in the context of a sixty-minute drama, your living room television set, and a tub of ice cream, the world seems to be a cruel and unjust place, only to be aided by the government.

If this accurately describes the roller coaster of emotions welling up inside you, let me tell you, you are not the first. Back in the colonial days of America, British law was getting heavy, especially in the area of trade; several colonists sought out alternate means of transferring goods and services, some of which involved smuggling a tea bag or two. Everyone knew what was going on, but under British law, officers could not search or seize a person’s property without giving reason. This brought rise to the enforcement of the Navigation Acts though writs of assistance, where officers were granted the ability to search and seize without due cause. To add heat to the flame, the writs were both permanent and transferable, leaving the colonists, who were British subjects, void of their basic rights and with little hope for a freer future. Ultimately, it was aggravations such as these that led to the American Revolution and the type of democratic freedom that we all enjoy today. When drafting the Constitution, our founding fathers wanted to make sure that those same rights that were denied by the British government wouldn’t be questioned by the American government for future generations. This gave rise to the proposal and ratification of the Bill of Rights, a series of ten Constitutional Amendments defining and defending the civil rights and liberties of the people. Yours truly, number four, specifically addresses the issue of unwarranted search and seizure.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution]

The true value to fourth amendment lies in its attention given to the issue of privacy vs. protection. Which should be defended above the other? Are there situations in which one deserves to be compromised? Obviously, the answer to these questions varies from person to person. Both of which, are worth defending, but finally, a position of compromise was taken by the founding fathers and its practical implications are outlined clearly in the fourth amendment. According to the fourth amendment, although the words are not mentioned explicitly, personally privacy is highly valued and should only be compromised for the reasons of public safety if sufficient reason exists.

By its nature, the fourth amendment covers a very large scope of aspects protected and procedure to be followed. By the phrase, “right of the people,” this amendment is applicable to all people, including citizens, minors, and undocumented immigrants. By the phrase “persons, houses, papers, and effects” this amendment applies to things like DNA samples, clothes, property, car, and written documents. In recent years, the application of the fourth amendment to nonphysical entities such as telephone conversation and electronic messages have become issues of heated debate. By the phrase “probable cause,” ensures that a warrant will only be granted if it is supported by enough specific information and a judge has granted permission. Finally, the protection of these rights is to be upheld in all cases of search and seizure by governmental actors, not those by private citizens or organizations.

So next time you’re sitting in front of the TV with a head pumping adrenaline and a stomach full of Ben & Jerry’s award winning ice cream masterpiece known to the public as Chunky Monkey, wanting to punch some winey federal judge, don’t blame the system. Know that the procedures put into place are there to honor our constitutional right enumerated in the fourth amendment, which fights for both our protection and our privacy.

O'Conner, Karen and Larry J. Sabato. American Government: Roots and Reform. Pearson: New York. 2009.

Reconstructing the Fourth Amendment: A History of Search & Seizure