Okay, you’ve got me.
This week’s post has nothing to do with Walt Disney’s beloved rodent. I am almost ashamed to say it is possibly the
one subject more off-putting than vermin, The
Constitution of the United States. I
can hear the yawns now. Oh, and you patriots out there: shut up… there is some measure of sarcasm in everything I write.
Be honest, if I had titled this post The Constitution, would you have started reading it? I didn’t think so. But hang with me for just a few lines and see if
this doesn’t spark your interest.
Since the very first moments after the ratification of the
Constitution there has been debate on the scope and meaning. Does that sound like a description of the
Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)? Except
that the ACA is 906 pages (the actual text of the statute, not including
subsequent regulation) and the Constitution is only 4,400 words. That’s less than nine
pages in modern typewritten font: Less than nine pages to define the parameters
of a whole federal governing system.
Interesting fact; it is the oldest and shortest written Constitution of
any major government.
Interestingly enough, the conventioneers that would
eventually produce the Constitution had no legal authority to do so. The Continental Congress, somewhat
preoccupied with keeping the creditors at bay, created a body of state
representatives charged with correcting a major flaw in the original Articles
of Confederation. The revolutionaries,
it seems, had borrowed a considerable sum from several European countries to
fund the war with no real mechanism for repayment of the debt. Does this remind you somewhat of our
government today? This was critical as
back in the days before world monetary controls, creditor countries collected
the arrears via invasion and conquest.
The problem was the original Articles of Confederation included no
proviso for direct taxation by the Confederation. All monies had to be gathered from the
coffers of the independent states, all of whom were a bit reluctant to hand
over the wealth they had just fought a war to retain. |
| James Madison |
James Madison is considered the father of the Constitution
because of his efforts to get the document drafted. He was a Virginian and protégé to Thomas
Jefferson, Much of the template of the Constitution came from the Virginia
Constitution which had been written by Mr. Jefferson. The final document was a
compromise generally reflecting the constitutions of Virginia and New Jersey.
One of the key sticking points was the disparity of votes caused by basing
legislative representation on population.
The solution was the introduction of a bi-cameral legislature, one house
of which would be populated evenly by representatives of each state. This was the birth of the most deliberative body
in politics, the U.S. Senate. You know,
the gang led by Harry Reid who can’t bring anything to a vote. Ah, the progress we’ve witnessed in two
hundred and twenty-seven years.
 |
| Gouverneur Morris |
The actual text of the Constitution was largely written by Gouverneur
(enate family name, not a political office) Morris, delegate from Pennsylvania
(although a citizen of New York). Yeah,
things were a bit confused in the early years.
He is largely credited with authorship of the Constitution’s preamble,
you know: “We the People...”
Interestingly enough, two of the three heavy hitters of the Continental
Congress that created the Declaration of Independence were not at the
Constitutional Convention. Jefferson was
in Paris as the U.S. Minister to the Court of King Louis XVI working to shore
up monetary and military support for the new country, and reportedly charming
the ladies of polite society. And his
old pal (but political rival) John Adams was serving as Minister to The Court
of Saint James (England, for you tyros) trying to put a happy face on relations
between two countries recently at war. If
you’ve read anything about Adams you understand the irony in his appointment as
a diplomatic envoy. Benjamin Franklin was a delegate to the convention and signer
of the Constitution.
 |
| Adams and Jefferson |
On September 17, 1787, the delegates of the Convention
approved the Constitution and adjourned.
That was the easy part. The
delegates were all interested in forming a unifying federal government. But having just fought a war to dislodge the
onerous taxation and control of the British, many members of state governments
were resistant. A case had to be made
that would convince the states, with their varied political and economic
interests, that turning over governance to a distant federal bureaucracy would
not reinstate monarchial tyranny.
 |
| Alexander Hamilton |
In a herculean effort, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and
John Jay (but mostly Alexander Hamilton) wrote eighty-five articles (really op/ed
pieces) published in New York City newspapers to sway popular opinion in favor
of ratification of the new Constitution.
These opinion pieces were titled The
Federalist Nos. 1 – 85 submitted under the pseudonym “Publius” to protect
the identity of the authors (a common but curious practice by political writers
as far back as the classical Greek era).
It is widely held by modern scholars that the influence of The Federalist in the ratification
process was minimal as they were generally available only to residents of New
York. They are however, considered a
significant resource in gleaning Constitutional intent.
As stated, there was considerable resistance to the
formation of a strong central government.
Among the concerns was the natural tendency of government to self promote
and grow its power at the expense of the states and the individual. Thomas Jefferson was among the more
influential opponents to the Federalist template. The compromise posited (lore has it at a
dinner hosted by Jefferson for the purpose of bringing the political opponents Hamilton
and Madison together) was the addition of a bill of rights.
Hamilton asserted that such a document was superfluous as
the powers of the federal government would be strictly limited to those positively
enumerated in the Constitution. (Ha-ha-ha… that one still cracks me up!) The Bill of Rights proponents prevailed. The Constitution was adopted September 17,
1787 and ratified by the final state (Rhode Island… but they had to park their
carriages in Connecticut) May 29, 1790 thus becoming the supreme law of the
land.
As you know from current debate, even the express
limitations attached to government power by the Bill of Rights are constantly
under attack.
Recently there has been much sensational discourse on the
state of the Constitution as to it being a living or dead document. What an unfortunate choice of language! Of course the document is living, as it is
the officially adopted law of the land.
The authors (and by agreement, the signers) recognized the need for
adaptability in a changing world by including a provision for amending the
document when in the best interest of the CITIZENS. They also showed considerable insight into
human behavior by making the process arduous and exacting so as to preclude
capricious change on a swelling tide of temporary emotion. The Constitution has stood for over two
hundred years and amended only seventeen times. (Prohibition of slavery, good…
prohibition of alcohol, not so much.)
It is the duty of the legislature as representatives of the
people, not the executive branch of government, to assess the applicability of
Constitutional provisions and undertake the amendment process when shown to be
necessary. The courts have dismissed the
right of nullification by the States. If
no such right of nullification exists, where do the courts derive their authority
to liberally (small “l”) apply modern philosophies (either pro or anti
government) to change the original intent expressed in the Constitution?
I hope you’ve enjoyed this little expedition through your
history. Be sure to tune in next week
when we explore the political machinations that created the Duchy of
Lichtenstein.
No comments:
Post a Comment