[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions Status: Not Logged In; Sign In U.S. Constitution See other U.S. Constitution Articles Title: Restoring the 10th Amendment Source: [None] URL Source: [None] Published: Apr 25, 2015 Author: Sen. Roger F. Wicker Post Date: 2015-04-25 12:11:49 by tpaine Keywords: None Views: 17056 Comments: 72 http://townhall.com Restoring the 10th Arrangement Editor's note: This column was co-authored by Congressman John Culberson (R- Texas). One of the basic responsibilities of the executive branch is to execute the law faithfully. The Obama Administration, however, has no problem ignoring this duty to create its own rules. Instead of working with Congress on substantive, collaborative legislation, the president has routinely opted to govern by decree, empowering bureaucrats at the expense of the democratic process. His misguided approach puts partisan politics – not the will of the people – at the forefront of decision-making in Washington. Our reasons for introducing the “Restoring the 10th Amendment Act” stem from serious concerns about the administration’s power grabs. One of the Constitution’s most comprehensive protections is the 10th Amendment, which puts a clear limit on the federal government’s reach. Ratified on December 15, 1791, it states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Despite these constitutional protections, our personal lives and state authority continue to be affected by federal oversteps. Like many individuals and businesses, we are frustrated by Washington’s red tape and sweeping bureaucratic authority. The president’s big-government agenda lacks transparency and accountability, intruding into our households, businesses, schools, and churches in alarming ways. The 2,700-page health-care law is a prime example of costly government interference, prompting the rise of health-care premiums and cancellations of insurance coverage. The same is true for onerous carbon dioxide rules that hurt U.S. energy independence and ultimately Americans’ wallets. Many of the president’s executive actions have ended up in the courts because of their overwhelming scope. Earlier this year, a federal judge issued a temporary injunction to block the president’s immigration plan until it can be settled in court. More than two-dozen states, including our home states of Mississippi and Texas, have joined the lawsuit against the administration, claiming that the immigration overhaul is a costly and burdensome violation of states’ rights. Our Founding Fathers foresaw the danger of unchecked federal power. In the Constitution, they set forth guiding principles to protect limited government in the new republic. The Bill of Rights, which includes the 10th Amendment, was added to allay fears that individual freedoms could be curtailed by federal encroachment. One wonders what our Founding Fathers would think of Washington today. The onslaught of regulations and executive orders from the Obama administration has chipped away at the 10th Amendment’s division of power, putting more control in bureaucratic hands than that of the people or the states. This executive overreach hardly reflects James Madison’s writings in The Federalist, which noted that the Constitution granted “few and defined” powers to the federal government and left “numerous and indefinite” power to the states. As elected officials, members of Congress have a responsibility to challenge excessive executive action, upholding the Constitution’s time-tested system of checks and balances. We believe the 10th Amendment is integral to this responsibility and the preservation of limited power. Our “Restoring the 10th Amendment Act” would give state government officials special standing in court to dispute regulations and executive orders proposed by a federal agency or the President. In other words, states would have the tools to push back against violations of the 10th Amendment, helping to restore individual liberty and limit the size, power, and cost of the federal government. For the past six years, the Obama administration has used executive measures to score partisan wins on controversial issues. This tactic denies Americans the right to open and transparent debate, one of the core elements of a functioning democracy. The “Restoring the 10th Amendment Act” would be an important step toward restoring accountability, protecting the spirit and letter of the Constitution, and reining in the federal government. Notice anything wrong? Send Silk feedback Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1. #1. To: tpaine (#0) “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” What does the phrase "or to the people" mean? SOSO  posted on  2015-04-25   13:59:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 1. #2. To: SOSO (#1) What does the phrase "or to the people" mean? Leave the people alone - unmolested by government - if they leave their neighbors alone. So what does "Leave their neighbors alone" mean? THAT is something to be debated by the Supreme Court until the sun burns out, or goes supernova. Whichever comes first. IMO. Chuck_Wagon  posted on  2015-04-25 15:03:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #3. To: SOSO (#1) What does the phrase "or to the people" mean? Whatever the Supreme Court says it means. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-04-25 15:17:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #4. To: SOSO (#1) "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” What does the phrase "or to the people" mean? The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" [of the States]. In my opinion, the writers of our constitution deliberately made it as short as possible, in order to keep it simple. -- Thus, they would have seen ' of the States', -- as redundant. Obviously, to them, the people of the States held ALL the power within the State. The state itself has NO power except that which is delegated, constitutionally, by the people. tpaine  posted on  2015-04-25 15:23:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #50. To: SOSO, tpaine (#1) SOSO #1: What does the phrase "or to the people" mean? tpaine #4: Obviously, to them, the people of the States held ALL the power within the State. SOSO #7: It could just as easily mean the people of the U.S.. tpaine #8: The people of the United States are also (obviously) the same 'people of the States'. SOSO #22: The first words of the U.S. Consitution are "We the People of the United States.... Tell me again about how the collective people of the U.S. never did anything. "the people" are the same as those in "We the people." It refers to the people of the States. Saying it refers to the consolidated mass of people as a nation requires willful bastardization of the Constitution. "The PEOPLE of the United states" are the first personages introduced. Who were those people? They were the citizens of thirteen states, each of which had a separate constitution and government, and all of which were connected together by Articles of Confederation. 2 Dal. 468 (1793) thirteen sovereignties were considered as emerged from the principles of the Revolution 2 Dal. 470 (1793) There is at least one strong undeniable fact against this incompatibility, and that is this -- any one State in the Union may sue another State, in this Court, that is, all the people of one State may sue all the people of another State. 2 Dal. 473 (1793) All the people of one state are the state. Albert T. Bledsoe, The War Between the States, 1915. [51] CHAPTER VII THE CONSTITUTION “A COMPACT BETWEEN” THE STATES— THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION The Preamble Quoted. “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The first clause of this preamble to the Constitution, wholly detached from its history and from every other portion of the same instrument, as well as from all the contemporary and subsequent expositions of its authors, is made the very corner-stone of the Northern theory of the general government of the United States. That tremendous theory, or scheme of power, has been erected on this naked, isolated, and, as we expect to show, grossly misinterpreted clause. From the bare words of this clause it is concluded, both by Story and Webster, that the Constitution was established or ratified, not by a federal but by a national act; or, in other terms, that it was not ratified by the States, but by a power superior to the States, that is, by the sovereign will of “the whole people of the United States in the aggregate,” acting as one nation or political community. With Puritanical zeal they stick to “the very words of the Constitution,” while the meaning of the words is unheeded by them, either because it is unknown, or because it does not suit their purpose. But words are not the money, they are merely the counters, of wise men. The meaning of the Constitution is the Constitution. In arriving at the meaning of these words, of the very clause in question, I shall not do the least violence to any law of language, or to any rule of interpretation. I shall, on the contrary, show that we are not “obliged to depart from the words of the instrument,”1 as Mr. Justice Story alleges, in order to sustain our interpretation of any portion of it. I shall show that the Southern interpretation __________ 1 “Commentaries on the Constitution, book III, chap ii. [52] of the clause in question is, in reality, the only fair, legitimate, and reasonable sense of the preamble itself. Nor shall I, for this purpose, repeat the arguments which are usually employed by the friends of the South in this controversy. Those arguments are amply sufficient to refute the interpretation of Story and Webster. But they are so well put by others—by John Taylor, of Caroline; by Judge Upshur, of Virginia; by John C. Calhoun, of South Carolina; and especially by Mr. Spence, of Liverpool, that I need not repeat them here. Every one may find access to them in the admirable work of Mr. Spence.1 Hence, passing by those arguments, I shall, by an appeal to the records of the Convention of 1787, make my position good, and annihilate the great corner-stone of the Northern theory of the Constitution of the United States. The Preamble Discussed “We, the people of the United States.” The history of these words is curious and instructive. Only a portion of that history has, as yet, been laid before the public of England or of the United States. In the light of that history the great corner-stone in question will be found to crumble into dust and ashes; and the only wonder will be that considerations so clear and so conclusive should have been so long locked up, as a profound secret, in the records of the very Convention that formed the Constitution of the United States. It is well known that in the original draft of the Constitution its preamble, instead of saying, “We, the people of the United States,” specified each State by name, as the previous Articles of Confederation had done. If it had remained thus, then the States would have appeared, on the very face of the preamble itself, as the parties to the Constitution. But the preamble, as is well known, was afterwards changed by omitting to mention the States by name. There are, however, some most important facts __________ 1 We have only said admirable; but, all things considered, Mr. Spence’s work is truly a wonderful production. [53] connected with the change and the origin of the words in question, which seem to be wholly unknown on both sides of the Atlantic. They have, certainly, attracted no notice whatever from any of the writers on the great controversy between the North and the South. The first of these facts relates to the person by whom, and the manner in which, the change in question was effected; or, the words, “We, the people of the United States,” were substituted for an enumeration of the States by name. During all the great discussions of the Convention, the preamble to the Constitution retained its original form; nor was there, from the beginning to the end of their deliberations, a single whisper of dissatisfaction with it in that form. Every member of the Convention appeared perfectly satisfied that the States should stand, on the very front of the Constitution, as the parties to the compact into which they were about to enter. It was only after the provisions of the Constitution were agreed upon, and its language was referred to “a committee on style,” that the names of the States were silently omitted,” and the clause, “We, the people of the United States,” substituted in their place. Now, it will not be denied that if this change had not been made by the “committee on style,” then the States would have been the parties to the new Constitution just as they had been, to the old Articles of Confederation. Hence, if the interpretation of Story and Webster be the true one, then it must be admitted that the “committee on style,” appointed merely to express the views of the Convention, really transformed the nature of the Constitution of the United States! Then it must be admitted that the “committee on style,” by a single turn of its pen, changed the course of history and the meaning of its facts; causing the supreme power of the Federal Government to emanate, not from the States, but from the people of America as one political community! Did the “committee on style” do all this? And is it on legislation like this that a sovereign State is to be deemed guilty of treason and rebellion against the sublime authority of the people of America, and visited with the utmost vengeance? The [54] sublime authority of the people of America, the one grand nation, erected and established solely by the pen of the “committee on style !” This clause, “We, the people of the United States,” introduced by the “committee on style,” and passed over in perfect silence by the whole Convention, is the great stronghold, if it has one, of the Northern theory of the Constitution. The argument from these words appears in every speech, book, pamphlet, and discussion by every advocate of the North. It was wielded by Mr. Webster in his great debate with Mr. Calhoun, in 1833, and still more fully in his still more eloquent speech on Foot’s resolutions in 1830. “The Constitution itself,” says he, “in its very front, declares that it was ordained and established by the people of the United States in the aggregate.” The fact is not so. The Constitution neither declares that it was established by the people of the United States in the aggregate, nor by the people of the United States in the segregate. But if we look into the history of the transaction we shall find that it was established by them in the latter character, and not in the former. We shall find that each State acted separately, and for itself alone; and that no one pretended, or imagined, that the whole aggregate vote of any twelve States could bind the thirteenth State, without its own individual consent and ratification. In order to make out his interpretation, Mr. Webster interpolates the legislation of the “committee on style” with words of his own. How the Preamble Was Changed The change in the preamble to the Constitution was effected by the pen of Gouverneur Morris, one of the most zealous advocates in the Convention of 1787 for a strong national government. He certainly wished all power to emanate from the people of America, and to have them regarded as one great nation. But did he accomplish his wish? In the Convention, says the record, “Gouverneur Morris moved that the reference of the plan [i. e., of the Convention] be made to one General Convention, chosen [55] and authorized by the people to consider, amend, and establish the same.”1 This motion, if adopted, would indeed have caused the Constitution to be ratified by “the people of the United States in the aggregate,” or as one nation. This would, in fact, have made it a government emanating from the people of America in one General Convention assembled, and not from the States. But how was this motion received by the Convention? Was it approved and passed in the affirmative by that body? It did not even find a second in the Convention of 1787. So says the record,1 and this is a most significant fact. So completely was such a mode of ratification deemed out of the question that it found not the symptom or shadow of support from the authors of the Constitution of the United States. Now was the very object, which Gouverneur Morris so signally failed to accomplish directly and openly by his motion, indirectly and covertly effected by his style? And if so, did he design to effect such a change in the fundamental law of the United States of America? It is certain that precisely the same effect is given to his words, to his style, as would have resulted from the passage of his motion by the Convention. Did Gouverneur Morris then intend that his words should have such force and effect? In supposing him capable of such a fraud on the Convention of 1787, I certainly do him no injustice, since we have his own confession that he actually perpetrated several such frauds on that assembly of Constitution-makers. “That instrument,” says he, in reference to the Constitution, “was written by the fingers which write this letter. Having rejected redundant terms, I believed it to be as clear as language would permit; excepting, nevertheless, a part of what relates to the judiciary. On that subject conflicting opinions had been maintained with so much professional astuteness that it became necessary to select phrases which, expressing my own notions, would not alarm others, nor shock their self-love; and to the best of my recollection this was the only part which passed without cavil.”2 How adroitly, then, how cunningly, he __________ 1 “The Madison Papers,” p. 1184. 2 “Life and Writings of Gouverneur Morris,” Vol. iii, p. 323. [56] cheats the Convention into the unconscious sanction of his “own notions”; and this great legislator of the North even in the purer days of the infant republic, was proud of the fraud! Nor is this the only instance in which, according to his own confession and boast, Gouverneur Morris tricked the Convention into the adoption of his own private views. “I always thought,” says he, in another letter, “that when we should acquire Canada and Louisiana, it would be proper to govern them as provinces, and allow them no voice in our councils. In wording the third section of the fourth article I went as far as circumstances would permit to establish the exclusion. Candor obliges me to add my belief that, had it been more pointedly expressed, a strong opposition would have been made.”1 Thus, as the penman of the “committee on style,” he abused his high position, not only to mould the judiciary system of the United States to suit his “own notions,” but also to determine the fate of two vast empires! Is not such legislation truly wonderful? Instead of weighing every word with the utmost care, and then depositing it in the Constitution as under the solemn sanction of an oath, the Convention trusts the style of the instrument to a fine writer, who cunningly gives expression to his own views in opposition to those of the assembly! “In a play, or a moral,” says Jeremy Bentham, “an improper word is but a word; and the impropriety, whether noted or not, is attended with no consequences. In a body of laws—especially of laws given as Constitutional ones—an improper word would be a national calamity and civil war may be the consequences of it. Out of one foolish word may start a thousand daggers.” How true, and how fearfully has this truth been illustrated by the history of the United States! But although Gouverneur Morris was capable of such a fraud on the Convention, we have no good reason to believe he intended one by the substitution of the words, “We, the people of the United States,” for the enumeration of all the States by name. He has nowhere confessed to any such thing; and, besides, he did not understand his own words as they are so confidently understood by Story and __________ 1 “Life and Writings of Governeur Morris,” vol iii, p. 193. [57] Webster. Every rational inquirer after truth should, it seems to me, be curious to know what sense Gouverneur Morris attached to the words in question, since it was by his pen that they were introduced into the preamble of the Constitution. Nor will such curiosity be diminished, but rather increased, by the fact that he did, in some cases, aim to foist his own private views into the Constitution of his country. How, then, did Gouverneur Morris understand the words, “We, the people of the United States?” Did he infer from these words that the Constitution was not a compact between States, or that it was established by the people of America, and not by the States? I answer this question in the words of Gouverneur Morris himself. “The Constitution,” says he, “was a compact, not between individuals, but between political societies, the people, not of America, but of the United States, each enjoying sovereign power and of course equal rights.”1 Language could not possibly be more explicit. Nor could it be more evident than it is that Gouverneur Morris, the very author of the words in question, entertained precisely the same view of their meaning as that maintained by Mr. Calhoun and his school. This point was, indeed, made far too clear by the proceedings of the Convention of 1787 for any member of that body to entertain the shadow of a doubt in relation to it. Nor can any one read these proceedings, as they deserve to be read, without agreeing with Gouverneur Morris that the authors of the Constitution designed it to be ratified, as in fact it was, by “the people of the United States,” not as individuals, but as “political societies, each enjoying sovereign power, and of course equal rights.” Or, in other words, without seeing that “the Constitution was a compact,” not between individuals, “but between political societies,” between sovereign States. This, in the next chapter, I hope and expect to make perfectly clear, by bringing to view the origin of the words, “We, the people,” and by showing the sense in which they were universally understood and used by the member of the Convention of 1787 in the very act of framing the Constitution of the United States. __________ 1 “Life and Writings,” vol iii, p. 193. [58] CHAPTER VIII THE CONSTITUTION OF 1787 A COMPACT BETWEEN THE STATES—THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION (Continued) FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THE CHANGE IN THE PREAMBLE The Convention of 1787 did, as we have seen, refnse to call the government a national one, and gave it the name of “the government of the “United States.” Did they then make it a national one by enacting that it should be ordained by “the whole people of the United States in the aggregate” as one political society? Again, when it was proposed in the Convention to ordain the Constitution by “the people of the United States in the aggregate,” in one General Convention assembled, the motion failed, as we have seen, to secure a second. Did Gouverneur Morris, then, the author of that proposal, achieve by his style what he failed to accomplish by his motion? If so, what should we think of the incompetency of the Convention? Nor was this all. For Madison introduced a motion which required “a concurrence of a majority of both the States and the people”1 at large to establish the Constitution; and this proposition was rejected by the Convention. All these motions, designed to connect the new government with a national origin, were lost, and the decree went forth that the Constitution should be established by the accession of nine States, each acting for itself alone, and to be bound only by its own voluntary act. Now, the question is, was all this action of the Convention overruled and defeated by the committee on style, or rather by its penman, Gouverneur Morris? If he formed such design, then it must be admitted that the Northern theory of the Constitution was conceived in fraud and brought forth in iniquity; and every honest man at the North ought to be ashamed both of its origin and its existence. __________ 1“The Madison Papers,” p. 1470. [59] But, as we have already seen, Gouverneur Morris did not understand his own words, “We, the people,” as they are understood by the more modern expounders of the Constitution at the North. Hence we have no reason to believe that he intended, in this case at least, a fraud on the design and will of the Convention. Was the whole thing done then, and the nature of the Constitution transformed, by a slip of the pen, or by accident? After all their opposition both to the name and to the thing, did the Convention, by sheer oversight, blunder into the construction of a purely national government, by permitting it to be established by the people of America as one grand political community? If Mr. Justice Story’s view of the words, “We, the people of the United States,” be correct, how did it happen that the opponents of such a mode of ratification said absolutely nothing? The whole instrument, as amended by the committee on style, was read in the hearing of the Convention, beginning with the preamble, and yet the words, “We, the people of the United States,” now deemed so formidable to the advocates of State sovereignty, did not raise a single whisper of opposition. How could this have happened if the words in question were supposed to mean the people of America, or the whole people of the United States as one political society? Were Mason, and Martin, and Paterson, and Ellsworth all too dull to perceive that meaning, which is so perfectly obvious to Mr. Justice Story, and which he imagines that nothing but the most purblind obstinacy can resist? Were all the friends of the States, as independent sovereignties, asleep on their posts while Gouverneur Morris thus transformed the nature of the Constitution, without knowing it himself, by causing it to emanate, not from the States, but from the people of America as one nation? No. Not one of these suppositions is the true one. The whole mystery is explained in the proceedings of the Convention of 1787, as exhibited in “The Madison Papers”; an explanation which, however, has hitherto been most unaccountably overlooked. We may there find the real meaning of the words in question, and see why they gave no alarm to the advocates of State sovereignty. [60] THE MODE OF RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION If we cast our eyes all along the subject of “the mode of ratification,” ranging from page 735 to page 1632 of “The Madison Papers,” we shall perceive that the question, whether the Constitution should be ratified by the people of “the United States in the aggregate,” or by the several States, was not considered by the Convention at all. No such question was before the Convention. It was neither mooted nor considered by them. The error of Story and Webster is, that they construe the first clause of the Constitution as if it referred to one question; whereas, in fact, it referred to quite another and a far different question—that is, they construed this clause in profound darkness as to the origin of its words, as well as to their use and application in the Convention of 1787. If they had understood them as actually and uniformly used or applied by the framers of the Constitution, then they could neither have deceived themselves nor the people of the North. If, indeed, they had been members of that Convention, or had only examined its proceedings, they would have seen why the staunch advocates of State sovereignty raised not even the slightest whisper of opposition to the words, “We, the people.” Or, if Patrick Henry had been a member of that assembly, then he could not have exclaimed, as he did, “Why say ‘We, the people,’ and not We, the States?”—an exclamation so often quoted by Story, Webster, and the whole Northern school of politicians as a conclusive authority—for then he would have seen that “We, the people,” in the language of the framers of the Constitution, meant precisely the same thing as “We, the States,” and neither more nor less. The question before the Convention was, whether the Constitution should be ratified by the legislatures or by the sovereign peoples of the several States. No one doubted that it was to be ratified by the States. This, as we shall see, was on all hands regarded as a settled point. The only question was, whether it “should be ratified by the States, acting through their legislatures, or through [61] Conventions elected to represent the people for that special purpose. In the discussion of this question, most of the members insisted that the Constitution should be ratified by the people, by the States in their sovereign capacity, or by their Conventions. These several modes of expression were, in the vocabulary of the Convention, used as convertible terms, as perfectly synonymous with each other. Hence the phrase, “the people of the United States,” as used and understood by them, meant the people of the several States as contradistinguished from their legislatures, and not the people of America as contradistinguished from the distinct and separate sovereign peoples of the different States. This application of the words is the invention of theorists merely. It was unknown to the Convention of 1787, and has had no existence except in the imaginations of those by whom their labors have been systematically misconstrued and perverted from their original design. Some few members of the Convention were in favor of leaving “the States to choose their own mode of ratification”; but the great majority of them insisted that the Constitution should be referred to the States for ratification, either through their legislatures or through their people in Conventions assembled. It was in regard to these two methods that the Convention was divided. All agreed that it should be done by “the States,” and the only question was as to how “the States” should do it. The idea that it was designed to be done, or that it was done, by the people of America as one nation, is the dream of a later day, and, as we shall see, is nothing but a dream. Some insisted that it should be ratified by the States in their corporate capacity—this is, by their legislatures; and others that it should be ratified by the States in their sovereign political capacity—that is, by their Conventions assembled for that express purpose. Or, in other words, some contended that it ought to be ratified by their general agents, the legislatures; and others that it ought to be ratified by their special agents, the Conventions elected and assembled to perform that high act of sovereign [62] power. In both cases, it was to be ratified by the States, but the opposite parties preferred different modes of ratification by them. THE DEBATE ON RATIFICATION In debating this question, as to the mode of ratification by the States (the only one before the Convention), some of the most inflexible advocates of State sovereignty insisted that it should be ratified by “the people of the United States.” But then they understood this language, and every member of the Convention understood it to mean the peoples of the several States, as distinguished from their legislatures. If, for one moment, they had imagined that their language could have been construed to mean a ratification of the Constitution by the collective will of the whole people of America, they would have shrunk from its use with horror! for they dreaded nothing more than the idea of such an immense consolidated democracy. On the contrary, they clung to the States, and to their rights, as the only sheet-anchor of safety against the overwhelming and all-devouring floods of such a national union of mere numbers or individuals. George Mason, no less than Patrick Henry, would have exclaimed against the words, “We, the people,” if, as a member of the Convention of 1787, he had not learned that they only meant “We, the States.” In discussing the question as to the mode of ratification by “the States,” Mr. Mason said “he considered a reference of the plan to the authority of the people as one of the most important and essential of the resolutions. The legislatures have no power to ratify it. . . . Another strong reason, said he, was that admitting the legislatures to have a competent authority it would be wrong to refer the plan to them, because succeeding legislatures, having equal authority, could undo the acts of their predecessors.”1 This argument was repeatedly urged by other members, and it was insisted that if the Constitution should be ratified by the legislatures of the States, instead __________ 1 “Madison Papers,” p. 1177. [63] of by the people of the States, it would rest upon a weak and tottering foundation, since the legislatures which had established might claim the power to repeal. In like manner Mr. Madison said, “For these reasons, as well as for others, he thought it indispensable that the new Constitution should be ratified in the unexceptionable form, and by the supreme authority of the people themselves1—that is, as the context shows, by the supreme authority of the people of the several States in opposition to their “legislative sanction only.” Not one word was ever said during the whole of the debate about referring the Constitution to the people of the whole country in the aggregate for ratification. This idea had not then risen above the horizon of the political world, though it afterwards became the great political sun of the Northern section of the Union. Those who advocated the mode of ratification by the people, or by the Conventions of the States elected for that purpose, prevailed over those who urged the ratification by the legislatures. The majority favored the mode of ratification by the people or the Conventions. Accordingly, when the committee of detail reported a draft of the Constitution, we find these words: “Article XXI. The ratifications of the Conventions of —— States shall be sufficient for the organization of this Constitution.”2 Thus it came to be perfectly understood that it should be ratified by the Conventions or the peoples of the several States, and not by their legislatures. But here the question arose, if the blank for the number of States should be filled with “seven,” “eight,” or “nine.” The Constitution, as it stood, might, in the opinion of Mr. Madison, be put in force over “the whole body of the people, though less than a majority of them should ratify it.” But, in the opinion of Mr. Wilson, “As the Constitution stands, the States only which ratify can be bound.”3 In order to remove this difficulty, and settle the question, Mr. King moved to add, at the end of Article XXI, the words “between the said States, so as to confine the opera- __________ 1 “Madison Papers,” p. 796 2 “Ibid., p. 1241 3 Ibid., p. 1469 [64] tion of the government to the States ratifying the same.”1 Thus it was Rufus King, at first one of the most strenuous advocates in the Convention of 1787 for a strong national government, who introduced the words by which the Constitution was made binding “between the States so ratifying the same.” These words proved acceptable to Madison and Wilson, though both were among the most zealous advocates of a strong general government in the Convention of 1787, and they became a part of the new Constitution. Thus it was universally understood by the Convention, and so expressed, that the new Constitution was to be established “by the ratification of the Conventions of —— States,” and to be binding only “between the States so ratifying the same.” During all this time the name of each State still retained its place in the preamble to the Constitution, in which the committee of detail made no change; and if the party, with Gerry and Hamilton at their head, who wished to fill the blank with the whole thirteen States, had prevailed, we have no reason to believe that any alteration would in this respect have been made in the preamble to the Constitution. But when, after debate, the blank was filled with “nine,” it became impossible to specify the States between whom the new Constitution might be established or the new government organized. Hence it became proper, if not necessary, to drop the specification of the States by name—a change which, as we have seen, was first introduced by the committee on style, and read to the Convention without raising the slightest objection or murmur. We are now prepared to see, as in the clear light of noonday, why the words, “We, the people of the United States,” which have since made so much noise in the political world, did not make any whatever in the Convention of 1787. Why should George Mason, or any other adherent of State sovereignty, object to the words introduced by the committee on style? They merely expressed the very thing for which he had contended, and which had been fully expressed in the seventh Article of the new __________ 1 “Madison Papers,” p. 1470. [65] Constitution. For when it was determined that the Constitution should be ratified by “the Conventions of the States,” and not by the legislatures, this was exactly equivalent, in the uniform language of the Convention of 1787, to saying that it shall be ratified by “the people of the States.” Hence, the most ardent friend of State rights, or State sovereignty, saw no reason why he should object to the words, “We, the people of the United States,” because he knew they were only intended to express the mode of ratification by the States for which he had contended—that is, by the States in their sovereign capacity, as so many political societies or peoples, as distinguished from their legislatures. nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-27 17:55:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 1. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com