US Constitution ratified 224 years ago TODAY
US CONSTITUTION RATIFIED 224 years ago TODAY – June 21, 1788 after having been signed and sent to the states for ratification on September 27, 1787.
The arduous task of ratifying our US Constitution is very meaningful and informative. We can be thankful for the debate generated by the Federalists and Antifederalists which clarified the values and principles of our republic.
It was the state of NEW HAMPSHIRE which became the 9th of the 13 states to ratify the Constitution to make it LEGALLY ratified. If you want to look through the list of state ratifications, the Teaching American History website has it, use this link for “State-by-State Ratification Table."
For the broader discussion of the whole ratification process, that website has the feature section, “Ratification of the Constitution."
The MOST significant dynamic of the ratification process was the debate as to the values and principles of our republic by the Federalists vs. Antifederalists. One readily identifies the continuing ideological dynamic of those discussions. I believe the issues are significant and need to be considered in an environment which is open and civil.
If you want to review the basics of each of these ideological groups, again the "Teaching American History" website has valuable resources which I recommend.
“Introduction to The Federalist.” The Federalist essays response to Antifederalist “attack” on the new constitution.
“Introduction to the Antifederalists." It is important to know the meaning of “antifederalists” as Gordon Lloyd, author of the introduction clarifies developing the meaning of “federal” which, he asserts had “…a particular American character. In the 1780s, those folks who wanted a firmer and more connected union became known as federal men. People like George Washington, Gouverneur Morris, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and James Wilson were known as federal men who wanted a firmer federal, or even national, union. And those people like Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, George Clinton, Melancton Smith, and Roger Sherman, who opposed or who raised doubts about the merits of a firmer and more energetic union acquired the name of antifederal men who opposed an inclination to strengthen the ties of Union with a focus on centralized direction.”
So, as Lloyd describes the content of the position of the Antifederalists, “…a commitment to local government and limited general government, frequent elections and rotation in office, and to writing things down because our liberties are safer as a result.”
Readers will readily recognize that the debate continues actively today. It is important NOT to idealize the discussions of the 18th century – they were definitely just as contentious and uncivil as those today. That does NOT, however, redeem the lack of civility.
I KNOW that I am among the citizens of our republic who are grateful to the Antifederalists for their conscientious and committed work for a BILL OF RIGHTS to be added to the US Constitution. There were 12 originally, but only 10 were immediately ratified. One was ratified finally at the end of the 20th century. One more has never been ratified. Do YOU know what the 2 amendments NOT ratified with the 10 provided for? Watching for your comments.
And then there is the process by which the BILL OF RIGHTS which was ORIGINALLY focused on the national/federal government were gradually applied to the states after the ratification of the 14th Amendment and with developments in the early 20th century. That process is called, “incorporation.” If you want to read about that process in-depth, I suggest the Wikipedia article,
“Incorporation of the Bill of Rights.” That article details the “incorporation” of the individual amendments of our Bill of Rights.
Rather than summarily deciding that the BILL OF RIGHTS applied to the states, the US Supreme Court has gone the route of ruling case-by-case one-by-one on the BILL OF RIGHTS applying to the states of the United States. That long process of incorporation is fascinating to me. Do YOU know which of the Bill of Rights was most recently “incorporated”?
This is a key reason that I think it is IMPORTANT to note that our US Constitution is a LIVING DOCUMENT designed to provide the foundation for a dynamic maturing republic. I do not understand the argument of “original intent” to be the key principle to interpret our US Constitution. What is YOUR view?
Consider the case decided by our US Supreme Court this week reported by Reuters, “Top court rejects DNA lab test analyst questioning.” The Supreme Court case is Williams v. Illinois, No. 10-8505.
The Court has been wrestling for years with the 21st century meaning of the Constitution's "Confrontation Clause" guaranteeing that criminal defendants "be confronted with the witnesses against him." Consider the 6th Amendment. For a detailed discussion, read Wikipedia’s article, “Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution” – “Confrontation” section. This article provides an overview of the struggle the court has had with modern technology and the 6th amendment’s requirement of “confrontation.” What is YOUR stance on “confrontation”?
We celebrate as a national day the day on which the US Constitution was SIGNED and sent to the states for ratification on September 17th. It is, in fact, mandated that all schools receiving federal money observe this date. I doubt that any reader of my WE THE PEOPLE blog today is aware that TODAY is the significant date on which that US Constriction legally went into effect with 9 states having ratified it.
And then, with 12 states having ratified the US Constitution of 1787, the US Government on March 4, 1789. George Washington was inaugurated first US President on April 30, 1789.
And then, at long last, Rhode Island ratified the US Constitution on May 29, 1790. That completed the full 13 original states in under the US Constitution.
Our WRITTEN US Constitution is the constitution which has been in place governing a nation longer than any other nation with a WRITTEN constitution in the world.
As we observe this date on which our US Constitution of 1787 was RATIFIED and started to go into effect, let’s re-read and reflect on the FULL meaning of the PREAMBLE of that very significant LEGAL document. Our reflection is enriched by the informative Wikipedia article,
“Preamble to the United States Constitution,” with the discussion of its judicial relevance and the interpretation of each clause.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Here we go…
Mr. E.
John Eyster lives in the Edgerton area. He is an adjunct professor of political science at UW-Waukesha and an advocate for democracy/civics education in Wisconsin high schools. John is a community blogger and is not a part of The Gazette staff. His opinion is not necessarily that of the The Gazette staff or management.
Jun 26, 2012 at 9:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
John as a teacher of Government are you ashamed of how the president is using the executive privledge? Fast and furious and now going around the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Arizona case. Wake up he is acting like an emperor not a president.
Jun 24, 2012 at 10:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xWxGfN-n...
Jun 22, 2012 at 5:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
So, in your opinion, a state could establish a "state religion" and, for example, promote it to the exclusion of other religions and not run afoul of the US Constitution? That sounds a little out there to me.
Jun 22, 2012 at 4:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
That's a clown question, bro.
Jun 22, 2012 at 2:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
*Nowhere in our Constitution is there a single mention of God, Jesus, Christianity or any other supernatural deity. The 1st Amendment addresses the separation of church and state:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."*
Only prohibits fedgov from establishing a religion. Individual states could and did establish official state religions until their own legislatures/state constitutions abolished them.
Jun 22, 2012 at 10:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
This document doesn't apply to the liberal's. Illiteracy immediately kicks in for some reason.
Jun 22, 2012 at 9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Nowhere in our Constitution is there a single mention of God, Jesus, Christianity or any other supernatural deity. The 1st Amendment addresses the separation of church and state:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Jun 22, 2012 at 9:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sorry you feel that way Gary but if I was in his AP government class I would still ask the questions. How are these questions not completely relevant considering the rulings coming down by the Supreme court soon. They were very legitimate questions asked for simple debate not a "clown question"
Jun 22, 2012 at 8:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
"That's a clown question, bro".
Jun 22, 2012 at 2:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
John I will answer your 2 questions if you will please answer my 2. the 27th amendment to the constitution had to deal with compensation for legislators. The one that has not passed is determining the amount of house members in a givin state is based on population or (size of an electoral district). Now my questions. Wasn't the whole purpose of the anti- federalist to make sure the federal government did not overreach and impose laws on the states that they might not agree with and become to powerful? Do you believe Obamacare is such an overreach?
Jun 22, 2012 at 1:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOL, typical poo_koch. When all else fails claim "You get the last word now".
Well since you claimed "You can't correct the facts I stated as they are true", I will say I never questioned your facts. I corrected your statement.
First off you stated "First, the U.S. Constitution's amendment process (Article V) does not allow for courts to amend the U.S. Constitution". I corrected you on this statement. I never stated the courts did nor did I imply they did. This was just another of your posts that deflect from what is stated and go off issues and topics discussed. Somehow in your trollish mind correcting your statements is considered obnoxious. This is easily corrected by not doing it from the start.
Jun 22, 2012 at 1:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
You can't correct the facts I stated as they are true.
1) Courts can't amend the U.S. Constitution.
2) It takes only several thousand people to amend the U.S. Constitution.
You get the last word now, RetiredAirForce.
Jun 22, 2012 at 1:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
"Obnoxious is accusing an honest person of lying and posting under different usernames."
-
Glad to see I don't meet your determination. So what was obnoxious then? Was it because I corrected your claim...
Jun 22, 2012 at 1:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Geez, RetiredAirForce, my comments stated simple facts, were directly related to the topic John wrote about, were not inflammatory, were not lies, I've never had any GazetteXtra account except this one and I have 1/2 the total comments that you do. Obnoxious is accusing an honest person of lying and posting under different usernames.
Jun 22, 2012 at 12:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
What is obnoxious according to poo_koch? Is it circular logic, posting off topic, posting inflammatory posts, posting direct lies, posting under different user logins, being a troll, or something else entirely?
Jun 22, 2012 at 12:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Relax, RetiredAirForce, there's no need to be defensive and obnoxious. The facts are the facts: courts can't amend the Constitution and it takes only several thousand people to amend the Constitution.
Jun 22, 2012 at 12:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
"First, the U.S. Constitution's amendment process (Article V) does not allow for courts to amend the U.S. Constitution."
-
This was never stated nor implied, you can stop your circular logic already. The courts decide case law through interpretation of the constitution. This case law is then used by other courts through precedent until changed.
"Second, the U.S. Constitution's amendment process (Article V) requires the approval of only several thousand people, not a majority of citizens."
-
More hair splitting circular logic? Our government is a representative form elected by voters; each requires a majority of voters to be seated. Each of these must then answer to their electorate. The process takes a two thirds majority in each federal body before the state legislatures can ratify. In all cases, those casting votes are representing the same majorities that placed them in office to represent them. Was there more hairs you want to split or does that about cover it?
Jun 21, 2012 at 11:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
RetiredAirForce said, "The change process is there for a majority of citizens to change/add/correct over time as society deems, not because some court claims. That is a huge distinction."
First, the U.S. Constitution's amendment process (Article V) does not allow for courts to amend the U.S. Constitution.
Second, the U.S. Constitution's amendment process (Article V) requires the approval of only several thousand people, not a majority of citizens. Ratification of a proposed amendment requires that 38 of the state legislatures ratify the proposed amendment (each with a simple majority vote). Without doing exhaustive research into the number of legislators in 38 states, that number is probably less than 10,000 and only a simple majority of those in each legislature are required to ratify. So, just several thousand people are required to amend the Constitution.
Jun 21, 2012 at 11:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
There has never been an issue with a living document. The problem has always been with the way those that claim it is living want to claim it means X when it never did, nor was it ever implied. The change process is there for a majority of citizens to change/add/correct over time as society deems, not because some court claims. That is a huge distinction.
Jun 21, 2012 at 7:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
"And those people like Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, George Clinton,..."
George Clinton was there??? Awesome! Keep the Constitution funky!!
Jun 21, 2012 at 7:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
"This is a key reason that I think it is IMPORTANT to note that our US Constitution is a LIVING DOCUMENT designed to provide the foundation for a dynamic maturing republic."
I agree wholeheartedly, John. It's amazing to see the number of American citizens that don't understand that the authors/signers/ratifiers of the Constitution clearly understood the need to define a procedure (Article V) for the Constitution to change with time. The authors/signers/ratifiers of the Constitution also understood the need for a judiciary to interpret and adjudicate Constitutional issues by creating and empowering the Judiciary (Article III).
Jun 21, 2012 at 5:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
And the Constitution says corporations are people where? Both sides are shredding things everywhere for their own ideology. It is how it is.
Jun 21, 2012 at 4:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
A living document is a non existent document. If it's 'living' and the meaning is everchanging then what is the purpose of having a document at all?
Jun 21, 2012 at 2:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Mr. Eyster, you are 100% wrong when you say the Constitution is a living document. It wasn't something that a bunch of guys in Philly came up with over a few pints, it was thought out in a manner that escapes today's leaders intellect, including yours. That document was created as a firm foundation on which the greatest country in the history of the world was built. You see, you don't keep re-establishing a foundation, you build upon it. It seems you and the current administration believes that this is a living document that can be trimmed here and there, or molded to benefit them in their time of need. But your wrong, it wasn't created to be constantly changed, or re-interpreted to your beliefs, it is as I said before, a foundation and you don't continually change foundations unless it is found to be flawed, then and only then do you make a modification to make that foundation stronger. You make is sound as if the Constitution is there as suggestions to go by, not the founding laws and principles this country was founded on, but sadly is now becoming a dying document.
Jun 21, 2012 at 2:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
The Constitution is not a living document, Commissar Eyster. The sooner we can stop tossing that fallacy around, the sooner we can start fixing what ails this nation.
Jun 21, 2012 at 1:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Excellent!
Jun 21, 2012 at 1:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
“US CONSTITUTION RATIFIED 224 years ago TODAY”. Your main man, “Ganja O”, has been awfully busy shredding the poor thing. Hopefully there will be something left by the time Romney takes over.
“I do not understand the argument of “original intent” to be the key principle to interpret our US Constitution.” Well, of course not. There’s no sense sticking to a bunch of high falutin’ concepts drafted up over 200 years ago! Let’s just wing it and go with public opinion, current mores and societal values, or even use Ginsburg’s concept of using international law to determine the constitutionality of our own laws. Certainly, the Constitution was never intended to anticipate the changes we’ve seen since it was drafted, but in the areas where it’s clear, we need to either follow it or change it, not just make things up by playing “What would Jefferson Do?”
Jun 21, 2012 at 12:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
"This is a key reason that I think it is IMPORTANT to note that our US Constitution is a LIVING DOCUMENT designed to provide the foundation for a dynamic maturing republic."
LIVING? Try, Non-existent in the eyes of this current administration.
Jun 21, 2012 at 10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Let the heckling begin!
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.