After full experience of the insufficiency of the existing federal government, you are invited to deliberate upon a New Constitution for the United States of America….It has been frequently remarked, that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country to decide, by their conduct and example, the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destine to depend, for heir political constitutions, on accident and force. [Emphasis Added] From Federalist 1Hamilton's above remarks were addressed to the people of the state of New York during the period of the ratification debates, after the Constitutional Convention and before the people of each state voted for or against adopting the novel Constitution.
And novel it was. For the first time in its history a segment of mankind convened, deliberated, debated, and formed a charter of government that set the governing parameters of the central government. It was the result of reflection, rationally derived from the minds of men who knew history, human nature, and politics.
There were prefiguring constitutions such as the Mayflower Compact, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, and the founding charters of the original colonial governments. These documents were original in their own right, but there were elements of "force and accident" that necessitated their creation. The Articles of Confederation, for example, were hurriedly drawn and implemented in the face of the Revolutionary War.
What set the Constitution apart was its deliberate and planned conception, its scope and ingenuity, and its intent to properly limit the powers of central government to protect the liberties of the people while affording said government the requisite power to maintain stability and avoid the suicidal tendencies of the few examples of popular governments (democracies, that is) history had to afford.
Equally novel was the manner in which the Constitution was to become the supreme law of the land: It was accepted by choice. Ratification conventions were drawn among the several states with the sole purpose of voting up or voting down the proposed Constitution. By design of the Constitution itself, such conventions were to be composed of the people themselves; state legislatures were not allowed the authority to vote for or against the Constitution. Hence, the people of the respective states voted, not the states themselves. (This is an important distinction as it further solidified the popular character and beginnings of the Constitution, and supported Madison's contention that the new government was a federal one, neither wholly national nor merely another compact of states. It was partly national, partly a government of respective states. See Federalist 39)
The Constitution was also a boldly liberal document, liberal in the classical sense and in the broadly novel approach it took to difficult issues. The words, "slavery," or "slaves" do not appear anywhere, yet it deals directly with the issue by severely limiting the voting power of the slave holding districts by reducing their representation in the House by 3/5. This, contrary to contemporary misgivings, was a great step forward as it diminished the number of pro-slavery votes in legislation.
And who was barred from voting for representatives in the House? Put another way, who was permitted, in the Constitution, to vote for members of the House? If you said, "White property holding males" go to the back of the class: No one was denied! The qualifications were left to the state legislature to decide. This left the possibility completely open to wider suffrage. This is a striking historical step forward when considering the broader historical and world context (it was 1789) and the state of equal rights, minority rights, and free society.
Looking at our constitutional history, it is good to remember its unique origin, implementation, and unique features. What is equally important is to take a step back and consider how far we have departed from the constitutional government under which we are supposed to live freely. We need to ask ourselves, is it time we once again "reflect" upon our situation and bring about a constitutional change through"choice"?
The grassroots stirrings of the past year and a half indicate there is a lot of attention placed on the state of our government, economy, debt, and freedoms. Many more people are turning an eye to our situation and to our future. Happily, there is a lot of reflecting taking place as numerous educational groups are once again reading our history and studying the Constitution (Yay! Imagine that.) The connection of individual liberty to constitutionally limited government is a concept that is spreading, again. A significant number of Americans have made a good choice, and this is a very good thing.
Who, then, is left to reflect and choose, once again, the Constitution and embrace and respect its authority as the charter by which government is to conduct itself?
That would be the ensconsed powers-that-be in both political parties. They can be made to "reflect" upon the virtue of following the Constitution, that reflection being the consideration of their likelihood to lose their offices come election time. Here is the choice to be reflected: "If I disregard limited constitutional government, I don't get reelected."
And election time includes the primaries.
The more upward pressure from the grassroots level, the more likely politicians will again choose the Constitution. If we're frank with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that history teaches the Constitution is incapable of enforcing itself and the politicians that swear to uphold and protect it will discard and destroy it when we let them off of their electoral leash.
As a culture we are learning and relearning our Constitution. Now we are turning the hard work of teaching it to our politicians. They've become too much like poor old Barney Fife:
