American Democracy in Context. Joseph A. Pika

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ central government and state governments. The two sides simply disagreed over how power should be allocated in that system.⁴⁵

      Federalists started out with the upper hand in the debate. Their opponents lacked any substantive alternative to the Constitution except the Articles of Confederation, which were tainted with the stench of failure. Federalists were also aided by the fact that early ratifying conventions were in states that supported the Constitution; this would help to build momentum for ratification. Nonetheless, the Anti-Federalists probably reflected the sentiments of a majority of the American people, who remained deeply distrustful of a new and unfamiliar central authority and of its power to tax. Furthermore, many people still thought of themselves as citizens of their particular state rather than citizens of the United States. Indeed, ratification of the Constitution might well have failed had it depended on a national referendum (the method used by a number of countries in recent years, including Iraq in 2005).

      A month after the Constitutional Convention ended, Federalists began publishing pro-Constitution articles in newspapers in New York, where ratification was in doubt. The articles appeared under the pseudonym “Publius” (Latin for “the people”), and in 1788, they were gathered together and published in two volumes as The Federalist. Now commonly known as the Federalist Papers, these 85 articles, written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and (to a lesser extent) John Jay, provided not only a vigorous defense of the Constitution but also rich theoretical insights that still serve as a basis for understanding the Constitution today. In contrast with the populist tract Common Sense, which in 1776 helped to galvanize mass support for independence, the Federalist Papers failed to have a mobilizing effect among the general populace because they proved to be too dense and erudite for the average reader. They did influence and mobilize elites—Federalist delegates at the ratification conventions—but their greatest impact has been on subsequent generations who have used them as guides for interpreting the Constitution.

      Those opposed to the Constitution penned their own articles under pseudonyms such as “Brutus” and “Cato” (the names of ancient Roman senators who decried tyranny when Julius Caesar took control away from the Senate and assumed power over the Roman Republic). These articles were written by a larger number of people than the Federalist Papers. The leaders of the Anti-Federalists included prominent individuals who had played important roles in the creation of the United States, such as George Mason and Patrick Henry. Their critique focused on the dangers of centralized power, which they worried would become despotic and infringe not only upon states’ rights but also upon individual liberties. The fact that the Constitution lacked a bill of rights fueled their concern. Having so recently fought a war of independence to secure liberty, many readers shared these writers’ wariness of a strong national government.

      Another Compromise: A Post-Ratification Bill of Rights

      Delaware was the first state to ratify the Constitution in December 1787. Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut quickly followed suit. Massachusetts, however, derailed this momentum with a chief Anti-Federalist concern: that the new central government would run roughshod over the rights of the people.

      During the Constitutional Convention, George Mason, a delegate from Virginia, had proposed that the Constitution include a bill of rights. The majority of the framers rejected this proposal, however, reasoning that since government was limited to those powers granted by the Constitution and the Constitution did not empower government to infringe upon those rights, a bill of rights was unnecessary. They further argued the potential danger of such a list: Failure to include a specific right might imply that that right was unprotected. These arguments did not convince Mason, who was so upset at the omission that he refused to sign the Constitution. Mason went on to become a leading opponent of its ratification.

      Federalist Papers Essays by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay supporting ratification of the Constitution. Originally published in newspapers under the pseudonym “Publius” (Latin for “the people”), they were gathered together in 1788 and published in two volumes as The Federalist.

      As the debates played out, it became clear that without a bill of rights, the Constitution would not be ratified. But Federalists feared that calling another Constitutional Convention to modify the existing document would lead to new debates about issues far afield from a bill of rights. Therefore, Federalists conceded the issue by promising that if the Constitution was ratified, they would support an amendment to provide a bill of rights. This broke the logjam in Massachusetts, which voted for ratification in February 1788, followed by the required ninth state, New Hampshire, in June of that same year.

      Although approval by nine states led to ratification of the Constitution, four states still remained opposed and thus not part of the new nation. Not only would their failure to ratify leave the United States geographically split, but two of the four states were seen as key to the nation’s success: Virginia and New York. The outcome was not clear in either state. Virginia, whose ratifying convention convened before New York’s, became the focus of attention. At Virginia’s convention, a debate between the Anti-Federalist Patrick Henry and the Federalist James Madison proved to be a defining moment. Indeed, Joseph Ellis argues that it might be “the most consequential debate in American history.”⁴⁶

      Of the two men, Henry was, by far, the better orator. But Madison was, by far, the more prepared. In the end, Madison’s soft-spoken, point-by-point rebuttal of Henry’s theatrical criticisms of the Constitution won out. Virginia voted to ratify by a vote of 89 to 79 on June 25. Without this important turning point, Virginia would not have joined the United States, assuring a division between northern and southern states. Had the Anti-Federalists won in Virginia, the confidence of other states in the new national government might well have been shaken. Still, it is worth remembering that although Madison’s position prevailed in the vote to ratify the Constitution, Henry’s passionate defense of liberty strongly influenced the eventual decision to amend that Constitution to add a bill of rights.

      Amending the Constitution

      The Articles of Confederation had all but precluded amendments by requiring that they receive unanimous support from all the states. The framers now made the process easier, but not so easy that amendments would overwhelm the Constitution. Indeed, the U.S. Constitution stands out not only for its longevity but also for its relatively few amendments as compared with the constitutions of the states and many other countries. Plenty of amendments have been suggested (well over 10,000), but only 33 have been formally proposed to the states and only 27 of those have been ratified. The first 10 of these make up the Bill of Rights.⁴⁷ (See Table 2.3 for descriptions of the six formally proposed amendments that were never ratified.)

      Table 2.3

      Source: Mount, Steve. “Constitutional Topic: The Census.” (http://www.usconstitution.net/constamfail.html).

      As a stark contrast, consider France, which has had 15 different constitutions since 1789 and has existed under monarchy and dictatorship as well as under various republics. France’s current constitution was introduced in 1958 and, as of 2018, had already been amended 18 times. Or take an example from within the United States: The state of Alabama has had six constitutions since becoming the twenty-second state in 1819, and its current one—adopted in 1901—has been amended 928 times⁴⁸ as of 2018. The stability of the U.S. Constitution is partly attributable to its ambiguity. That ambiguity has allowed flexibility in interpreting the Constitution, and flexibility of interpretation has helped to ward off frequent amendments.

      Picture Yourself …

      Amidst СКАЧАТЬ