October 08, 2007

Last week I received a link to an article by Laurence M. Vance entitled: Is Our Government Legitimate? The article questions the validity of the government established by the Constitution because the members of the Federal [Constitutional] Convention were not empowered to write a new constitution. They were sent by their individual State "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation."

Under the Articles, any revision required the consent of all the States because the document was a compact [contract] or union between the thirteen united States. Since the Constitution went into effect when the 9th State ratified it [New Hampshire on June 21, 1788], adoption of the Constitution could, in the words of Mr. Vance, be "the most successful fraud in American history."

In the author's opinion, the invalidity question became moot on May 29, 1790, when Rhode Island became the last of the original 13 States to ratify the Constitution. Since Congress began to function under the Constitution on March 4, 1789, an argument could be made that the government was invalid for approximately 15 months. Even if that was the case, the government established by the Constitution could not be invalid after March 4, 1789, because on that date, all 13 united States had agreed to operate under a new contract called the Constitution for the United States of America.

It appears, from the following comments, that Mr. Vance believes the Founders, via the Constitution, destroyed the system of government established by the Articles of Confederation and consolidated the States and their people into one nation. This, according to Vance, opened the door for the government in Washington D.C. to exert unlimited control over every aspect of our lives:

The trouble with the corrupt, bloated, intrusive, out-of-control, evil monstrosity known as the federal government did not begin with - as destructive to liberty as they have been - Bush and the Republicans or LBJ and the Great Society or even FDR and the New Deal. We must go back even further than the tremendous increase in the size and scope of the government that we experienced under Wilson and Lincoln to locate where the trouble started. The first step was taken when the Philadelphia Convention was hijacked by those who desired a consolidated government instead of a confederate one.

[T]he unpleasant history of the origin of the Constitution should at least help to quash the epidemic of Constitution worship among those who wish to return to its principles.

Although we would certainly be much better off if we returned to the limited government that the Constitution was supposed to set up - and perhaps that is the best we can hope for - it would be better if we could return to the government that the Framers of the Constitution destroyed.

Is Mr. Vance's assessment correct? Did the Framers of the Constitution destroy the system of government established by the Articles of Confederation and establish a consolidated government or did they simply modify and expand the existing federal system?

When the Federal Convention convened in May of 1787, there were two opposing factions. One side wanted to abolish the existing federal system of government and consolidate the States into one nation under the control of a "national" or central government. The other side favored a modification of the "federal" system of government that had been established by the Articles of Confederation.

On May 29, 1787, Edmund Randolph, Governor of Virginia, gave a long and detailed speech in which he enumerated the defects in the Articles of Confederation. He concluded his remarks by introducing a set of fifteen resolutions that he hoped the Convention would adopt as the "leading principles whereon to form a new government." These resolutions, which were written by James Madison, are known as the "Virginia Plan." The first of these resolutions read as follows:

1. Resolved that the Articles of Confederation ought to be so corrected & enlarged as to accomplish the objects proposed by their institution; namely, 'common defence, security of liberty and general welfare.'"

During a discussion that followed the introduction of his resolutions, Randolph "candidly confessed that they were not for a federal government; he meant a strong consolidated union, in which the idea of states should be nearly annihilated."

The following day, Randolph moved the Convention to consider the first of his resolutions proposed the day before. In response, a motion was made to postpone debate on Randolph's resolution and consider the following instead:

"1. Resolved, That a union of the States merely federal, will not to accomplish the objects proposed by the articles of confederation, namely, 'common defence, security of liberty and general welfare.'

2. Resolved, That no treaty or treaties among any of the States as sovereign, will accomplish or secure their common defence, liberty, or welfare.

3. Resolved, That a national government ought to be established, consisting of a supreme judicial, legislative, and executive.

Those opposed to a national form of government stated that if the first of these resolutions was agreed to, the work of the Convention would be at an end because the delegates were only empowered to alter or revise the existing confederation between the several States. As a consequence, the first two resolutions were rejected.

The third resolution, in the words of Robert Yates from New York, "had also its difficulties; the term supreme required explanation. It was asked whether it was intended to annihilate the State governments? It was answered, only so far as the powers intended to be granted to the new government should clash with the States, when the latter was to yield."

With only 8 States present, the third resolution, with the above explanation and understanding, was agreed to by a vote of 6 to 1 with New York divided. This is how the Convention began its work. Following this vote, the Convention began debate on other resolutions contained in the Virginia Plan.

By June 19, nineteen resolutions, which originated from the Virginia Plan, were reported to the Convention. The first of these stated:

1. Resolved, that it is the opinion of this Committee that a national government ought to be established, consisting of a Supreme Legislative, Judiciary and Executive.

The following day, Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut made a motion to expunge the word "national" from the above resolution and retain the proper title of "Government of the United States." (Government of the States. The word united is merely an adjective to describe the association between the States) This proposal passed in the affirmative. This single act was the beginning of the end for the proponents of a national or consolidated system of government.

Ten days later, on June 30, Gunning Bedford of Delaware made the following statement:

That all the States at the present are equally sovereign and independent, has been asserted from every quarter in this house. Our deliberations here are a confirmation of the position; and I may add to it, that each of them act from interested, and many from ambitious motives. Look at the votes which have been given on the floor of this house. The larger States proceed as if our eyes were already perfectly blinded. Impartiality with them is already out of the question, the reported plan is their political creed, and they support it, right or wrong. Pretences to support ambition are never wanting. Their cry is, where is the danger? And they insist that although the powers of the general government will be increased, yet it will be for the good of the whole; and the three great States form a majority of the people of America, they never will hurt or injure the lesser States. I do not, gentlemen trust you. The larger State will be rivals, but not against each other, they will be rivals against the rest of the States. The small States never can agree to the Virginia Plan; and why is it still urged? Will you crush the smaller States, or must they be left unmolested? Sooner than be ruined, there are foreign powers who will take us by the hand. I say this not to threaten or intimidate, but that we should reflect seriously before we act. If we once leave this floor, and solemnly renounce your new project, what will be the consequence? You will annihilate your federal government, and the ruin must stare you in the face. LET US THEN DO WHAT IS IN OUR POWER- AMEND AND ENLARGE THE CONFEDERATION, BUT NOT ALTER THE FEDERAL SYSTEM." [Emphasis added]

The delegates, after heated debate, which nearly resulted in dissolution of the Convention, did exactly what Mr. Bedford suggested. The proposed constitution, in its final form, was simply a revision and expansion of the federal system of government established by the Articles of Confederation. [EN-1]

In Federalist Essay No. 40, James Madison wrote that the principles forming the foundation of the Articles of Confederation were being carried over into the new constitution:

"The truth is that the great principles of the Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered less as absolutely new, than as the expansion of principles which are found in the articles of Confederation."

In Essay No. 45, Madison supported the above statement with the following:

"If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL powers. The regulations of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them." [Emphasis not added]

The Constitution, as stated by Madison, did not change the nature of the general government. This is further confirmed by the retention of the term "United States of America." The term, as used in the Articles of Confederation, specifically referred to a union or compact [contract] between the several States. If the Founders intended to abolish the confederation and establish a consolidated government, then why did they retain a term that specifically refers to a union or confederation between sovereign States? [EN-2]

We need not look any further than Article VII of the Constitution to refute the assertion that the Constitution abolished the confederation between the several States and consolidated them into one nation:

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names." [EN-3]

The words "between the States" were added by a special motion in the Convention "to confine the operation of the government to those States ratifying it." The delegates signed the Constitution not as representatives of the American people, as comprising one consolidated nation, but as representatives of their individual State. [EN-4]

If the Constitution dissolved the confederation between the several States then why was it established "between the States" and why did it require the "Consent of the States" as independent sovereign entities? [EN-5]

The answer is elementary. As stated in the preamble, the purpose of the Constitution was to perfect, not abolish, the Union that had been established between the several States by the Articles of Confederation. [EN-6] Since the Constitution was an expansion of the federal system of government established by the Articles, the government created by that document cannot be a consolidated government because it is the government of the States united by the compact called the Constitution FOR the United States of America. [EN-7]

End notes:

EN-1. The federal government has never been, by definition or intent, "our government" as Mr. Vance asserts in the title of his article. The federal government has always been the States' government.

Noah Webster's dictionary, published in 1844, provided the following definitions concerning the system of government established by the Constitution. They refute the assertion that the Constitution established a consolidated government:

"COMPACT. n. An agreement; a contract between parties; a word that may be applied in a general sense to any covenant or contract between individuals; but it is more generally applied to agreements between nations and states, as treaties and confederacies. So the constitution of the United States is a political contract between the states, etc.

CONFEDERATION. n. 1. The act of confederating; a league; a compact for mutual support; alliance, particularly of princes, nations or states. The United States are sometimes called the confederation.

E PLURIBUS UNUM. One composed of many. The motto of the United States, consisting of many states confederated.

FEDERAL. a. From Latin foedus, a league. 1. Pertaining to a league or contract; derived from an agreement or covenant between parties, particularly between nations. 2. Consisting in a contract between parties, particularly and chiefly between states or nations; founded on alliance or mutual agreement; as a federal government, such as that of the United States.

UNION. n. States united. Thus, the united states are sometimes called the union."

Shortly after his death in 1850, John C. Calhoun's essay entitled "A Discourse on the Constitution and Government of the United States" was published in book form. Calhoun, who had been Vice President of the United States from 1825 to 1832, wrote the following concerning the system of government established by the Constitution:

It is federal, because it is the government of States united in a political union, in contradistinction to a government of individuals, that is, by what is usually called, a social compact. To express it more concisely, it is federal and not national because it is the government of a community of States, and not the government of a single State or Nation.

He went on to state:

Ours is a system of governments, compounded of the separate governments of the several States composing the Union, and of one common government of all its members, called the Government of the United States. [Government of the States united] The former proceeded the latter, which was created by their agency.

In his 1878 book, "The Republic of Republics," Bernard Janin Sage, a constitutional attorney, wrote the following:

The title is 'Constitution of the United States,' and the preamble says: 'We, the people of the united states, * * do ordain and establish this constitution for the united states of America.' Whose constitution then is it? The title answers, 'the constitution of the * states.' Who is it for? The preamble answers, 'this constitution for the * states.' The states then are the important subjects of these sentences, while the word 'united' -- meaning associated -- is a mere adjective. These phrases obviously refer to pre-existent states, united by compact. It was only as such bodies that the 'people' could become parties to the constitution, for each individual citizen was a member of a state, and had no right whatever to act politically, except in such body and as such member.

EN-2. "If the federal convention had meant to excluded the idea of 'union' -- that is, of several and separate sovereignties joining in confederacy -- they would have said: 'We the people of America;' for union necessarily involves the idea of competent states.." Bernard Janin Sage, "The Republic of Republics."

EN-3. In his 1868 book, "The Federal Government, Its True Nature and Character," Abel Upshur wrote:

If the Constitution has superceded the Articles of Confederation, it is because the parties to those articles have agreed that it should be so. If they have not so agreed, there is no Constitution, and the Articles of Confederation are still the only political tie among the States. We need not, however, look beyond the attestation of the Constitution itself, for full evidence of this point. It professes to have been 'done by the unanimous consent of the States present, &c.,' and not in the name or by the authority of 'the people of the United States.'

EN-4. The assertion that the States and their people were consolidated into one nation called the United States of America is, in the words of Bernard Janin Sage "...an absurdity like saying that thirteen persons were formed into one person, called the united persons."

EN-5. Henry Lee said the following in the Virginia Convention of 1788 debating ratification of the proposed constitution: "If this were a consolidated government, ought it not to be ratified by a majority of the people, as individuals, and not as states?"

EN-6. In his 1868 book, "A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States; its Causes, Character, Conduct and Results," Alexander Stephens wrote:

[T]he introduction of the word Union has a wonderful significance of itself. The new Constitution was proposed 'in order to form a more perfect Union,' that is, it was to make more perfect 'the Union' then existing. That, as we have seen, was a Union of States under the Articles of Confederation. It was to revise these Articles, to enlarge the powers under them, or, in other words, to perfect that Union, that the Convention was called; and that was the object aimed at in all their labors to the conclusion of their work as set forth in this Preamble.

EN-7. The amendment process helps answer the assertions made by Mr. Vance in his article. Article V of the Constitution provides only two methods for proposing amendments to the document. Two-thirds of the States [34] can request a Constitutional Convention or Congress [two-thirds of both Houses] can propose amendments. In either case it takes a vote of three-fourths of the States [38] to ratify any proposed change. Neither Congress nor a majority of the American people can amend the Constitution. Likewise, neither the federal government nor the whole people can override a three-fourths vote of the States. The 38 smallest States, with a minority of the population, can bind the remaining 12 States with a majority of the population. This proves conclusively that the parties to the Constitution are the individual States and the Constitution did not establish a consolidated government.

Now Available! See Editor's review here.

"The Bill of Rights Does Not Grant You Any Constitutional Rights"
By Robert Greenslade and Claude Ellsworth

$10.00-includes shipping and any applicable sales tax.

Send to-

PSCS
1125B Arnold Drive #123
Martinez, CA 94553

Note: We have several hundred copies that contain a few minor typos in a couple of quotes and a footnote. The average reader would probably miss them. However, with the purchase of a book we are offering these as seconds for $3.00 each to cover shipping in the event the reader wants to give a copy to a friend or relative. There is no limit and this offer is good until they are all gone.

Email with any questions concerning the book to-rbgreenslade [at] yahoo.com

Robert Greenslade focuses his writing on issues surrounding the federal government and the Constitution. He believes politicians at the federal level, through ignorance or design, are systematically dismantling the Constitution in an effort to expand their power and consolidate control over the American people. He has dedicated himself to resurrecting the true intent of the Constitution in the hope that the information will contribute, in some small way, to restoring the system of limited government established by the Constitution.

If you are interested in finding out more about the Constitution, take a look at this book. I use it in many of my articles and it is the best book I've found on this subject. Bob

The Federal Government: Its True Nature and Character: Being a Review of Judge Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.

Reprint of the 1868 edition. ''Perhaps the ablest analysis of the nature and character of the federal government that has ever been published. It has remained unanswered.'' This review of Judge Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States is perhaps the ablest analysis of the nature and character of the Federal Government that has ever been published. It has remained unanswered. Indeed, we are not aware that any attempt has been made to challenge the soundness of its reasoning. The great vise of Judge Story and the Federalists consisted in desiring the clothe the federal government with almost monarchical power, whereas the States had carefully and resolutely reserved the great mass of political power for themselves. The powers which they delegated to the federal government were few, and were general in their character. Those which they reserved embraced their original and inalienable sovereignty, which no state imagined it was surrendering when it adopted the constitution. Mr. Madison dwelt with great force upon the fact that ''a delegated is not a surrendered power.'' The states surrendered no powers to the federal government -- they only delegated them. 160 pages.

Archives

The ·2004 Declaration of Independence

The Constitution and YOU Part 1

The Constitution and YOU Part 2

The Constitution and YOU Part 3

No Senator Clinton - Government is the one Squeezing Consumers

From the Another Usurpation of Power in the Name of Patriotism Department

Sunday Was "Constitution Day"

"Newspapers in Education" needs an Education on the Constitution and Second Amendment

If Women have the Right to an Abortion then I have the Right to Own a Firearm

Left Wing Socialist wants to make Minutemen Domestic Terrorists

A Catch-22 will Stop Plan by Democrats to Pull American Troops out of Iraq

Plan to Give the District of Columbia a Voting Representative in the House of Representatives Unconstitutional

Hillary has a Bogeyman in her Closet Concerning her Latest Position on the War in Iraq

Out of Chaos comes Control

"Government of the People, by the People and for the People" -- or Not?

Would the Repeal of the Second Amendment Empower the Federal Government and Negate the Right to Own a Firearm?

Are the Barry Bonds' Record-Setting Baseballs Subject to the Federal Income Tax?

Complete Archives for Robert Greenslade