Article. VI.
Clause 1
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation
-
By way of background, I will now tell you what was said in the room where it happened (kind of).
We do know that there was a conflict about where the United States Capital was supposed to be put; this resulted in a square shaped thing being set aside, which only some of which exists as a cut-out of Maryland today. That was one of the bargaining chips in play to explain the adoption of this clause. The other bargaining chip was to do with the assumption of state debts by the new Federal Government as part of the Adoption of this Constitution.
At the heart of the general theory of the epistemology of money, is the notion that that money is backed by legal force. Taxation which comes from the Latin "I pay" is coupled with the threat from the central government to throw people into prison or other punishment for failing to pay.
So what does this have to do with this clause? The previous government formed under the Articles of Confederation, really only had the power to half-heartedly claim minor taxation for the services of the Army and to direct that same Army. It worked excellently when it came to the problem of fighting a war of independence but was utterly rubbish at doing literally anything else. The Articles of Confederation Government, was so rubbish at being a government, that that is what prompted the series of Constitutional Conventions to hack out a new Constitution and invent a proper federal government that was actually capable of doing governing.
That proper federal government could only properly operate if it had power over the Army, the laws of the Land, and the money supply. So in the room where it happened (the room where it happened), we absolutely know that the New York Delegate which included Hamilton, fought for the right for the Central Bank to be headquartered in New York City as that was obviously where the biggest trade centre was. The master stroke was having the new proper federal government assume the $75,000,000 in debts that the states had accumulated in fighting the war of independence and with those debts, the authority and ability to collect and enforce the collection of those debts through taxation.
As far as any of the United States Constitution goes, this might possibly be one of the few sections which I not only approve of but which I think is utterly essential and vital to the running of a proper federal government.
Clause 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
-
We again find another utterly essential and vital clause in the United States Constitution. This clause also demonstrates the paradox operating at the heart of every constitution.
A constitution in principle is the set of rules by which you make other rules. In most theories of law, the existence of some kind of constitution, whether written or unwritten, is the thing which gives rise to that new body corporate (nations, states, companies, churches, associations, clubs, et cetera) as a separate and distinct legal person which has the ability to act at law in their own right.
The very azimuth kernel of the paradox is that the constitution has to give itself the power to give itself power. The reason why This Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land is because this clause in particular gave itself the legal power to be the supreme Law of the Land.
The other side of the paradox though is that as the Laws, all Treaties made, and the Judges in every State, are bound by This Constitution, if the Constitution itself is bad, then resulting law must contain some central element of badness which is just waiting to bite. In that respect, the unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom, which exists purely as the current sets of conventions is the best constitution of all as it lasts exactly as long as the current sets of conventions last. An unwritten constitution is obviously more subject to being pushed about by the whims of the people who want to push it about, but it is by nature infinitely more dynamic and responsive to the need of a constitution to change as times change,
Clause 3
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
-
This clause makes me wonder about the naivety of the framers of the Constitution. Did they really thing that an Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution would be enough to keep nefarious and dangerous people out? Having invented an impeachment process which very clearly and repeatedly does not work, did they ever dream about people like Buchanan, Jackson, Harding, Nixon, or Trump, assuming office?
Oaths work well when you have people who are sensible and broadly reasonable. When you have people who are unreasonable and who genuinely do not care about the consequences of their actions, then Oaths are useless. If someone is as good as their word but their word is in bad faith, then holding them to an Oath which they think only exists to serve pomp, circumstance, and ceremony, is a waste of time.
Also, I find the inclusion that no religious Test shall ever be required, as quite frankly bizarre. As accepted in 1788 there is no mention of religion anywhere else in the document. As this was written and agreed to before the Bill of Rights was tacked onto the end as an afterthought, then this part of this clause is trying to solve a problem which honestly didn't exist. When you consider that the colonies were started by a combination of Puritans, Anglicans, Lutherans, Baptists, Catholics, Orthodox, Jews, Muslims, and animists and non-conformists, and that they were already a swirling maelstrom of pluralism, then this inclusion seems unnecessary. Perhaps they were worried about one faction or another gaining influence and stealing away power for themselves? The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers both gloss over this.
Article. VII.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
-
Article VII states that there shall only be needed 9 of 13 states to Establish of this Constitution. I note that this then goes on to state that there were delegates from 12 states present; and that Rhode Island is missing. What I find weird about this is that while needing 9 of 12 is consistent with the requirement for three-quarters of the states needed to change the Constitution per Article V, why you wouldn't need all 13 at inception seems odd to me.
That one hold out was Rhode Island, who wouldn't ratify the Constitution until 1790, and even then it only happened after the other 12 States unanimously threatened a trade embargo against Rhode Island for non-compliance.
Rhode Island, to give it its full name at the time Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, wanted to retain the power to issue its own currency because that give it the power to enact its own monetary policy. Remember, whoever owns the debt has the power to collect that same debt and Rhode Island very much wanted to keep that power for itself.
It was their hold out and the agitation by the southern states who wanted to ensure that they retained the power to keep, maintain, and kill escaping slaves, which is why the Bill of Rights ended up being tack onto the end. Even in context, the Bill of Rights was never about ensuring rights for common folk but keeping and maintaining power by the rich and powerful.
Addenda:
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names:
(list of names)
In Convention Monday September 17th, 1787. Present
The States of:
New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Mr. Hamilton from New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
<><>
Resolved,
That the preceeding Constitution be laid before the United States in Congress assembled, and that it is the Opinion of this Convention, that it should afterwards be submitted to a Convention of Delegates, chosen in each State by the People thereof, under the Recommendation of its Legislature, for their Assent and Ratification; and that each Convention assenting to, and ratifying the Same, should give Notice thereof to the United States in Congress assembled. Resolved, That it is the Opinion of this Convention, that as soon as the Conventions of nine States shall have ratified this Constitution, the United States in Congress assembled should fix a Day on which Electors should be appointed by the States which shall have ratified the same, and a Day on which the Electors should assemble to vote for the President, and the Time and Place for commencing Proceedings under this Constitution
That after such Publication the Electors should be appointed, and the Senators and Representatives elected: That the Electors should meet on the Day fixed for the Election of the President, and should transmit their Votes certified, signed, sealed and directed, as the Constitution requires, to the Secretary of the United States in Congress assembled, that the Senators and Representatives should convene at the Time and Place assigned; that the Senators should appoint a President of the Senate, for the sole Purpose of receiving, opening and counting the Votes for President; and, that after he shall be chosen, the Congress, together with the President, should, without Delay, proceed to execute this Constitution.
By the unanimous Order of the Convention.
-
From Monday September 17th, 1787, the wheels are already set in motion to begin the practical outworking of the badness of this Constitution.
It should be noted that there is no prescription on how the States are to conduct their elections for their members to the House of Representatives and Senate, nor a prescription on how the States are to conduct their processes for deciding who the electors are, and in 1787 no limits on whom the States are allowed to deny the franchise to. The very notion of democracy in 1787 was seen as dangerous, with Hamilton writing in the Federalist Papers about his concerns and animosity to it, on the basis that the emotions of the People run hot and that allowing them the franchise would subject politics to the winds of popular fanaticism. Of course we know this to be true but the general opinion was that the franchise should only be extended to those people with skill and standing. The People, as agreed to by most of these delegates, are idiots.
I note that in these list of names, George Washington is already the President of the Convention and it is likely assumed that he would go on to be the first President of the United States in this new form of Government. In the subsequent elections, he would in fact go on unopposed; which already says that there was nobody else in the several states who loomed quite as large in the public opinion. I also note that both Hamilton and Madison who both wrote the bulk of the Federalist Papers as propaganda pieces for this Constitution, are present; as is everyone's favourite serial philanderer, bounder, cad, and bohemian, Ben Franklin. From what I can determine, I think his only contributions to the Conventions was a series of bon mots and tepid asides.
No comments:
Post a Comment