The Philadelphia Convention (as it is properly known) was called by Congress as a result of the growing problems between the states because of the Articles of Confederation. Though the result of this meeting was one of undeniable importance, there is an argument that our United States Constitution, now in its 218th year of operation, was in fact adopted illegally.
The purpose of this article is three-fold: to show that the Articles of Confederation were flawed and had to be replaced; to prove that the Convention did not exceed its mandate to revise the Articles; and of course to establish that the adoption of the Constitution was not illegal.
The Articles of Confederation were flawed.
The Articles of Confederation were passed by the Continental Congress in late 1777, and eventually ratified in 1781. What’s interesting is that 11 states ratified within one year of the Articles being presented to them. Delaware ratified soon after that, but Maryland did not ratify the Articles for two whole years plus a day after Delaware. This is a prime example of one of the larger flaws in the Articles: there had to be unanimous consent among the states in order to amend them. Can you imagine if the Articles were still in effect today? It would be practically impossible to amend it!
Other flaws included:
•Congress’ inability to raise a military or prevent war
•Congress’ inability to regulate disputes among the states (Ironically, disputes with Virginia and New York was the chief reason Maryland took so long in ratifying the Articles to begin with!)
•Congress’ inability to raise taxes (they could only request money from the states, and the states were under no obligation to contribute)
The origin of these problems can be found in the records of the Convention:
In speaking of the defects of the Confederation, [Mr. Randolph] professed a high respect for its authors, and considered them as having done all that patriots could do, in the then infancy of the science of constitutions, and of confederacies; when the inefficiency of requisitions was unknown— no commercial discord kind arisen among any States—no rebellion had appeared, as in Massachusetts—foreign debts had not become urgent—the havoc of paper money had not been foreseen—treaties kind not been violated—and perhaps nothing better could be obtained, from the jealousy of the States with regard to their sovereignty.
The Founders saw the need for vast reform, and so they proceeded to do so.
The Convention did not exceed its mandate to revise the Articles.
The real reason for the Convention was debated on May 29, when Edmund Randolph and Charles Pinckney presented a list of problems with the Articles and the proposed remedy. Before the convention began James Madison had drafted what came to be known as the Virginia Plan. It fell to Mr. Pinckney to present this plan. The final pargrpah of his resolution reads, “Resolved, that the amendments which shall be offered to the Confederation, by the Convention, ought, at a proper time or times, after the approbation of Congress, to be submitted to an assembly or assemblies of representatives, recommended by the several legislatures, to be expressly chosen by the people to consider and decide thereon.” This paragraph immediately precedes the Virginia Plan, which lends a rather strong argument that the Founders knew what they were doing when they gathered in Philadelphia.
On the other hand, not all the delegates would initially support Madison’s plan.
“General PINCKNEY expressed a doubt whether the act of Congress recommending the Convention, or the commissions of the Deputies to it, would authorize a discussion of a system founded on different principles from the [Articles of Confederation].…
Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS explained the distinction between a federal and a national, supreme government; the former being a mere compact resting on the good faith of the parties; the latter having a complete and compulsive operation. He contended, that in all communities there must be one supreme power, and one only.”
A loose confederation of weak republics did not stand a chance against the mighty empires of Britain and France. The political environment produced by the Articles was ripe for discord among these sovereign republics. Had the Articles continued in effect, the Union would have either been conquered or disintegrated under tension. Once again, the Founders saw the need for change and acted upon this perception.
The adoption of the Constitution was not illegal.
Whatever you may think of the document presented by the Convention to Congress, it’s pretty hard to argue that its ratification was illegal. The Constitution states in Article VII that, “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.” The members of the Convention made no presumption to force any state to be bound by the Constitution if they did not ratify it.
However, it is also true that the amending the Articles required unanimous approval among the states. As we have already seen, the product of the Constitutional Convention was simply a very radical amendment. The Articles’ requirement was satisfied on May 29, 1790 when Rhode Island voted to ratify the document.
While it is entirely possible that the Articles could have worked if given time, the fact of the matter is that the fragile Union couldn’t wait that long. The Founders were able to effectively overcome their own oversight with a drastic, yet legal, remedy.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_Constitution
http://www.historycentral.com/NN/Journal/Index.html
http://www.usconstitution.net/
http://www.articlesofconfederation.com/
Go Noah! :D