Chapter 11 2. Who ratifies the constitution

Since it is the "people" who formulate the constitution, it is of course only the "people" who have the right to ratify the constitution.This is what Madison and the others have long thought.In the "Virginia Plan" they proposed, it is clearly stipulated that "the amendments to the Articles of Confederation" (actually the new "Constitution of the Confederation") should be approved by the "Convention".This "People's Congress" is not our Chinese People's Congress.It was held specifically for the ratification of the constitution (including the ratification of the state constitution and the federal constitution), so it can also be translated as "Constituent Assembly" (the English name of this Philadelphia meeting is convention).However, the representatives of the Philadelphia Conference are appointed by the state assemblies. The conventions that ratify the constitution in the future should be directly elected by the people.The method of the meeting can be that the representatives of the whole country gather together for a meeting, or it can be discussed separately by the state congresses.In short, it is the People's Congress or the constitutional assemblies of the states, not the assemblies of the states, that ratify the constitution.

The proposal was equally opposed by those opposed to changing the nature of the conference and creating a national government. On June 5, when this clause was discussed at the meeting, Sherman of Connecticut immediately stated that this procedure of ratification by the people was unnecessary.His reason is: the Articles of Confederation have already stipulated that the amendment of the regulations only needs to be approved by the Congress of the Confederation and the assemblies of the states, and it is superfluous to submit it to the people for approval. Of course, everyone understands this truth.But the problem is, Madison's purpose is to formulate the constitution, not to amend the regulations. How can they follow the regulations?According to the provisions of the regulations, "unless the consent of the General Assembly of the Confederation is obtained, and subsequently confirmed by the various state assemblies, no amendments to the Articles of Confederation shall be made at any time."This is tantamount to saying that the Articles of Confederation cannot be amended, let alone reconstitutional.So Madison responded that the Articles of Confederation had problems in this regard, which made many state legislatures threaten to disapprove them at every turn.Rufus King, the representative of Massachusetts, even made it clear: the state legislatures are the losers of power in the approval process, how could they agree?I had to find another way.

The so-called "other method" matured in the subsequent discussions, that is, the new constitution was handed over to the state congresses, and the representatives were recommended by the state assemblies and elected by the people.So, what is the difference between the approval of the various state assemblies?Deputies to the people's congresses are elected by the people, aren't the members of state assemblies?Of course it is.However, although state legislators are also elected by the people, the state assembly only represents the interests of each state, not the entire "United States of America," nor the entire "American people."In other words, representatives of the Constitutional Convention and members of the Senate and House of Representatives have different representation.The state councilors and state assemblies represent the "state rights", and the state representatives and congresses represent the "civil rights".Therefore, even if the representatives of the Constituent Assembly elected by the states in the end are those of their Senate and House of Representatives, this meeting must be called the "Constituent Assembly" or "Congress", and cannot be called "State Assembly".

It seems that not only we Chinese attach great importance to name rectification, but Americans are also not sloppy.The reason why they dare not be sloppy is that they attach great importance to authorization, especially legislative authorization.Among them, the status of the authorizer is higher than that of the authorized person.Among all the authorizers, the status of the people is the highest.If the new constitution is ratified by the state assemblies, it means that the state assemblies are the authorizers.In this way, the federal constitution cannot be superior to the state constitutions, and the national government cannot be superior to the state governments.Because the state constitutions and state governments are authorized by the people.The people authorize the states, and the states authorize the whole country.In this way, have not the Federal Constitution and the national government become "grandchildren"?This is, of course, a far cry from the original intention of the Constitution (Madison elaborated on this in his speech on June 19).Obviously, the only way is for the new constitution and the new government to be directly authorized by the people, and must use the collective name of "the people of the United States."That is to say, the new constitution and new government in the future can only be higher than the state constitutions and state governments authorized by the people of the states only if their authorizers are not only the people but also the people of the United States.

This is bound to be resisted by those "state rightsists" who are trying their best to safeguard the sovereignty of the states.If Sherman's words on June 5 were relatively tactful (unnecessary), then Lan Xin's speech on June 20 was not very polite.Mr. Lanxin's speech is based on the premise that the existence of states is an irreversible fact.Everyone lives in their own state and is closely related to their own state.Therefore, he believes that whether the parliamentarians or representatives, whether they are elected by the state councils or the people of the states, what they represent will not be different. state", rather than "a mass of people scattered like sand".That said, don't expect the "representatives of the people" who attend the constitutional convention to represent only civil rights.Does not represent state power.They will also defend state power.As for counting on the states to "voluntarily give up their sovereignty", Lan Xin thinks it's not worth thinking about!He said sarcastically (I believe there must be a sneer on the corner of his mouth when he said this): "It is impossible to expect even one state to give up its sovereignty, let alone 13!".

Luther Martin in Maryland was also tough and clear-cut.He said he would rather sacrifice the national government than the state governments.Martin said that when they separated from Britain, the American people could have been united as one country.But they would rather establish themselves as 13 separate sovereigns than merge into one.Because they have entrusted their lives, rights, and safety to these separate sovereignties.They are rightly dependent on these sovereignty.The meaning is also very clear: Aren’t you talking about civil rights?Let me tell you—state rights are civil rights! In the debate on June 20, there was no confrontation except for Mason's statement that "the right of approval is not here, but with the people".The confrontation is mainly on July 23.When discussing the method of ratification of the Constitution, Aylesworth of Connecticut proposed that the new Constitution be submitted to the State Assembly for ratification.Paterson of New Jersey seconded, Mason and Randolph opposed.Giving the new constitution to the authority of the people, Mason said, was one of the most important and fundamental requirements of all claims.The state assemblies have no power to ratify this constitution.Since the Parliament is a product of the Constitution, how can there be any reason to ratify the Constitution in turn?If today's parliament has the power to approve, tomorrow's parliament has the power to deny.In this way, does it not place the national government in a weak and unstable position, and has to obey the laws of the states?What's more, the constitutions of many states themselves have not been approved by the people, and the governments of these states have not received clear and unquestionable authorization.Their constitution and government are based on a hypothetical mandate.This means that the state constitution and the legitimacy of the state government are inherently problematic. If the new constitution is approved by the state assembly, wouldn't it be double "illegal"?

Then Randolph added that it was no wonder that in some states the customary law prevailed over the Articles of Confederation.Because the Articles of Confederation are only approved by the state assemblies, not by the people, the highest authority!Therefore, "only by directly appealing to the people can the problem be solved." This time it was the turn of the opposition to make excuses.They also made rebuttals, but obviously not convincing.Gerry's (Massachusetts) point is that if you appeal to the people, you end up in a mess because the people can't agree on anything.Ellsworth said, in the past, who did the Confederate Congress apply for power?To the assemblies of the states, not to the people.What's more, the Articles of Confederation also stipulate that as long as the congresses of the states authorize it, the articles can be amended. Why should we make another one?

Aylsworth's statement was called "an inference without premises" by Goweno Morris.Because of today's Constitutional Convention, the Confederacy did not expect it at all.Moreover, Guweno Morris and Gorham (Massachusetts) both pointed out a very crucial point: According to the Articles of Confederation, any modification must be unanimously agreed by the 13 states.As soon as this remark came out, everyone fell silent.Because everyone knows that Rhodes Island has refused to send representatives to participate so far.If the constitutional approval process is designed according to the Articles of Confederation, it is tantamount to non-approval.Therefore, on July 23, the General Assembly approved the constitutional ratification plan advocated by Madison with the votes of 9 states in favor and 1 state (Delaware) against.

Once the problem of approval is solved, the problem of authorization is also easily solved.In the "Commission of Details Report" (the first draft of the Constitution) dated August 6, it was no longer the thirteen states that authorized the constitution, but "our New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence plantations, Connecticut , New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia", that is, the people of the 13 states.In this expression, there are both the people and the state.The struggle between civil rights and state rights appears to be a tie.

But the final victory belonged to the civil rights activists.This work is done towards the end of the meeting. On September 8, the meeting voted in writing, and elected a five-member committee to be responsible for revising the approved clauses, forming the style and order of the writing, and it was also called the "Writing Arrangement and Style Committee".The five elected commissioners were: Johnson (Connecticut), Hamilton (New York), Govino Morris (Pennsylvania), Madison (Virginia), and Rufus King (Massachusetts).It now appears that the work done by this committee is not just a technical treatment such as "formation of text style and arrangement order".They also tampered with very critical places.We know that in the "Summary of the Third Stage Debate" (that is, the results of the debate submitted to the Text Arrangement and Style Committee) on September 10, the people of 13 states were also authorized.But on September 12, two days later, in the report submitted by the Text Arrangement and Style Committee (the draft constitution), the names of 13 states disappeared, and the mandate became "We the People of the United States".Of course, it is impossible not to change.Since the Rhode Island and Providence plantations did not send representatives to the meeting, how could their names be misappropriated?It is not enough to write only the names of 12 states.Rhodes Island was already wary.If you remove his name, he will be even more unwilling or have more reasons not to join the Federation (in fact, Rhode Island is also the last state to ratify the Federal Constitution).Therefore, changing "the people of the 13 states" to "we the people of the United States" can also be regarded as a "technical treatment" with political wisdom.

But in this way, it is not only embedding flowers and trees, but also stealing the sky and changing the day.Because if the authorization is "the people of the 13 states", that is, the United States of America can still be regarded as a confederacy.Now, it is the "people of the United States" who are empowered, which means that the country's system has undergone major changes. Of course, this will not cause controversy, but the controversy happened before they "hands and feet".In fact, on the two issues of power base and state system, the debates on both sides are very fierce.The focus of the debate is not only whether the basis of power is state power or civil rights, but also whether the country's system should be a union of republics or a single republic.In other words, is it a confederation, a federation, or a unitary nation-state.