Chapter 26 1. Fundamental consensus

Now that I think about it, it is not without reason and reason that the representatives of the Philadelphia Conference in 1787 spent so much time designing chain links and building a firewall. We know that the task of this meeting is to establish a "strong national supreme government".Although this consensus was reached at the beginning of the meeting, doubts and doubts shrouded the meeting, and opinions of opposition and questioning were endless.Because everyone (including Madison and Randolph) has no idea about this proposed future government, and no one knows what it will look like.If the design is wrong and a dictatorship machine is produced, and the dictatorship is still a huge monster, then there will be big troubles.This cannot but make people vigilant.

What's more, many people don't want any "supreme national government" at all, because they have had enough of the British.It was precisely because they could not stand the rule of the supreme government of the British Empire that they took up arms and fought against the British army.In other words, the American people resolutely fought the War of Independence, not for the purpose of being ruled, but for not being ruled.This is why the US soldiers led by Washington conquered the country but did not sit in the country. The 13 states headed by Virginia united to fight for independence, but parted ways after the victory.Now they are sitting together again to discuss the establishment of a "strong national government" out of necessity.As long as there is still a way, they will not want this government.Of course, they also knew that it was impossible, so they had no choice but to bite the bullet.But no matter how it is designed, one thing is certain, that is, the United States of America must not be turned into a second British Empire, and the dictatorship of the British should be replaced by the dictatorship of the Americans themselves.

Therefore, at the beginning of the meeting, they determined a principle: the future supreme government of the country must have a separation of powers.This point, no one objected.Another point of view is also very unified, that is, although the sovereignty and power of the states must be collected and handed over to a "strong national government", power cannot be centralized in individuals (such as the president) or in institutions ( such as Congress), but can only centralize power in law (Constitution).Specifically, it is to unify the country with a constitution.All people, all institutions, and all states or states (State, after the Constitution takes effect, we will call it a state, no longer a state), must abide by and must not violate this mutually agreed constitution.

Interestingly, this motion was not proposed by the so-called "nationalists", but by those "nationalists".Specifically, Paterson and the others put forward in the "New Jersey Plan".In fact, the small state does not necessarily oppose the establishment of a national government (New Jersey was not present when discussing this issue, Delaware voted for it, and Paterson and others actively promoted the ratification of the Constitution after returning), and they also understand that once a national government is established, The states have to surrender at least part of their sovereignty and power.Their opinions are only: first, the sovereignty of each state cannot be handed over completely, and must be reserved; second, hand over as little as possible; Parliament), but only to the law, because the law is stern and impartial.Handing it over to the law is much more reassuring than handing it over to people.

Perhaps it is precisely because of this consideration that the small state proposed in the "New Jersey Plan" that "the Articles of Confederation, the legislation of the Confederation, and the treaties of the Confederation are the supreme law of the Confederation" The states and groups of the law, the confederation has the right to use the military to force it to obey. This actually supported the basic idea of ​​the Virginia plan, but it was more radical than Madison and the others, so both Mason and Randolph criticized Paterson for "abuse of force."But Paterson and the others proposed the use of force to solve the problem of the weakness of the confederal system; and the reason why they insisted on the confederal system was to preserve the rights of the states, especially the equal voting rights of the states.Therefore, although they put forward the concept of "supreme law", they still regard these supreme laws as the laws of the confederation.Their meaning is very clear: as long as "the Articles of Confederation, Confederation legislation, and the Confederation Treaty are the highest laws of the Confederacy" and there are strong means to sanction those who "break the law and discipline", the goal of nation building can be achieved without changing the Confederation system.

In fact, this is an idea with radical constitutional significance, that is, as long as there is one or several "supreme laws" and a "law enforcement force", a country can be established, and a "strong national government" is not necessarily necessary.Therefore, they proposed a unicameral system of parliament, an equal system of seats, and a multi-person system of administrators.The unicameral system of the parliament is for the convenience of legislation (fewer people are easier to handle); the equal system of seats is used to keep the states (the confederation system will not be changed);Unfortunately, history cannot be assumed.We can no longer imagine what the United States of America would look like if the Constitutional Convention accepted Paterson’s plan. We only know that the plan that requires only the constitution and the army, and no or basically no government has not been passed.

In fact, Paterson's plan may not work.Randolph and Mason have a good illustration of this. On June 16, Randolph said that the unified country could not use force, only through legislation, and the Confederate Congress was not competent.In the past, legislative and executive powers were mixed in one body of the Confederate Congress, and nothing happened, in fact, thanks to the incompetence of this body.Mason also said on June 20 that the American people are so wary of their own interests and their civil rights. The purse strings are handed over to a single institution that they did not directly elect.

However, with the "National Government" being renamed the "Federal Government" and the Constituent Assembly agreeing to an equal voting system in the Senate, the concerns of the small state no longer exist.This is, the "principles of the Supreme Law" they put forward highlight its legal and constitutional significance, or in other words, only the legal and constitutional significance remain.If this bill is adopted, the authority and nobility of the national government that the Virginia plan hopes will have a legal basis and will be legalized.It can be seen that these two proposals are actually complementary, and a compromise between the two factions is also necessary and beneficial.The second day after the meeting reached the "Great Compromise", that is, on July 17, Luther Martin filed a motion to write the "Supreme Law Principles" into the new constitution.This motion was passed unanimously and was included in the subsequent report of the Committee of Details.

The report of the Committee of Details is actually the first draft of the Constitution. This principle of the "New Jersey Plan" became the eighth article of the first draft of the Constitution, but the "Confederacy" was renamed the "Federation", the "Articles of Confederation" was renamed the "Constitution of the United States", and the use of force was deleted. On August 23, the Constitutional Convention unanimously approved this provision, modified by Rutledge (and again by Madison on August 25).It later became the main content of Article VI of the Federal Constitution.This article stipulates that the Federal Constitution, the federal laws enacted under the Constitution, and the treaties concluded or to be concluded under the federal mandate are the supreme law of the country.Judges in each state are bound by the supreme laws of the nation when their constitutions and laws contradict it.Members of the Federal and State Assemblies, and all executive and judicial officers of the Commonwealth and the States, shall take an oath to uphold this Constitution.

We know that the Federal Constitution formulated by the Philadelphia Conference in 1787 can be said to be as precious as ink, with only 7 articles in total.Among them, the first article is about legislation, the second article is about administration, the third article is about judiciary, the fourth article stipulates the relationship between the states and the federation, the fifth article stipulates the procedure for amending the constitution, and the seventh article stipulates the entry into force of the constitution. There is almost no nonsense . "Principles of the Supreme Law" actually monopolize Article 6 (the other part talks about the debt issue), which shows its importance.

Of course it's important.Because it is this clause that embodies the spirit of the rule of law and constitutionalism.The rule of law is not the rule of law.It is not "ruling the country by law", but "ruling the country by law".The rule of law (rule of law) is based on people (rulers) as the main body and the law as the means, so it may (of course not necessarily) be the rule of man, but the "man who governs the country" must use the law as the means when exercising his power and basis only.The rule of law (rule of law) is based on the law as the main body and people (enforcers) as the means.Under the rule of law, it is not the people who govern the country, but the law.Whether it is legislative officials, administrative officials, or judicial officials, they are all tools and means for the law to express its will.The executive executes the laws of the legislature, the judicial officers interpret the laws of the legislature, and the legislators make laws according to the constitution.A law enacted by a legislator cannot stand if it is unconstitutional.In this sense, they are all people who enforce the law (enforcers), but the legislators perform the responsibilities stipulated and entrusted by the Constitution.Moreover, no matter legislation, law enforcement, or judiciary, they must ultimately obey the Constitution.That is to say, in the relationship between man (enforcer) and the law, the law is the first; in the relationship between the law and the law, the highest law is the first; in the highest law, the constitution is the first .It should be said that this is the most fundamental consensus reached by the Constituent Assembly, and it is also the most important outcome of the meeting. Since the constitution is the first, of course, it must not be sloppy, and every word must be carefully considered and haggled over every detail.This is the reason why the conference was held for more than a month after the representatives of the conference reached a compromise on many issues, and after the first draft of the constitution was released.During the period, on August 15 and August 18, Rutledge complained twice that the meeting was getting longer and more boring, and the result was still a marathon.Because not only are old problems unresolved, but new ones are also emerging.For example, the vice president is a new issue; the amendment is also a new issue.These two issues were raised and discussed during the last 3 days of the third session of the meeting.But anyway, on September 10, after discussing the constitutional amendment and the approval of the new constitution, the representatives decided to hand over the rest of the work to the "Text Arrangement and Style Committee" elected the day before yesterday (September 8).This was the last committee appointed by the Constitutional Convention. The five elected members were Johnson (Connecticut), Hamilton (New York), Gouveno Morris (Pennsylvania), Madison (Virginia), Rufus King (Massachusetts) .Among them, the 35-year-old Guweno Morris wrote the best, and he mainly completed the task of finalizing the manuscript. Three days later, Johnson, chairman of the Typesetting and Style Committee, presented the committee report.From the meeting on May 25 to the drafting of the constitution on September 12, the constitution-making work has been going on for three or four months.Conceived in October, as soon as she gave birth, the grapes in Turpan were about to ripen. Many representatives felt that a good harvest was in sight, and no one thought that it would cause trouble.