Ratification Without Representation

The United States Constitution is marketed as the framework for the republic and an amalgamation of founding ideas. The interpretation of said principles are in eternal dispute since the country that still abides by the written doctrine is awfully different from the one that ratified it. Many argue that the Constitution as drafted, was a perfect charter for the nation, and most modern amendments and interpretations are antithetical to the ethics of the founders. Others say the document is archaic and should abandoned for a more progressive commitment of rights to reflect the altered society of today. Everyone appears on board to change the current system, but very few have considered the difficult task of designing the legislative structure for a nation with the full consent of its diverse population. We the People must be in total agreement…

Bring Back the Articles!

It is important to the understand that the original ratification of the U.S. Constitution was met with significant opposition. The founders themselves could not agree on the assertion of rights, the sovereignty of states, or the size and scope of the federal government. Following the Revolutionary War, the Articles of Confederation were drafted as the new country’s first constitution. It gave considerable rights the states to govern as they pleased and outlined basic judicial precedent. Arguably the document was a perfect settlement of unity between the states that highlighted equal representation, congressional term limits, fair systems of banking and courts that would be preferrable even today.

The “issues” with the Articles were the lack of centralization and control. The federal government could not enforce taxation, assemble armies for unfavorable wars, or impose authority over state commerce and tariff imposition. There were clear growing pains in the young country plagued by inflation, territorial disputes and a lack of cohesion. The ideas laid out in the Declaration of Independence declared liberty for the independent colonies to experiment with different systems of law and commerce. The American patriots declared war with the intent of freeing the nation from unjust taxation, limited access to credit, and ill-disposed laws installed by an overbearing monarchy. The colonist got exactly what they fought for, but this liberty came with a cost.

Antifederalist Despair

The Second Constitution may have never been required if the developmental challenges facing the states had been allowed to play out. History tends to favor the victors, but the true heroes of ratification were the founders who opposed the drafting of the constitution in the first place. The conflict of ideas between the Federalists (Alexander Hamiliton, James Madison and John Jay) and the anti-federalists (Patrick Henry, George Mason, and Richard Henry Lee) was a battle of propaganda, slander, and of course politics.

Federalism is the system of government that imbues decentralization, division of powers, and state sovereignty. The drafters of the constitution opposed the principles of federalism, believing in a more powerful centralized government, but they gave themselves the title of Federalist to sway public opinion to their cause. The unjustly named Antifederalist were the actual advocates of independent states, individual rights and separation of governmental powers. Even in Colonial America, propogandists used double speak to defame their political opponents. Significant nuance is required to understand the struggle of the Antifederalists. They fought against a force designing a government that resembled the one they recently gained independence from. Without this oppositional force, the constitution would not have the Bill of Rights, three branches of government, or the autonomy of states to create their own laws. Even then, this heavily disputed document was not appropriately ratified and is ironically unconstitutional.

Only 4 of the 13 states were appropriately represented when drafting the new constitution. 9 were required to amend the original Articles of Confederation. They did not even meet quorum to legally replace the founding document. Just 38 of the 55 delegates signed the U.S. Constitution into law which is short of the required 75% of state’s votes needed to properly ratify the governing document. States were not allowed to send amendments, and congress mislead the states by saying the Constitution was unanimously decided upon. Rhode Island refused to send delegates to the convention in an act of defiance against the perceived coup d’etat. The state’s refusal to ratify the Constitution was met with threat of military invasion and a trade embargo. The public sentiment regarding the Constitution was heavily critical but most opposition was quelled by the Federalist who largely controlled the press. Not very democratic of our beloved founders.

“I have been ever opposed to the party, so falsely called federalists, because I believe them desirous of introducing, into our government, authorities hereditary or otherwise independent of the national will. these always consume the public contributions and oppress the people with labour & poverty”.

-Thomas Jefferson.

As written

The Constitution is clearly flawed, but even in its primal form it works exactly as intended. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison who wrote the document were compelled to do so with the goal of creating a centralized bank and controlling authority that supersedes the states. The federal government’s implementation of income tax, illegal declarations of war, and judicial overruling is not a distortion of the founding document, its affirmed by its very words. Those who wish to turn back the clock on constitutional interpretations may find themselves in the very same position devoid of any adjustments on the authority bestowed by the Constitution itself. As written, the charter of these United States gives too much power to the federal government and negates the doctrine of the Declaration of Independence.

Each time the Supreme Court overrides a district court or state law, look to the constitution that allowed it so. When congress is unable to abide by a federal budget and irresponsibly bankrupts the nation with indebtedness and inflation, refer to the constitution. If a federal agency tramps on your rights and defies state regulations, that’s the constitution talking. Every foreign war, prejudiced tax, misrepresentation of rights, and authoritarian overstep is purveyed by the constitution held so dear. It is high time the states reject this illegally ratified charter.

We the people, have appropriately formed a perfect union by our collective workmanship, independent of a centralized power. We establish justice through our state courts. Ensure domestic tranquility through municipal policing. Provide for the common defense through localized militias and the National Guard. Promote general welfare through communal efforts and charity. Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity via the defiance of tyranny and recognized state sovereignty. We ordain and establish this declaration of independence from the Constitution of the United States of America.