The U.S. Constitution - part 9 (Article 6)

DEBTS, SUPREMACY, OATHS!
This is a very important article to the Constitution. It has been used in all sorts of ways to justify all sorts of things, specifically under the Supremacy clause. However, let's examine just what this says for a minute. The text states:

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

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.

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.

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.

First, it states that we are going to pay our debt. Come what may, the United States will pay their debt. This clause is specifically referring to the debts incurred by the government under the Articles of Confederation, but it clearly shows how important paying the debt was. The founders knew their fragile new nation would have to have good credit if it were to survive and so they promised to themselves and future generations that any and all debts owed by the previous government would be honored. When did they pay off this debt you ask? In 1835, under Andrew Jackson. In fact, the total debt incurred by the provision was 75 million dollars. A LOT of money back then.

Secondly, the famed supremacy clause. This makes it clear that the Constitution is the law of the land and that all properly ratified treaties (this has to do with States representation in the Senate discussed in an earlier post) were the clear law of the land. So, the Constitution and all treaties bind the states. Seems fine. However, the statement in the middle is where things get muddled. It states that all laws of the U.S. in pursuance thereof, meaning, in pursuing the supremacy of the Constitution and treaties, are the supreme law of the land. What this does NOT mean is that ALL laws of the U.S. are supreme. This is where many judges, politicians, lawyers and laymen have gotten it wrong. They've used this clause, which actually binds judges as well as states, to justify expansion of federal power by stating the federal government has the right because of the supremacy clause. This argument completely ignores the individual state constitutional conventions and the ninth and tenth amendments, all of which clearly show a desire to "limit" the power of the federal government, not give it a supremacy clause that would allow it to get away with anything it wanted.

Finally, the Constitution requires ALL public officials throughout the land to be bound by oath to the said Constitution. Yes, ALL public officials. This statement: "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," says Senators, Representatives, and all executive and judicial officers, thereby making all public officials at the federal level. It goes on to say that the members of the state legislatures and the executives and judicial officials of the states are also bound by oath. So, ALL public officials. Don't you wish they'd actually pay attention to this on occasion? They may take an oath to defend it, but they generally corrupt it to suit their own ends.

Then, to top off the clause, there is that last statement about religious tests. The founders were very concerned about this because it was a common tactic of suppression in the colonies to require religious tests. Catholic or protestant colonies all made use of this at some point and the founders knew this was a dangerous practice. Remember that this clause was written before the Bill of Rights, so they really wanted to make sure that religion was not a determining factor for public service. This would be a foreshadowing of the debate around the first amendment, I suppose.

The U.S. Constitution - part 7 (Article 5)

This is an easy one. It is pretty straightforward in fact. Here's the text:

Article V - Amendment

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Several interesting things to note however. One, most people don't even know there are two ways to amend the constitution. Yet, there it is in black and white. So...if the states get tired enough of federal tyranny, all they have to do is get 2/3 of them to agree to call a convention. I am not an advocate of this method because I'm afraid it could be highjacked by special interests. However, it remains law.

Secondly, there is that interesting clause about how no amendment can amend certain parts of article 1 before a certain date. Another black stain of compromise on the constitution since those clauses deal with slavery.

Finally, it states that no State shall be denied its equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent. This clause clearly shows that the Senate was intended to be how the individual states kept their wishes known by providing "suffrage" to the states through representation in the Senate. The Senate was never intended to be voted on by the people. That is why we call the House of Representatives, the "people's house". However, the states did choose to give their consent to this with the seventeenth amendment.

I wonder how many of them realized just how much they were giving up when they agreed to that?