The U.S. Constitution -- part 10 (Article 7)

This is the easiest part of the Constitution. Nobody ever talks about it because it was sort of a one time thing. In essence, it was only controversial at the time. We'll get to that in a minute, but here's the text:

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same. Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names. Note Go Washington - President and deputy from Virginia New Hampshire - John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman Massachusetts - Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King Connecticut - Wm Saml Johnson, Roger Sherman New York - Alexander Hamilton New Jersey - Wil Livingston, David Brearley, Wm Paterson, Jona. Dayton Pensylvania - B Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robt Morris, Geo. Clymer, Thos FitzSimons, Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, Gouv Morris Delaware - Geo. Read, Gunning Bedford jun, John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, Jaco. Broom Maryland - James McHenry, Dan of St Tho Jenifer, Danl Carroll Virginia - John Blair, James Madison Jr. North Carolina - Wm Blount, Richd Dobbs Spaight, Hu Williamson South Carolina - J. Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, Pierce Butler Georgia - William Few, Abr Baldwin Attest: William Jackson, Secretary

You'll note that it doesn't really say much. It gives instructions that 9 of the 13 states had to ratify it and it explains when it was agreed upon and finally, who signed off on it (witnessed it), also known as who were the ones taking responsibility for it.

We take the Constitution largely for granted today, but the ratification of this document was extremely controversial in our beginnings. This is largely why the famous Federalist Papers came about. They were basically propaganda in favor of the new Constitution. It is also why it is very disingenuous for anyone to claim they can't know the original intent of the framers of the document. Each state argued this document within their own legislatures so much that there is plenty of documentation to glean intent on almost every issue, if you bother to look for it. Nonetheless, one of the most controversial aspects of this document has absolutely nothing to do with the document itself. Rather, it had to do with the Articles of Confederation, the document it was supposed to replace.

When the Articles of Confederation were setup, they were designed to be a very weak central government because the founders didn't want another strong and powerful central government. However, it proved to be too weak and so they brought together a group to propose amendments to the Articles. This was the reason the Constitutional Convention that drafter our constitution was brought together, not to create an entirely new document. They ignored their charge. The Articles of Confederation were too weak to "fix" in their opinion and almost impossible to amend because it required agreement of ALL the states. Not 2/3s agreement like we have now, but every state had to agree. So, it is interesting that they simply ignored the existing Constitution in setting up the ratification process for the new one. They were basically carrying out a revolution against the government they themselves had created. This is really what makes this controversial and interesting.