I am a constitutionalist. I believe the law reigns supreme, that no person is above the law. Isn’t this what we were taught back in grade school? The U.S. declared its Independence in 1776. Our Constitution was approved in 1788. The U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Right? It’s long and rather boring to read but pretty simple and each of our government officials swear to uphold it, to defend it. Yet there’s always such a struggle to enforce it’s simple provisions. There seems to be near disdain for it amongst those who govern. Sadly, that disdain isn’t new. It’s actually the real foundation of this country and our Constitution remains mostly a dream for us as a country. To understand this, you have to look to what happened before 1788.
Perhaps you memorized some dates, some terms for those early years in our history as I did but mostly it was glossed over by your teachers as it was by mine. “Since the Second Continental Congress declared America's independence from Great Britain on July 4, 1776, the United States government has sought to realize the fundamental principle on which our nation was founded: that all people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This principle was formalized in 1788 with the ratification of the Constitution. That document — still the supreme law of the United States — became the foundation…” http://www.whitehouse.gov/our_government/
But it wasn’t the first foundation and that is a very important point. In 1774, most of the colonies were represented at the First Continental Congress which adopted the Articles of Association, joining together in boycotting, and included those articles in the minutes of their meeting. http://www.geocities.com/oldebucks/Congress_1774-10-20.htm While the language seems tame as does the action to the eye reading today, it wasn’t. Simply put, these were the acts of traitors. By 1732, the 13 colonies had become established. By 1774, many were several generations removed from life in Great Britain. As you can see in the Articles of Association, they called their home “British America”. By the Second Continental Congress, they were under attack and had few choices. They could win their independence or face the consequences of being traitors. In 1775, the Congress issued the Declaration of Causes. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/arms.asp You have most likely heard some of its words like “taxation without representation”. This Congress became the de facto government, something it had no authority to do.
The Congress, on July 2, 1776, in CLOSED session approved the resolution of independence which underlies what most of us know as the Declaration of Independence. This Congress continued as the de facto government until early 1781 when the Articles of Confederation were ratified. Nearly 5 years of borrowing and spending money, running a war and a country, with no legitimate source of authority. The Second Continental Congress last met on March 1, 1781.
On March 2, 1781, The Congress of the Confederation began meeting. Yep, it’s the same bunch of guys. You have to understand that they were spending their money, that of their elite brethren, and borrowing enormous sums on their personal “faith and credit”. They had been traitors for years. They had a vested interest in the revolution succeeding. We excuse their unauthorized acts, their traitorous acts, their de facto governance for a number of reasons but, in doing so, we shade these truths.
The United States of America comes into existence with the Articles of Confederation’s ratification. I like to read the Articles. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp Article XII is where our founders got themselves reimbursed. But part of Article 13 is most interesting of all: “the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.” (emphasis added) http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp
The Confederation had major problems. It had no ability to tax, no way to enforce payments due from the states and, with the war over, the states weren’t paying up; the founders weren’t getting reimbursed, nor were the foreign governments getting repaid their loans. Conventions were called in 1786 and 1787 purportedly to amend the Articles of Confederation. Rhode Island boycotted.
The second convention, the Philadelphia Convention, produced the Articles of Constitution of the United States, what we affectionately call the United States Constitution. We do so to distinguish it from its predecessors as though they are somehow of a different nature. They are not. You will see reference that the Constitution was approved by the Confederate Congress. It was BUT not by 100% of the state legislatures. The Articles of Confederation were never, have never been dissolved. There is no provision in the Constitution for it to supersede the Confederation.
The Constitution needed only 9 states to approve it and become effective. The Confederate Congress was sworn to defend the Confederation but decided to recommend its overthrow. By June 21, 1788, 9 states had ratified and 2 more quickly did so (and for good reason). Rhode Island held out a bit longer and ratified only “after being threatened with having its exports taxed as a foreign nation”. http://rhodeisland.stateguidesusa.com/answers-to-my-questions/what-is-the-history-of-rhode-island?/
If the Articles of Confederation and the Articles of Constitution were compatible, they could both be in force and effect but they are not. Arguably, the Confederation was inherently dissolved once all 13 had joined in the Constitution. Does that work if the last one was forced and after the others had proceeded to act upon the new, ignoring the old, governing structure? Once again, we see traitors taking it upon themselves to unilaterally change the contract. It’s a little like being married for a few years then getting married again and saying you got a common law divorce from the first spouse except there is no such thing as a common law divorce.
And still I am a Constitutionalist. Whether “we the people” knew or understood any of this at the time, I seriously doubt. Those foxy Founders accomplished their task, albeit through multiple counts of treason, and gave us the Constitution and we have adopted it, made it our own. I like the Rule of Law, that we are considered a nation of laws. But turn on the TV, pick up a paper, see the news on the Internet and you know many of our elected representatives are wont to follow those early examples of treason. They may have good reasons, may think the ends justify the means. Maybe those old treasons are just the elephant in the room.
It is up to us to see the elephant, acknowledge it, to
gather together and defend each other from any and all who would tread upon our
rights. Most know their rights or are
willing to learn them. Now you need to
exercise the responsibilities that come with those rights. Those responsibilities include exercising
your rights and defending yours and the rights of others as well. Since 9/11, we’ve been sitting on the
sidelines often cheering the loss of rights.
"Europe and North
America are high priorities for the ICJ's work on
counter-terrorism and human rights. New laws and policies adopted or debated
since 11 September 2001 pose a major rule of law
challenge in the region."
http://www.icj.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=37⟨=en If the ICJ is concerned, every one of us
should be as well.
Are you a Constitutionalist too?