Author: Diane Rufino | Published: October 16th, 2010

    Publisher's Note: This 3rd installment in Diane Rufino's series examining Our Founding Principles delves into the intricate development and design of the United States Constitution. All politicians are sworn to defend this hallowed document, so ask yourself while reading Diane's treatise: How much does your representative know, or even care about this blueprint to our nation's past and our future.

    "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; It is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it comes to dominate our lives and interests." -- Patrick Henry

    The Constitution is the keystone of our nation. It is the great guarantor of liberty. That original document, with the Bill of Rights, constitutes the charter of our freedom. Just as they did over 220 years ago, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are what makes us a free people today. Keeping these documents alive, and understanding and protecting them, depends on all of us: If people don't understand and value their rights, if they don't understand where their rights come from and how they are protected, how will they know when the government tries to take them away?

    The Constitutional Convention: The Drafting of the Constittution

The Constitutional Convention (also known as the Philadelphia Convention) took place from May 25 to September 17, 1787, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Its purpose was to address problems in governing the United States of America under the Articles of Confederation following independence from Great Britain. The Convention was originally intended to amend the Articles of Confederation to make it more effective in dealing with issues common to all the states and acting on their behalf. Apparently, the intention of certain delegates, namely James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, was not to amend the Articles but rather to create a new government altogether. The delegates persuaded a very sick and debilitated George Washington to act as the President of the convention and to preside over it after several attempts to organize such a meeting had failed to spark sufficient interest.

    The 55 delegates who drafted the Constitution included many men who we consider today as our "Founding Fathers." These are the men we credit for giving us our new nation, as so perfectly conceived and designed. A few of our most important Founders were not present at the Convention. Thomas Jefferson, one of our most prolific and well-read Founders, was in France during the Convention, acting as Minister to that country. John Adams was also abroad on official duty for the newly-independent nation, as Minister to Great Britain. Patrick Henry was also absent; he refused to go because he "smelt a rat in Philadelphia, tending toward the monarchy." He might have been referring to Alexander Hamilton, who strongly admired the British monarchy. Also absent were John Hancock and Samuel Adams. All the states sent delegates to the Convention, except Rhode Island which refused to send any.

    Connecticut:

    Oliver Ellsworth*
    William Samuel Johnson
    Roger Sherman


    Delaware:

    Richard Bassett
    Gunning Bedford, Jr.
    Jacob Broom
    John Dickinson
    George Read


    Georgia:

    Abraham Baldwin
    William Few
    William Houstoun*
    William Pierce*


    Maryland:

    Daniel Carroll
    Luther Martin*
    James McHenry
    John Francis Mercer*
    Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer


    Massachusetts:

    Elbridge Gerry*
    Nathaniel Gorham
    Rufus King
    Caleb Strong*


    New Hampshire:

    Nicholas Gilman
    John Langdon


    New Jersey:

    David Brearley
    Jonathan Dayton
    William Houston*
    William Livingston
    William Paterson


    New York:

    Alexander Hamilton
    John Lansing, Jr.*
    Robert Yates*

    
    North Carolina:

    William Blount
    William Richardson Davie*
    Alexander Martin*
    Richard Dobbs Spaight
    Hugh Williamson


    Pennsylvania:

    George Clymer
    Thomas Fitzsimons
    Benjamin Franklin
    Jared Ingersoll
    Thomas Mifflin
    Gouverneur Morris
    Robert Morris
    James Wilson


    South Carolina:

    Pierce Butler
    Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
    Charles Pinckney
    John Rutledge


    Virginia:

    John Blair
    James Madison
    George Mason*
    James McClurg*
    Edmund Randolph*
    George Washington
    George Wythe*


    If we look back on our grade school education, we remember being taught the very fundamentals of what went on at the Constitutional Convention. We remember the key areas of contention between the individual states - how the government should be structured, how the representatives from the states should be apportioned, how the interests of the smaller states and the interests of the larger states can both be equally represented in government, how the states can retain their sovereign power in the face of a centralized, federal government, and what to do about the slaves and the issue of slavery. But so much more was accomplished. The Constitutional Convention and the drafting of the Constitution represented something much more monumental and significant.

    First, let's review the general areas of contention between the states.

    Almost immediately, it was understood that our nation would need to be a republic rather than a true democracy. Most people assume that this country is a democracy, but it isn't truly so. It is a republic, or a democratic republic as some call it. Understanding the difference between these two "forms" of government is essential to appreciating the fundamentals involved. A "democracy" operates by the direct majority vote of the people. When an issue is to be decided, the entire population votes on it and the majority wins and rules the day. The Founders explained that democracy rule is one that is guided by the majority "feeling." (ie, how the majority happens to be "feeling" at the time).

    The Founders therefore termed it "mobocracy." Example: in a democracy, if a majority of the people decides that the minority group can no longer own property, then the minority group is no longer allowed to own property. In a Democracy, the individual, and any group of individuals composing any minority group, have no protection against the unlimited power of the majority. As James Madison wrote: "Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."

    A "republic" on the other hand is where the general population elects representatives who then are constrained in their representation by the Constitution and other laws. A republic is a nation ruled by law. There is a degree of insulation between the people (who might try to rule in a frenzied mob style) and government rule. A republican form of government has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government than a pure democracy. Its purpose is to control rule-making. More specifically, its purpose is to control the majority. It is designed to protect the minority from oppression by the majority. It is designed to protect the individual's (EVERY individual's) God-given, unalienable rights and the liberties of people in general. Our particular republican form of government has a separation of power because our Founders understood the inherent weakness and depravity of man. They knew that people are basically weak, sinful and corruptible, and will pit one men against another other, making it difficult to pass laws and make changes that are fair to everyone.

    With regard to the choice of a republican form of government, Madison made an observation in The Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 55): "As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." [See later for a discussion of "Democracy v. Republic" by David Barton of Wallbuilders.com]

    It is worth noting that the first genuine and solidly-founded republic in all history was the one created by the Constitution of Massachusetts in 1780. The Founders didn't have to look far for a template for our US Constitution.

    As a very old and very tired Benjamin Franklin was leaving the building where, after four months of hard work, the Constitution had been completed and signed, a lady asked him what kind of government the convention had created. The very wise Franklin replied; "A Republic, ma'am if you can keep it."

    At the Convention, there were 3 parties, each with a strong opinion as to the purpose of a government representing all the states. The first group was the Monarchists who were intent on stripping the individual states of all their sovereign powers and substituting one unitary, all-powerful government, to be responsible for all land and all people. Its most vocal proponent was Alexander Hamilton. He made a famous speech at the Convention in which he avowed his admiration for the British constitution and expressed his desire that the delegates model the American government after the British system. He called for a president who would be appointed for life, senators with life terms, and power vested in the president to appoint all governors. Each of these mirrors the British model.

    The second group was the Nationalists, who pushed for a strong centralized "national" government and was against sharing of power with the states. Its most vocal proponent was James Madison. It would have a national executive branch, a national legislative branch, and a national judiciary branch. There would be little or no deference or respect for the states. Specifically, Madison wanted a strong centralized (power centralized in the government) modeled after his state of Virginia and largely dominated by officials from Virginia. In fact, Madison arrived at the Convention several days early in order that he would have time to draft a series of proposals on which he believed the Constitution should be based. His intention was to introduce the other delegates to his proposals and then vote on them and ratify them. His series of proposals was known as the "Virginia Plan." Initially the delegates voted on the plan in approval but as the days and weeks went on, they overwhelmingly discarded it for the federalist system.

    The third group was the Federalists, who luckily won the day at the Convention. They wanted the states to retain their sovereign power. Consequently, their system was one that divided the powers of government between the central government and state and local governments. This was obvious in the limited powers of the government, in the make-up of delegates in the legislative branch, including the election of Senators by the individual state legislatures rather than the people, the amendment process, and the jurisdiction assigned to the federal court system.

    The issue on the mind of almost every representative at the Constitutional Convention was what kind of government was best for the new republic. Certain states submitted plans for a republican government, however, the most popular was the plan submitted by the Virginia delegation lead by James Madison (and including George Mason, Edmund Randolph, and even George Washington). The Virginia Plan, embracing a "nationalist" scheme, called for a government with three distinct branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. Using Montesquieu's theory of checks and balances it was intended to ensure that no group could have too much authority, which could lead to tyranny. Although the delegates supported most of the proposed principles of the Virginia Plan, they were in disagreement in certain areas of the plan. The highest debate concerned the section on representation in the legislative branch. The Virginia Plan proposed that representation in the legislatives houses would be based on population of the state. Small states objected saying that it would leave them helpless in a government dominated by larger states.

    After the Virginia Plan was introduced, New Jersey delegate William Paterson asked for an adjournment to contemplate the Plan. Under the Articles of Confederation, each state had equal representation in Congress, exercising one vote each. The Virginia Plan threatened to limit the smaller states' power by making both houses of the legislature proportionate to population. On June 14-15, 1787, a small-state caucus met to create a response to the Virginia Plan. The result was the New Jersey Plan, to represent the interests of the small states.

    Under the New Jersey Plan, the existing Continental Congress would remain (equal representation of states in Congress), but it would be granted new powers, such as the power to levy taxes and force their collection. An executive branch was created (multi-person executive), which would be elected by Congress. Executives would serve a single term and would be subject to recall on the request of state governors. The plan also created a judiciary that would serve for life, to be appointed by the executives. Lastly, any laws set by Congress would take precedence over state laws. When Paterson reported the plan to the convention on June 15, 1787, it was ultimately rejected, but through its proposal, the smaller states were at least able to make their issues and concerns known.

    Alexander Hamilton proposed his own plan. It was known as the British Plan, because it so strongly resembled to the British system of a strong centralized government and a leader, called a "Governor," who would be elected by electors (chosen by the people) to serve a life-term. This "Governor" would have an absolute veto power over bills. In his plan, Hamilton advocated eliminating state sovereignty and consolidating the states into a single nation. The plan featured a bicameral (2-chamber) legislature, with the lower house elected by the people for three years and the upper house elected by electors who would serve for life. Not only would a national legislature appoint state governors, but it would have complete veto power over any state legislation.

    Hamilton presented his plan to the Convention on June 18, 1787, but it was immediately rejected because it resembled the British system too closely. The states had just found a war for its independence from that system. More importantly, it was rejected because it abolished state sovereignty.

    A compromise, known as the Connecticut Compromise (forged by Roger Sherman from Connecticut), was proposed on June 11 which would blend the Virginia (large-state) and New Jersey (small-state) plans and thus combine the important elements of both. Sherman suggested a two-house national legislature, but proposed "That the proportion of suffrage in the first branch [house] should be according to the respective numbers of free inhabitants; and that in the second branch or Senate, each State should have one vote and no more." The compromise was rejected at first, but on July 23, the representation in both houses was finally settled (with 2 Senators per state).

    Another area which caused much deliberation was the issue of Slavery. It turned out to be the most controversial issue confronting the delegates. Slaves accounted for about one-fifth of the population in the American colonies. Most of them lived in the Southern colonies, where they made up 40% of the population.
There were three slavery-related issues which were very hotly debated at the Convention - (1) One was the question of whether slaves would be counted as part of the population in determining representation in Congress or merely considered property and not entitled to representation; (2) Another was the question of the slave trade and what to do with it; and (3) And the most important was whether slavery should be abolished altogether in the formation of a United States.

    With respect to the first issue, a bitter debate resulted over whether or not blacks should be added equally with whites in the computation of the population Delegates from states with a large population of slaves wanted the slaves to be used to their benefit. As such, they wanted slaves to be considered persons in determining representation (to boost their representation in Congress) but as property for the purposes of apportionment of taxes in relation to the state's population (ie, for the purposes of the government levying taxes on the states on the basis of population). Delegates from states where slavery had disappeared or almost disappeared argued that slaves should be included in taxation, but not in determining representation. Finally, delegate James Wilson (from Pennsylvania) and Roger Sherman (from Connecticut), proposed the Three-Fifths Compromise, which was designed to meet the demands of both sides. Recognizing the desire of the South for power and influence in government and wanting to provide an incentive for those states to ratify the Constitution, the three-fifths compromise allowed the government to count slaves only as partial people - each slave would count as "three fifths of all other persons" (Article I, Section 2, addressing representation in Congress and apportionment of taxes). The Compromise was eventually adopted by the Convention.

    Another issue at the Convention was what should be done about the slave trade. All states except two had already adopted provisions in their state constitutions to abolish slavery outright or to outlaw the importation of slaves or to phase it out. (North Carolina has already outlawed the importation of slaves). Georgia and South Carolina threatened to leave the Convention if the slave trade was banned outright. The delegates constantly worried that the Constitution they ultimately drafted would not be ratified by the individual states and so, in order that the southern states would not prevent the ratification, the issue of the slave trade was postponed. A compromise of sorts was worked out. Article I, Section 9, subpart 1 lists those "Powers which are Forbidden to the Congress" or rather "Limits on Congress" and subpart 1 was drafted to read: "There will be no prohibition of slavery before 1808." In other words, Congress would have no power to address the issue of the importation of slaves until the year 1808 (20 years from the signing of the Constitution).

    The same concerns over the regulation of the slave trade applied to the discussion of abolishing slavery outright under the new Constitution. The delegates did not want to frustrate the adoption of a binding Constitution by alienating the southern states. Their support was desperately needed. The matter of slavery caused such a conflict between the northern states and the southern states that several southern states refused to join the Union if slavery was not permitted under the Constitution. Three states initially had a problem with abolishing slavery - Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. And it wasn't that they didn't believe that slavery was morally wrong or that it should be abolished. They were more concerned about their local economies. These states struggled with the question of how they could achieve a smooth transition from an agricultural economy based on slavery to one that would not be dependent on slavery. They really wanted time to figure out how to gradually phase out slavery so that their economies would not suffer. North Carolina eventually admitted it was willing to discuss options and would be willing to agree to the abolition of slavery, but South Carolina and Georgia were not willing to give up their slaves at that time. Article I Section 9 subpart I reflects the discussions by the delegates, including those from the South, regarding the eventual transition from slavery.

    George Mason of Virginia felt so strongly that it was an abomination for slavery to remain as the states set about to create their new nation, under the principles set out in the Declaration of Independence, that he said this: "This infernal traffic originated in the avarice of British merchants. They British government constantly checked the attempts of Virginia to put a stop to it. The present question concerns not the importing states alone but the whole Union. Maryland and Virginia have already prohibited the importation of slaves expressly. North Carolina had done the same in substance. Slavery discourages arts and manufacturing. The poor despise labor when they know there are slaves to do it. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of Heaven on a country. As Nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities."

    Not all delegates were happy with the final product. 3 high profile delegates refused to sign it: George Mason (Virginia), Edmund Randolph (Virginia), and George Mason (Virginia), and Elbridge Gerry (Massachusetts).

    The Constitution must not be looked at merely for what it says. The Constitution can only truly be appreciated for what it embraces. Our Founding Fathers, who were immensely well-read and intelligent men, recognized and embraced the most productive and fairest philosophies regarding freedom, representation, government, markets, and laws and sought to embody them in our Constitution. The particular drafting of the Constitution, therefore, addressed the need to embody each particular philosophy for our new nation. First and foremost, the Constitution was designed to put into practice the principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence. It was designed primarily to secure the individual's God-given, unalienable rights. After all, it was the Declaration of Independence which laid the principles which were to guide our independent nation and therefore represented our national values.

    The Constitution was intended to be timeless. It was intended to withstand the test of time and establish a government that would survive eternal (that is, as long as its people remained moral and ethical and of course, beholden to the Constitution). One of the biggest debates today, especially because of the condition we find ourselves in as a nation, is whether the Constitution is indeed timeless or was it just the starting place for those to "mold" as they deemed necessary. The answer to that is to use common sense. As we have repeatedly deviated from the Constitution, we have progressed further and further away from the positive ideals and productive values that made our country great. The biggest argument that liberal-minded people today make is that the Constitution is out-of-date, out-of-touch with the American people, and ineffective to meet our growing diversity and our evolving society. They argue that the Founders are outdated and that they have lost relevance. They say all these things because they believe that our Founding Fathers were products of their era and could not foresee the societal change that has evolved in this country. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Our Founders absolutely understood how the society would develop. The men who gave us the greatest nation on Earth weren't just a couple of guys who went to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 to hammer out the wording of a Constitution that would be binding on all the states. These men were visionaries. These men did their homework. They were deeply devoted to creating a nation that would stand the test of time. They wanted to come up with a foundation, a Constitution, that would not wither with the times. And so for that purpose, they studied all the failed regimes of history and they looked at all the constitutions and founding documents of other nations and studied the reasons why they were unable to last long. So, there is nothing that we've seen in our developing history that other nations haven't dealt with and nothing that our Founders weren't able to foresee. As Machiavelli wrote: "Whoever wishes to foresee the future must consult the past; for human events ever resemble those of preceding times. This arises from the fact that they are produced by men who ever have been, and ever shall be, animated by the same passions, and thus they necessarily have the same results."

    The problem with ignoring history is that each time history repeats itself, the price goes up. The stakes are higher. From their studies of history's failed regimes, they came up with core principles that are absolutely vital to prevent this country from going down those same paths. They were wise enough to predict and to warn us of what would happen should we fail to honor and respect those principles. And there is nothing we see here today in this country that the Founders have not written about or warned us about. All we need to do is take the time and make the effort to read the legacy of documents they have left us. The principles and concepts that the Founders gave us are the perfect template for a successful government and a successful and honorable nation are timeless.

    In order to understand our Constitution and other founding documents, we Americans need to understand what issues concerned the individual states at the time of our founding. We need to understand the issues on the minds of the Framers in crafting our new nation and where they looked for guidance and vision and solutions. The states were concerned with their sovereign power and their reluctance to give any of it up. Most states also were concerned with their right to embrace their religious heritage. All states except for three wanted to make sure that our new nation, which proclaimed that "All Men are Created Equal" would be rid of the injustice that was slavery. In drafting a document that would bind all the states into a unified nation (a union of states), and do so harmoniously and to meet their legitimate expectations, the Founding Fathers had to address the following fundamental questions: How to divide the power up as between the States and the Government? How much power should the government have? How much will it need in order to be effective? What is the legal basis of our fundamental rights? Do our rights come from God or from the government? What is the proper foundation to protect human rights? How to make sure that fundamental freedom is not burdened by the government? How should the government be structured? How can power remain with the people and be checked from abuses? What is the proper system to represent the voice of the people? How should the individual states be represented in the government? Each of these issues is critical in understanding how our nation was created. Our national heritage stems from the decisions these men made in 1787 with respect to these issues.

    The goal of the Founders at the Convention of 1787 was to reach a consensus or general agreement on concepts and principles that the Constitution should embrace rather than compromise. They wanted to reach a consensus on what the Constitution should provide rather than compromise. So before they went into a voting session, they made sure that they thoroughly discussed and debated each issue. After almost 4 months of such debate, they were able to reach a general consensus on just about everything - except the issues of slavery, proportionate representation, and regulation of commerce. These three issues eventually needed to be resolved by compromise.

    The Founders honored their goal and resolved most issues by consensus rather than compromise. As "compromise" often reflects a tone of defeat and submission (it's been called a "lose-lose scenario since both sides lose something they hold as important), the strength of the Constitution is that its provisions eventually and predominantly arose out of consensus. The Constitution was the product of extreme patience on the part of our Founders as each used reason and logic to bring the minds of the delegates into agreement. They wanted to make sure that the absolute soundest principles and concepts were adopted for the type of free and fair nation they had envisioned. Not one of the Founding Fathers could have come up with the perfect Constitutional formula to create a stable nation representative of the people and protective of their rights by himself, and the delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention in 1787 knew this.

    Luckily, the Founders were remarkably well-read. The philosophies of great minds like Polybius (Greek political philosopher, mixed form of government and checks and balances), Cicero (philosopher, Natural Law), Thomas Hooker (Natural Law; also, he wrote Connecticut's state constitution, which was one of the modern world's first written constitutions and was a primary influence upon our own Constitution), Montesquieu (political philosopher, Separation of Powers), Sir Edward Coke (legal philosopher), Sir William Blackstone (Natural Law; Ten Commandments), John Locke (Natural law), Adam Smith (economic philosopher, Founder of Capitalism), and Jesus influenced the Founders profoundly. The Founders studied Polybius, whose written works provided a theoretical account of the development of society and government. Polybius saw the history of government as falling into a recurring cycle by which kingship inevitably gave way to successive stages of tyranny, aristocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and anarchy, at which point a strong leader would merge and establish himself as king, thus starting the cycle over again. The only hope of breaking the cycle, Polybius maintained, lay in a "mixed" form of government (mixed elements) and certainly not in a pure democracy. The Founders read Adam Smith's groundbreaking and insightful work "The Wealth of Nations," which was published in 1776, and which influenced their decision to embrace and implement capitalism as a means to distribute goods and services within our nation. The Founders also were well-read in the books of the Old Testament. Even though some Founders didn't subscribe to any Christian denomination, the teachings of Jesus and the works of the Old Testament were very held in high regard and with great respect by all. In fact, even though their backgrounds were widely diverse, the fundamental beliefs of the Founders were virtually identical.


    What are the principles embedded in the Constitution?

    Basically our founding principles can be summarized as follows: A free people living in a civil society, working in self-interested cooperatives, and a government operating within the limits of its authority, promote more prosperity, opportunity and happiness for more people than any alternative ever devised by man.

    1. Natural Law - The delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 believed that certain human liberties are so fundamental to one's existence that they must come from our Creator. If that is the case, then no government can take them away. This is the foundation for the Bill of Rights.

    2. Individual Liberty - Remembering the injustices that the King of Great Britain had imposed upon them, the colonists were adamant about protecting the individual rights of the people. They added the Bill of Rights as the first ten amendments to the Constitution in order to protect those God-given rights from any constraints or denial by the government.

    3. Federalism - Most of the delegates to the convention were reluctant to form a national government that would take power from the states. At the same time, they recognized a need for a stronger national government that would provide defense against foreign aggressors and resolve disputes between the states; therefore, they instituted a government structure called federalism that assigned specific powers to the national government and left all remaining powers with the states. The system drafted at the Convention and adopted and ratified by the States (after the addition of the Bill of Rights, and specifically here, the Tenth Amendment) left the bulk of jurisdictional power to the individual states.

    4. Limited Government - The careful drafting of the Constitution reflected the Framers' intent to limit the ability of the federal government to exercise any more power than the citizens (aka, the States) agreed to give it. With the powers of government strictly limited, citizens could be free to pursue their individual visions of happiness. The Founding Fathers shared Thomas Jefferson's vision for the new nation - unburdened individual liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government. According to Jefferson's own Declaration of Independence, the main purpose of government is to secure the rights of its citizens to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." As the Founders believed, a small government with limited powers would be best to safeguard its citizens' liberties over a government with unlimited powers because the latter would have the tendency to misuse those powers. The Founders wanted to prevent any opportunity for government tyranny and oppression. They wanted the people to be the master and the government to be the servant. The government was to serve the people. As Patrick Henry warned: "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests?" It's simply our duty as Americans and as guardians of the very safeguards of Democracy and Freedom to know our History. The American people are the final check in our system of checks and balances. It is only with an educated populace that we can perform this great task.

    5. Separation of Powers - The delegates were extremely concerned with the balance of power between the three branches of the national government. They had fled from Britain to escape the clutches of a brutal monarch and wanted no such ruler to obtain power here. They were also concerned with factions, or interest groups, gaining too much power. They organized a system of checks and balances that provided a separation and delicate balance of national powers among the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches so as to protect and preserve the integrity of the Constitution and to prevent the government from overstepping its reach and trampling the powers of the States and intruding on the rights of the individual.

    6. Free Markets - The Founders embraced the economic philosophy put forth by Adam Smith (in his book Wealth of Nations published in 1776) which is the capitalism system we have today. Smith wrote that the most efficient economic system is driven by supply and demand and by pure competition. Smith believed that the "free market" system would work most effectively in the absence of government interference. Such a laissez-faire (a term popularized by Wealth of Nations meaning "leave alone" or "allow to be") policy would, in his opinion, encourage the most efficient operation of private and commercial enterprises. He was not against government involvement in public projects too large for private investment, but rather objected to its meddling in the market mechanism. He also held that individuals acting in their own self-interest would naturally seek out economic activities that provided the greatest financial rewards. Smith was convinced that this self-interest would in turn maximize the economic well-being of society as a whole. Finally, he argued that true wealth did not lay in gold but rather in the productive capacity of all people, who are properly motivated (rewards of risk--taking and investment) and through hard work and worth ethic, each seeking to benefit from his or her own labors.

    The bottom line is that the Constitution was crafted with two very important principles in mind - that the individual states retain as much sovereign power as possible and that our government have only limited and clearly-defined responsibilities and limited authority. The majority of power was to remain in the hands of the local population. The principles of federalism, limited and clearly-enumerated powers, separation of powers, and checks and balances are all important Constitutionally-imposed limits on the power of government, which was the vision of our Founders (especially Jefferson). The principles of Federalism and limited government were the foundation of our system of government to ensure that the federal government would not become large, would not become intrusive, would not become powerful, and would not encroach on the rights of the states to maintain their own character and to solve their own problems. This was the clear intent in the drafting of our Constitution.

    As mentioned earlier, in writing the Constitution, the Founders were guided, in principle, by the Declaration of Independence, which listed the reasons the colonies were declaring their separation from England and listed the principles on which the newly independent 'states' would define their reason for existence. The Declaration was the set of values that would define our new nation. The arrangement of the statement - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" - reveals the Founders' belief that individual rights pre-exist the establishment of a government, which was a radical notion at the time (but proposed by philosophers who believed in Natural Law).

    The Declaration begins, "We hold these truths to be self-evident . . . " which indicates clearly that the Founders did not intend merely to apply the concept of unalienable rights to colonists, but rather to hold out that it is universal. Included in these universal truths is the idea, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This bold assertion insists that no one life is more valuable than the next, and that -- by virtue of sharing the same rights -- no individual has the authority to rule over or oppress another. Moreover, the equal rights shared by all humans are "unalienable." They cannot be taken away. This is because they are granted not by any man or institution but rather they are "endowed" upon individuals by their Creator. Only the one who grants rights has the authority to take them away.

    Although the founders believed in the unalienable rights of every person, they also understood that there will always be forces in this world that seek to oppress. Thus, "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." Put simply, government possesses no rights. Its sole purpose is to protect the rights of its citizenry from outside forces. If it fails in this duty, it is the responsibility of individuals to abolish it.

    The writers of the Declaration -- and subsequently the writers of the Constitution -- believed that government's power comes out of its ability to protect the rights of its people. Individuals do not receive natural rights from government and thus government does not have the authority to take rights away. To the extent that it protects individual rights, government operates legitimately. However, when it fails to protect such rights or when it imposes upon them, it becomes an illegitimate ruler over what would otherwise be free people.

    When the Founding Fathers gathered in Philadelphia in 1776, they did not merely declare the independence of the colonies from their British oppressors and declare their intention to create a free nation that would stand the test of time. They also declared the independence of all individuals from the unlawful intrusion of overreaching government. And that declaration forever altered the course of human history.

    The first task before the Founders was establishing the foundation on which we derive our basic and most fundamental freedoms. They embraced the "Natural Law" philosophy proposed by Marcus Tullius Cicero of ancient Rome and of later philosophers such as John Locke, Sir William Blackstone, and Thomas Hooker, and even of Jesus himself. It is worth looking at Cicero's concept of "Natural Law." Cicero came to be enlightened one day while he was walking and trying to imagine what an ideal Rome would be like. As the foremost lawyer of his day, he was concerned with law. He wondered where laws came from. He came to conclude that law, that which distinguishes good from bad and which discourages and punishes the latter, did not originate from man alone. That is, law was not a matter of written statutes but was a matter deeply and fundamentally ingrained in the human spirit. Cicero's reasoned as follows:

    1. Humans, like the Earth and the universe itself, were created by a higher power (God)

    2. This higher power which created the universe also endowed humans with a bit of its own divinity (meaning that the Creator gave humans the higher powers of speech, intelligent thought, reason, and wisdom).

    3. As a result of this "spark of divinity," humans must be (forever) linked or related in some way to their Creator.

    4. Because humans share reason with this higher power, and because this higher power is presumed to be benevolent, it follows that humans, when employing reason correctly, will also be benevolent.

    5. Reason and benevolence (termed "right reason") is the foundation of law. As Cicero explained in his many writings (which were read by our Founders), law is whatever promotes good and forbids evil. What corrupts good law are the age-old human failings of wealth, greed, desire for status, lust, and other inconsequentials outside of virtue and honor.

    In short, according to Cicero, the only intelligent approach to government, justice and human relations is in terms of the laws which the Supreme Creator had already established. The Founders took from Cicero an idea that was revolutionary in terms of a governing a body and that idea was that the glue which binds human beings together in any commonwealth of a just society is love - love of God, love of God's great law of justice, and love of one's fellow man - which provides the desire to promote true justice among mankind. In order to eliminate depravity of society it was necessary to respect this natural order and to love God, oneself, and one another. If man could do this, then his ability to reason and rule would be done justly and in a benevolent manner, and he would therefore be guided "right reason."

    It is from the thinking of men like Cicero, as well as the teachings of the Bible, and including the teachings of Jesus himself, that the Founders had the vision to ground our fundamental freedoms in Natural Law. It is easy to see how strongly our Founders were influenced by Cicero's writings. Our nation wasn't influenced by atheist principles, but rather by principles grounded in a belief in God. The Declaration of Independence proudly proclaims that we as a nation believe in a Creator who has endowed us with our fundamental rights. Let us note that while our Constitution establishes and defines our government, it is the Declaration of Independence which establishes our nation's value system.

    While the concept of Natural Law has clearly been around for a long time, the US Constitution was the first constitution to be based on this principle. What this means is that since our rights come from our Creator, these rights are beyond the reach of the government. The government cannot take these rights away or burden them in any meaningful way. Just as the Creator is more powerful and more significant than any nation or any government, our rights are paramount over any law that the government tries to enact to subordinate its people. Governments who do not acknowledge this supreme order of rights have no duty to recognize them. Consequently, people's rights are subject to the whim and pleasure of the government. (ie, Nazi Germany).

    The next task before the Founders was what kind of system to create. They knew what kinds of liberties had to be secured and protected, but what was the best system to protect them ?

    The Founders understood that throughout history, people have been ruled by systems that range anywhere from King's Rule (tyranny) at one far end to complete Anarchy at the other far end (which is the absence of law). The Founders recognized the bad in both. Tyranny was oppressive and people alone, without laws, would become a mob and would resort to the lowest forms of human behavior. Consequently, they wanted to establish a system of "People's Law," which is someplace halfway between King's Rule and Anarchy - halfway between tyranny and mob rule. Under "People's Law, the government is kept under the control of the people and political power is maintained at the balanced center with enough government to maintain security, justice and good order, but not enough government to abuse the people and intrude in their lives. "People's Law" is in the middle between "Ruler's Law" (King, or other tyrant is the rules; tyranny) and "Anarchy (where there is no law at all). They embraced the system of "People's Law," which derived from the Israelites and Anglo-Saxon common law and includes the concepts of government by consensus, natural or God-given rights for the people, power dispersed among the people, individual responsibility, rights being unalienable, a system of justice including reparations for wrongs, and a system to solve problems on the level on which they were created. The Founders, especially Thomas Jefferson, admired the institutes of freedom under "People's Law." In fact, our system was strongly influenced after the system of government and the rules established by Moses after the Israelites were freed from their bondage in Egypt.

    In the Federalist Papers, No. 9, Alexander Hamilton refers to the "sensations of horror and disgust" which arise when a person studies the histories of those nations that are always "in a state of perpetual vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy." The Founders' task was to somehow solve the enigma of the human tendency to rush headlong from anarchy to tyranny - the very thing which later happened in the French Revolution. How could the American people be constitutionally structured so that they would take a fixed position at the balanced center of the political spectrum and forever maintain a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people," which would not perish from the earth?

    The answer, the Founders believed, was minimal government with maximum individual liberty. And the way to achieve this was twofold: First, the Founders realized that most of the people's power would have to remain within the State and relegated to the individual State. Limited power would be ceded by the States to the federal government on matters that would relate on matters touching on the nation as a whole, such as national security, conducting relations with foreign nations, raising an army, entering into treaties, establishing policy with the Native Indians, regulating commerce among states so that certain states don't have too much of an advantage in trade compared to others. And second, the powers delegated to the government would have to be limited and clearly-defined.

    James Madison described the division of labor between the states and the federal government as follows: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and property of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state." [The Federalist No. 45]. The fixing of the American eagle in the center of the spectrum was designed to maintain this political equilibrium between people in the states and the federal government. The idea was to keep the power base close to the people. The emphasis was on strong local self-government. The states would be responsible for internal affairs and the federal government would confine itself to those areas which could not be fairly or effectively handled by the states. The term, or concept, that relates to this division or sharing of power between the states and government is called "Federalism."

    The concept of federalism makes sense when you consider the position of the individual states. Prior to the Constitutional Convention, the states were sovereign powers who viewed the idea of a strong centralized government with absolute distrust. They didn't want any entity exerting power over them, especially since they'd managed to exist for over 150 years successfully and independently. The colonies were established to allow the settlers in each state to worship and practice as they desired and to establish communities which embraced their religious principles. The colonists were people who came from England and other European countries where they were repressed religiously or persecuted for their beliefs. The states took their sovereignty and their local laws and customs very seriously. At the time of our independence from England, each state was a sovereign little nation. [We refer to them as "colonies" which denotes something relatively unstructured, but the fact is that they were basically independent nations. They each had their own government and they had no legal ties to the other states, except through any arrangements they may have made for trade and commerce]. The states (colonies) fought long and hard for their independence from Britain, a nation with a tyrannical government. They wanted to make sure that they did not create a new tyrannical government in its place. They didn't want to give up their rights as sovereign states and they certainly didn't want a federal government that was more powerful than them. They didn't want a federal government to tell them what they can and cannot due within their boundaries. In Article II of the Articles of Confederation, the Founders attempted to make this guarantee by preventing the federal government from taking too much power from the states. In Article II, our Founders provided: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." (The Articles of Confederation failed because the states retained too much power and consequently, the central government lacked any meaningful enforcement power over them). At the Convention of 1787, the topic of states' rights versus government powers again dominated the discussion. One of the predominant arguments was over which rights the federal government would have and which rights the states would retain. It was this heated debate that eventually would cause the states to approach the Constitution with caution and take four years plus ten amendments (Bill of Rights) before they would ratify it. There were the Federalists (who argued for a strong central government at the expense of the states) and the Anti-Federalists (who already thought the states had surrendered more than enough of their power). But most people at the time, as reflected by the delegates, wanted the majority of power to stay in the hands of local people and not in the hands of an insensitive central government. In order to form a more perfect union, the states realized they would have to surrender some of this power in order to create an effective federal government that could protect all the states. If we study the back and forth between the state representatives who attended the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the only way the states' delegates would sign the Constitution was if they were given assurances that they would only have to give up minimum jurisdiction and power. They only intended to give up just enough sovereign power to overcome the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation and no more.

    On September 17, 1787, the final draft of the Constitution was signed. Of the 55 people who attended the Convention, 39 actually signed. Some, such as Oliver Ellsworth, left as the Convention progressed, while others refused to sign in protest, such as George Mason, Edmund Randolph, and Elbridge Gerry. But nevertheless, the delegates succeeded in the work they set out to do and the task of the Convention was complete. The Constitution was created. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 produced the most enduring written Constitution ever created by human hands. As Ben Franklin noted in a speech on that final day urging all delegates to sign the document and to do so immediately, the Constitution may have its faults, but it is possible that no better document could have been created.

    This article provided courtesy of our sister site: Beaufort County Now

<< Compact Theory of Federalism / Alexis de Tocqueville

The Founding Fathers: Who are They? >>