What Does Article Vii of the Constitution Mean
In addition to article VII, the Constitution provides that it is the Constitution of the thirteen states. The preamble begins with “We, the people of the United States” and ends: “To order and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The phrase “United States of America” comes directly from Article I of the Articles of Confederation, which states: “The style of this Confederation shall be `The United States of America.`” Thus, “the people of the United States” in the preamble refers to the people of the thirteen states, not just the people of the states that have ratified the Constitution. The following tests draw different lessons from Article VII. Professor Michael Rappaport argues that Article VII contributed significantly to the timeliness of the Constitution. The super-majority rule for ratification of Article VII promoted a constitution supported by a consensus of the country and included the protection of the majority, including a bill of rights and constitutional federalism. Professor Mark Graber believes that Article VII was part of a political agenda that prevented Americans from voting on whether constitutional structures, powers and rights were particularly desirable. The fear of being expelled from the revised United States fueled crucial ratification rather than the merits of the Constitution. The drafters` decision to replace the convention for state legislators reflected both principled and pragmatic concerns. The decision was based in part on the principle that the Constitution should be an act of the people and not of the legislator. In particular, for the Constitution to take precedence over legislative decisions, it had to come from another source. But the decision to employ the people did not take the modern form of a referendum, but rather of a special convention elected by the people. In this area, as with federal legislation and constitutional amendments, the Constitution uses representative democracy rather than direct democracy.
The use of state legislators also reflected pragmatic concerns. The proposed constitution would take power away from state legislators, raising fears that those lawmakers would delay or reject ratification of the constitution. Article VII was part of a political program that guaranteed that, from 1787 to 1789, Americans would not have the opportunity to vote on whether constitutional arrangements to structure the national government, distribute power, and protect rights were particularly desirable. As Stanford University historian Jack Rakove points out, state conventions voted on the Constitution as a whole, not on a particular provision. At the beginning of 1788, the conventions of the states did not even vote on the relative merits of the Constitution and the articles of Confederation. After the Constitution gained momentum in the first state votes, the choice that Article VII imposed on most states was to ratify the Constitution immediately or at a later date in less favorable circumstances. Faced with these alternatives, Americans have accepted the institutional arrangements, powers, and rights enumerated in the Constitution. If they had had the same opportunities, they would likely have accepted the institutional arrangements, powers, and rights enumerated in the constitutions of Canada, Mexico, Chile, France, Bulgaria, Mali, Japan, and any other nation whose constitution does not establish a non-Christian religious theocracy. The majority of Americans are very passionate about what they believe in matters of faith and politics, and this has been the case from the beginning.
Just as we have Democrats and Republicans, in 1787 there were federalists and non-federalists. “Compulsive or treacherous measures to establish a government will always arouse the jealousy of a free people: it is better to remain single and alone than to blindly accept what a few individuals will demand, that they be so wise. I would rather be a free citizen of the small Republic of Massachusetts than an oppressed subject of the great American empire. Article VII of the U.S. Constitution is the last article of the document and can only be described as short and gentle. It addressed a concern that all of our founding fathers had since the U.S. Constitution was formatted and written by James Madison himself. Consider the paradoxes that result if some states had not been ratified. Under Article I of Confederation, unratified states were still part of a confederation called “The United States.” According to Article VII of the Constitution, only the states that ratify the states form the United States. Will the real United States rise up please? Article VII states that the Constitution becomes the official law of the country when it is ratified by nine states.
How did this affect Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island when New Hampshire ratified on June 21, 1788? Were they unrelated States which did not require congressional authorization to join the Union and which could not be discriminated against under Article 1, Section 9? Were these nations that needed congressional authorization to join the Union and could be discriminated against under Article 1, Section 9? When did unrelated states become one or more distinct nations? The Constitution does not say so, and this point has not been discussed at length. An advantageous feature of these super-majority rules is that they promote consensual support for a constitution. If a significant part of the country strongly opposes the constitution, which can easily happen under majority rule, it is unlikely to keep the nation united and lead to continued discord. On the other hand, if a constitution is adopted under a strict super-majority rule, opposition is likely to be limited and the constitution can serve as a source of loyalty. In essence, it was the very first election ever held in America, just before George Washington`s first presidential election on January 10, 1789. As such, Article VII of the U.S. Constitution set a precedent for what America would always be for a nation: to set aside. Finally, the state of New Hampshire was founded on September 21. June 1788, the ninth state to accept the Constitution as the ultimate authority of governance to preserve justice and strengthen God-given freedoms. From that moment on, it will always be considered the supreme law of the land. It is safe to say that our ancestors had no idea of the monumental era in which they lived and how much they had really changed the course of history for the better. It took some time, but when President George Washington began his term on March 4, 1789 and began to fulfill his duties by establishing people to serve in the House and Senate, as well as in the judicial system, a new republic was formed that was stronger than any previous attempt at a free nation before.
The main dispute between anti-federalists and federalists was whether the new constitution could be legally ratified by nine states. Anti-federalists pointed out that Article VII was inconsistent with Article XIII of the Article of Confederation, which required that amendments to constitutional agreements “be agreed upon by a United States Congress and subsequently confirmed by the legislatures of each state.” Article VII required the approval of only nine states, abolished the Continental Congress altogether, and replaced state conventions for state legislators. Critics, critics complained, the process of ratifying the constitution was illegal. The controversies over Article VII that arose during the ratification process concerned the content of the prescribed ratification process, not what the text actually prescribed. Antifederalists and federalists agreed on the meaning of “ratification”, “new” and “states”. Vermont did not count much as a state of the vermonters` lot, who declared independence in 1777 but were not represented in the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation. These advantages of majority voting were not only theoretical. The requirement of the super-majority to adopt the Constitution is probably at the origin of some of its most desirable provisions. If a simple majority of states had been able to adopt the Constitution, it is quite possible that the document would not have provided for a strong constitutional federalism. When the Constitution was written in Philadelphia, the authors knew it had to get a significant super-majority.
While a majority of states – especially large states – may have supported a constitution that gave states a limited role, the convention was forced to include important constitutional protection for states because ratification had to be ensured by a super-majority of states. .