Articles V, VI, and VII |
Articles V, VI, and VII are the most straight-forward and least debated parts of the Constitution, but that doesn't make them any less important. Let's have a quick look at them.
Article V
The Founding Fathers did their damnedest to make the Constitution as great as they could. They did a decent job (though I'll be the first to admit that, while I love the Constitution, it has some very serious flaws). They recognized, however, that they were imperfect men, and that they would certainly make mistakes. So they included, in Article V, a means to amend the Constitution.
Article V is one very big clause (5.1.1). Therefore, I won't use Michael Badnarik's
numbering method as I have been throughout this part of the book. Let's just
go through it piece by piece.
The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution…
Let's say we're both members of Congress, and we decide we need to amend the
Constitution-perhaps we're going to try and patch up Article III. In order to
even propose our amendment, we need to get two thirds of the House of Representatives
and two thirds of the Senate to agree with us. When two thirds of both houses
say "yea," then the amendment has been proposed.
…[O]r, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments…
Perhaps we can't get Congress to agree with us for whatever reason. Now we can't
even propose the amendment we worked so hard on? No, there's another method
by which we can propose: we can get two thirds of the state legislatures to
propose our amendment.
…[W]hich, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents
and Purposes, as part of this Constitution…
…[W]hen ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States…
If you thought we had a hard time getting the two-thirds majority necessary
to even start a formal discussion of amending the Constitution, this is even
harder. We need to get three-fourths of the state legislatures to ratify the
amendment for it to become valid.
…[O]r by Conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress…
If the legislatures don't ratify, three quarters of the people gathered in the
state conventions can ratify a proposed amendment.
So, basically, it takes a vote of 66.6% to propose the amendment and start a
formal discussion about the amendment. It takes a vote of 75% to ratify a proposed
amendment. You can bypass these limitations if you have Philander Knox on your
side. But we'll discuss that in a later chapter.
They deliberately made it hard. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.
It would not have lasted this long if it had been easy to amend. To date, I've
never met anyone who directly disagrees with that (although if you think America
is a democracy, you indirectly disagree with Article V's limitations).
…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.
There's some more national embarrassment buried in here. Remember that 1.9.1
prohibited making slavery illegal until 1808. Maybe a Constitutional Amendment
could make it illegal before then, though…. This part of Article V closed
the last loophole there, making it impossible to amend the Constitution to make
slavery illegal.
And the other limitation on Constitutional Amendments is that no state can be
denied its votes in the Senate. Currently there are two Senators per state.
A Constitutional Amendment can change that to one Senator per state, or three
Senators per state, but it must be equal. I can't pass a Constitutional amendment
that gives Colorado three Senators and gives Texas only one.
Article VI
There are a few important clauses in Article VI, some of which are still valid today, and some of which are important only as historical curiosities.
6.1.1 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.
Earlier, we discussed the Articles of Confederation, which was something like
our first Constitution. We fought the Revolutionary War under the Articles of
Confederation.
Our new nation was just that, though. It was a new nation, going to war against
what was, at that time, the most powerful empire in the world. And, to make
matters even worse, the empire we were fighting were formerly our "parent
nation." They controlled our laws and, to a certain extent, our economy,
prior to 1776.
Basically, we had a problem. We were trying to fight a war with no funds to
speak of. So we borrowed a lot of money from France and Spain, two nations who
were also at war with King George III. They were big, powerful nations with
plenty of money to loan us-especially since loaning us money helped in their
own war effort.
Finally, after this long and bloody war was over, we had our new nation. A free
nation. And a nation with lots and lots of debt, and France and Spain wanted
their money back.
As I already discussed briefly when I talked about the Articles of Confederation,
just after the Revolutionary War, we were in serious financial trouble. Each
of the thirteen states was printing fiat money, as was the Continental Congress.
So we had fourteen different flavors of money. There was the Continental money,
Virginia money, Pennsylvania money, and so on.
So, with all this fiat money in circulation, inflation was going dancing on
whatever was left of the economy. Also, none of the states were giving any money
to the federal government.
France and Spain are sitting over here saying "Come on, guys. The war's
over. Where's our money?"
And since none of the states were contributing-and even if they were, France
and Spain wouldn't likely accept fiat money that's going to be less tomorrow
than it is today-those debts could not be paid.
So they wrote the Constitution. Technically, when they changed governments,
the debts could have been erased. The United States under the Articles of Confederation
was abolished. The United States under the Constitution was newly established.
It's a different country.
However, the Founding Fathers recognized that, if they didn't pay back France
and Spain-though technically they could have gotten away with it-the credit
of the United States would be ruined. It would take many years to repair that
kind of damage.
So they wrote this clause, which required that all debts contracted under the
Articles of Confederation were still valid under the Constitution.
There was also a more personal reason for writing this clause. In addition to
the money loaned to us by France and Spain, many of the Founding Fathers themselves
contributed considerable amounts of money. They wanted to make sure they got
their own money back, also.
This clause doesn't really mean anything today, because all the debts to which
it applied were paid off long ago. Its only importance now is as a historical
curiosity.
6.1.2 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.
This clause is very important. There's some good and some bad here.
First, the bad: this clause establishes the supremacy of the national government.
Before the Constitution was ratified, there was a major debate between two groups
of people, known as Federalists and Anti-Federalists. We're going to discuss
this more in later chapters, but for now, there are a couple of points to understand.
A federal government is defined as a loosely connected union between several
sovereign states.
A national government is defined as a strong central government.
Our "federal government" today is actually a national government.
We call it a federal government because the group who supported our Constitution
were called the Federalists. They were led by Alexander Hamilton-a nationalist-who
realized that the people didn't want a strong central (or national) government.
So he took the title of "Federalist" for his group-our country's first
piece of political "spin."
The true federalists found themselves without a title. Alexander Hamilton suggested
that they should call themselves the Anti-Federalists, and the name stuck.
Liberty flourishes in a federal government. In a national government, it becomes
much easier for politicians to become corrupt, and it becomes harder to protect
Liberty-not impossible by any means, but more difficult.
So, because this clause establishes that the national government (whether they
want to call it federal or not) is supreme, we're going to have to work hard
to ensure it doesn't become corrupt.
But there's good news. The Anti-Federalists, ever watchful during the Constitutional
Convention, made sure they were able to leave us certain tools to use in our
protection of Liberty.
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Excellent.
This clause also specifies that the Laws of the United States made in pursuance
thereof are also included in the supreme law of the land. If Congress passes
a law that is Constitutional (meaning: they are given explicit authority by
the Constitution to pass this law, and the law doesn't violate any other part
of the Constitution) all's well and good and it becomes part of the supreme
law of the land.
If, on the other hand, the law that Congress decides to pass is Unconstitutional
(like just about everything they do nowadays), not only is it not included in
the supreme law of the land, but it's completely and totally void.
Likewise, any state law that violates the Constitution is void. Even though
the national laws are considered the supreme law of the land, the states still
have more legislative power. There are very few powers given to Congress. Anything
else is Unconstitutional.
The states, on the other hand, are explicitly prohibited certain powers. Technically,
they can do anything else and it's still Constitutional. That doesn't make it
right-and it's the duty of We the People to make sure the states don't do anything
bad.
The most important thing to remember is that any law, on the national or state
level, which is Unconstitutional, is void.
We're going to talk about gun control in a later chapter, but it's a good example.
Most states have all kinds of gun laws and require people to get a concealed
carry permit. But the 2nd Amendment explicitly protects your right to keep and
bear arms. All those gun laws are Unconstitutional. They're all void. You don't
need that concealed carry permit, Constitutionally speaking.
(Note that if the police think it's the law, you might have a bit of a problem. You're completely justified in carrying a gun without a permit, and have a Constitutional basis for doing so. But the police have more guns than you do. I won't tell you what to do, but I will tell you that you better be damned sure about what you're doing before you proceed. If you want to "buck the system," I applaud you for it, but warn you that you're in for the ride of your life.)
Several years back, someone suggested that before Congress can pass any law,
they have to reference, in writing, the part of the Constitution that gives
them that authority. John Glenn (the astronaut everyone likes so much) basically
said the idea was unthinkable, because we couldn't pass half the laws we're
passing today.
Oh, really? Think about that for a minute.
6.1.3 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.
When we discussed Article II, we read the oath the President has to take before
entering his office. We also discussed the reasons for this oath (a violation
of the Constitution is a violation of this oath, punishable as an act of perjury,
for which the punishment is imprisonment).
This clause establishes that all members of all three branches of government,
at both the state and national level, are also required to take such an oath
(though the oath for other officers is not explicitly listed as it was for the
President).
I contend that members of all three branches have violated their oaths. Before
I die, I would like nothing more than to see them punished for perjury, and
in some cases, treason.
No religious test can be required though. That's a part of our religious freedom.
We can have Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, or members of any
other religion in government.
Do the words "so help me God," when used in their oaths constitute
a religious test? That's a gray area, and it's been the subject of much debate,
but probably not. Personally, I'd rather not have those words included in the
oaths, not because I have any problem with a religious Congressman, but because
religion really isn't relevant to the contract that is the Oath of Office. With
that said, I really wish people would grow up and stop bickering about such
things. There are a lot of very serious issues to worry about which actually
affect people's lives. Whether someone says "God" or not doesn't really
matter, does it? Grow up and get a sense of humor! (And consider who's telling
you not to worry about the word "God" in the oath, too).
Article VII
Article VII is just one short sentence which no longer applies to us today. It is, however, worthy of some discussion as a matter of historical significance.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
That just means that three fourth of the states had to ratify, much the same
way as three fourths of the states have to ratify amendments to the Constitution.
Historically, this is significant because previously, everything had to be unanimous.
The Declaration of Independence is technically called The unanimous Declaration
of the thirteen united States of America. It was unanimous. The Articles of
Confederation were established unanimously.
Alexander Hamilton realized he wasn't going to get everyone to agree on the
Constitution, so he decided that only nine of the thirteen states had to ratify
it. Eventually, all thirteen states did ratify, but only nine were required.
Many of the states were extremely hesitant to ratify the Constitution, and only
did so with the agreement that a Bill of Rights would be added. Of course, we
all know that a Bill of Rights was added. That's our next chapter.