Posted on 04/29/2007 9:42:19 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
From time to time, I return to my favorite subject, which I freely admit is a tad boring for most people. That subject is Constitutional Law. This time, George Washington made me do it.
An article in the New York Times on 27 April reported on the find of a previously unknown letter from George Washington in May, 1787, to Jacob Morris. It was contained in a scrapbook gathered by a 10-year-old girl in 1826, and was found among the trunks and boxes of her descendants’ gift of their mansion and its contents to the State of New Jersey, in 2007.
The letter is important for several reasons. First, it is a “new” document from the hand of Washington. Second, it makes a mysterious reference to General Horatio Gates. Certain Members of Congress wanted at one point to replace General Washington with Gates, as a result of Washington’s unending series of defeats prior to the Battle of Trenton.
For me, though, the value of this short letter lies in when and where it was written, and what it says about the Constitution. Washington was readily elected President of the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, because all the factions present at that meeting respected him. And it was from that place and time that he sent this letter. Its second paragraph says,
“The happiness of this Country depend much upon the deliberations of the federal Convention which is now sitting. It, however, can only lay the foundation — the community at large must raise the edifice.”
Washington was a man of deeds, not words. He led by example. He spoke on the floor of the Convention only once, on its closing day. He favored the final amendment, to set the size of Congressional Districts at 30,000 people each rather than 40,000. His choice was followed, as it was with the decision not to limit the terms of the President to two. (That choice he’d expressed only privately.)
But when Washington did write, and speak, his vision was keen, and his words clear and precise. With 218 years of experience of living under the Constitution, we can see now that Washington’s statement was correct. The endurance of the Constitution does not depend solely on the excellence of its design, or the wisdom of the amendments made to date.
It is an excellent design. It has survived longer as a written constitution than those of any other nation in history. And with the exception of Prohibition, installed in the Constitution and later removed as a failure, the amendments have been successful. Other nations have lost their constitutions in military coups, or legal coups when they were redefined into dictatorships.
The key to the durability of the US Constitution is not found in the courts, or in any part of the federal government. It is found in the hearts and minds of all Americans. In 218 years it is we, not our government, who have “raised the edifice” of the Constitution. But sadly, in recent decades, it is we who are tearing that edifice down, again.
As George Washington warned in his Farewell Address, the Constitution “is sacredly obligatory upon all,” until and unless it is changed “by the authentic act of the whole people.” By that he meant it should be amended only by the people, as defined in Article V. It was not to be amended merely by the Courts, or Presidents, or Congresses, acting on their own hook.
Here is a one-question quiz, from which each of you can judge whether you are part of maintaining the Constitution, or bringing it down: If the Supreme Court hands down a decision that obeys the Constitution but is contrary to what you wanted in that case, will you support that decision?
That is a simple but telling question. Is the Constitution more important to you than the decision in any particular case? If you answered that first question “no,” it means you are willing to sacrifice the Constitution to win a specific, political point. And if too many Americans think that way, as George predicted in his letter long ago, the edifice of the Constitution is not long for this world.
- 30 -
About the Author: John Armor practiced in the US Supreme Court for 33 years. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu He lives in the 11th District of North Carolina.
- 30 -
Enjoy.
John / Billybob
The game changed at the end of the Civil War. The XIV Amend was essentially a new Constitution. Fallout runs up and down the Federal state and includes the eternal Campaign Finance issue and GATT.
The spirit of the Republic lies within the hearts of its citizens.
Good piece, CB. Thanks!
PS.. Did you read law books as a kid and decide your career path then or?
When I first saw the letter, those words were what struck me...
Sterling example of what the founders were trying to do.
“the community at large must raise the edifice...”
We, as a people, cannot afford to give that up.
I still believe in the goodness and honesty of Joe 6 pack and the missus.
Sometimes I wonder how much common sense they have, but can’t always have yur cake and eat it too!
Interesting article. As for your question,although I know it’s somewhat after the fact I doubt had I been alive I would have agreed with the 1857 Supreme Court decision concerning Dred Scott !!!
In 218 years it is we, not our government, who have “raised the edifice” of the Constitution. But sadly, in recent decades, it is we who are tearing that edifice down, again.
That was a mere essay head. The Constitutional change at the end of the Civil War was what cast it in concrete. Some might point to Webster or Queen Elizabeth. They all played in the game. More essay heads.
Anyway, there was this course available that was Constitutional Law, but for undergraduates. The Professor was a then-young man named William Muir. It sounded interesting, so I signed up. Muir had an absolute passion for the Constitution, and several of us in the class caught that passion. Instead of going to Ft. Lauderdale that Spring Break, I was in the library reading Supreme Court cases for a paper for Muir.
Led my class in Con Law there, and again in law school. Then just one month after I passed the bar and hung out my shingle, I was brought into a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court. From that point on, I was hooked. Until that point, I barely had a clue what I was going to do with my life, and I was then 29.
I never intended that. I never even intended to practice law. But that’s the way it happened. As the saying goes, “Life is what happens while you’re waiting for something else.”
BTW, I took the time to track down William Muir a few years ago, and thank him personally for the direction in my life that came from his work as a Professor. Thanks for asking that question. It pushed me through some ancient, and mostly favorable, memories. I try from time to time to encourage others to take up the two things I’ve done which are not easy, but are worth it. One is Con Law; the other is writing for publication.
John / Billybob
Thanks for sharing the path to your law pursuits and how the professor helped make it happen.
I never managed to make it to college tho I was ready to begin at the UofMinnesota with law in mind, not sure what kind of practice might have followed. A stint in the Marines messed that up.
Re: getting published and staying published, keep it coming and Thanks!
Excellent piece, CB. Thanks for your essays and for sharing them with us.
Excellent essay. The timing of your essay and mine couldn’t have been better.
Please put a link in this thread to your thread on Constitutional Conventions.
John / Billybob
Billybob wrote:
That Article says it applies to "Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States...." So it covers everyone in executive and judicial offices, but it does not cover legislative officials outside the state legislatures.
This would exclude the occasional state or federal constitutional convention, and also the roughly 250,000 local and county officials.
It is a matter of tradition, not constitutional requirement, that such elected officials use the same form of oath as all others.
Publius, we can see from the above opinion why our Republic is in such danger. -- 250,000 local and county officials do not need to honor our Constitution as the Law of the Land. -- Good grief.
To: tpaine
Your conclusion is absurd. First, I made it clear that state and local officials DO use the same oath, as a matter of tradition rather than requirement. And even if not, the idea that an oath, rather than education and respect, is what binds Americans to their Constitution is contrary to the understandings of all those who wrote and ratified the Constitution, and have sought to preserve it ever since.
Read my next column, “Raising the Edifice.” It is based on a just-discovered text by George Washington. You might learn something. John / Billybob
Well Billybob, -- I've read your new column, and I see nothing in it that refutes my contention that ~all~ citizens of the USA are obligated to support & defend our Constitution - or your contention that: "- 250,000 local and county officials" do not need to honor our Constitution as the Law of the Land, that, "- It is a matter of tradition, not constitutional requirement -".
Not so; - the 14th only clarified the Art. VI issue of whether a State has a 'right' to ignore individual liberties. -- They never did have, [with the exception of slavery] and they don't now.
However, -- Billybob insists that our oath of office "-- does not cover legislative officials outside the state legislatures. This would exclude the occasional state or federal constitutional convention, and also the roughly 250,000 local and county officials. It is a matter of tradition, not constitutional requirement, that such elected officials use the same form of oath as all others. --".
The XIV is the most interpreted Amend. Everything is in there, just not in actual words. Intent, yes, that’s the ticket.
Billybob
Your only rebuttal to the facts I've presented on these issues is to call me names.
Thanks for keeping things on a high "intellectual level".
However, -- Billybob insists that our oath of office "-- does not cover legislative officials outside the state legislatures. This would exclude the occasional state or federal constitutional convention, and also the roughly 250,000 local and county officials. It is a matter of tradition, not constitutional requirement, that such elected officials use the same form of oath as all others. --".
The XIV is the most interpreted Amend. Everything is in there, just not in actual words. Intent, yes, that?s the ticket.
After the 14th was ratified, Congress passed this to show their ~intent~:
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties.
This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.