Omar Bennett
Article VII of the U.S. Constitution outlines the process for ratifying the Constitution and has implications for federalism and secession. While it does not directly explain how the Constitution can be amended, it establishes the principle of requiring ratification by a supermajority of nine out of thirteen states, ensuring consensus and reflecting the belief that the Constitution should be an act of the people. Amendments to the Constitution are covered under Article V, which mandates ratification by three-fourths of the states for an amendment to take effect. The Seventh Amendment, ratified in 1791, is an example of an amendment that protects citizens' rights to jury trials in federal civil cases.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Number of states required for ratification | 9 out of 13 |
| Date of ratification | June 21, 1788 |
| State that became the ninth state to ratify | New Hampshire |
| Date the new government took over | March 4, 1789 |
| Amendment ensuring right to jury trial in civil cases | Seventh Amendment |
| Date of ratification of Seventh Amendment | December 15, 1791 |
Explore related products
$9.99 $9.99
What You'll Learn
- The US Constitution's Article VII explains the ratification process
- Amendments fall under Article V, requiring ratification by three-fourths of states
- The Framers chose convention over state legislatures for pragmatic and principled reasons
- Article VII's implications for federalism and secession were significant
- The Constitution became good law when ratified by nine states
The US Constitution's Article VII explains the ratification process
Article VII of the US Constitution outlines the process by which the Constitution could be ratified and, therefore, enacted. The Article states that the ratification of nine states would be sufficient for the establishment of the Constitution between those states. This is known as a supermajority rule, requiring more than a simple majority but less than a full consensus.
The decision to require ratification by nine of the thirteen states was a pragmatic one. The Framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure a consensus, but they also wanted to prevent a small number of states from blocking the new Constitution. Rhode Island, for example, had a history of doing so. The use of state legislatures was also avoided, as the proposed Constitution would take power away from them, and there were fears that they might delay or prevent ratification altogether. Instead, the Constitution would be ratified by the people in convention.
This decision had important implications for federalism and secession, as it showed that the Constitution was an emanation of the people as a whole, rather than a compact between the states. Chief Justice Marshall, in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), argued that the conventions occurred at the state level out of historical practice and convenience.
The process of ratification was not without controversy. Anti-Federalists argued that the process was illegal, as it was inconsistent with Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which required changes to be confirmed by the legislatures of every state. Federalists responded by saying that the Articles were no longer binding and that the people were free to abandon any feature of a failed constitution.
The ratification process also had consequences for the Constitution's desirability. The supermajority rule encouraged consensus support and limited opposition, helping the Constitution serve as a source of allegiance. It also influenced the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, as Federalists were forced to promise this to secure ratification.
Amending the Constitution: President's Role
You may want to see also
Amendments fall under Article V, requiring ratification by three-fourths of states
Article VII of the U.S. Constitution outlines the process by which the Constitution itself can be ratified and established between states. It states that ratification by nine states is sufficient for the establishment of the Constitution. This was an important departure from the previous requirement of unanimity, ensuring that a consensus could be reached without a small number of states blocking the new Constitution.
While Article VII discusses the ratification of the Constitution itself, Amendments to the Constitution fall under Article V. This article requires that an amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states to take effect. This means that any proposed amendment must be approved by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by conventions in three-fourths of the states, as determined by Congress.
The process of amending the Constitution is a complex and deliberate procedure. It begins with the proposal stage, where either two-thirds of both houses of Congress propose an amendment, or two-thirds of the state legislatures request a convention to propose amendments. Once an amendment is proposed, it must then be ratified by a sufficient number of states.
The requirement for ratification by three-fourths of the states ensures a high bar for amending the Constitution, reflecting the document's foundational importance in American law and governance. This supermajority rule promotes consensus support for any changes to the Constitution, helping to ensure broad acceptance and allegiance to the amended document.
One example of an amendment that falls under Article V is the Seventh Amendment, which protects the right of citizens to a jury trial in federal courts for civil cases exceeding a certain dollar value. This amendment was ratified in 1791 and added to the Constitution following the Constitutional Convention, where Anti-Federalists demanded its inclusion to check potential overreach by the federal government.
Amending California's Constitution: Too Easy a Task?
You may want to see also
The Framers chose convention over state legislatures for pragmatic and principled reasons
Article VII of the U.S. Constitution outlines the process for ratifying and amending the document. It states that the ratification of nine states is sufficient for the establishment of the Constitution. This is often referred to as the supermajority rule, which promotes consensus support and ensures that a small number of states cannot block the new Constitution.
The Framers of the Constitution chose to employ a convention of the people rather than state legislatures for both pragmatic and principled reasons. Firstly, they believed that the Constitution should be an act of the people, deriving its authority from a different source than legislative decisions. This reflected their desire to limit populist power and insulate the federal government from political accountability relative to the state governments. By electing a special convention, the Framers employed representational democracy rather than direct democracy.
Secondly, there were pragmatic concerns about the use of state legislatures. The proposed Constitution would reduce the power of state legislatures, and there was a fear that they might delay or prevent the ratification of the Constitution. The Framers wanted to bypass the state legislatures, anticipating their reluctance to give up power to a national government. This decision to depart from the unanimity requirement of the Articles of Confederation ensured that a single state could not block amendments.
Additionally, the Framers addressed populism by establishing an Electoral College system, where the president would be selected by a body of electors chosen by the states rather than by individual voters. They also gave the chief executive veto power over legislation and designed the Senate to insulate Congress from populist pressures. These anti-populist measures were influenced by the aftermath of the American Revolution, which left the country in a severe economic recession, with heavy taxes levied on residents.
In conclusion, the Framers' choice to utilise a convention over state legislatures reflected their desire for the Constitution to be an act of the people, limiting populist power and ensuring ratification despite potential opposition from state legislatures. These decisions had significant implications for the nation's federalism and the balance of power between the states and the national government.
Constitutional Amendments: Voter Turnout Crisis
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Article VII's implications for federalism and secession were significant
Article VII of the US Constitution outlines the process for ratifying the Constitution and has been interpreted as having significant implications for federalism and secession. The Article states that the ratification of the Constitution by nine states is sufficient for its establishment. This supermajority rule of nine out of thirteen states was important for achieving consensus and ensuring that the Constitution was supported by a majority of the country.
Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) argued that Article VII's requirement of ratification by the people in convention demonstrated that the Constitution was an emanation of the people as a whole, rather than a compact between individual states. This interpretation suggested that the conventions occurred at the state level out of historical practice and convenience. In contrast, the Confederate States interpreted Article VII as empowering each state to act through its sovereign people, allowing them to repeal their ratification of the Constitution when seceding.
The Framers' decision to substitute state legislatures with conventions reflected both pragmatic and principled concerns. Pragmatically, it addressed the concern that state legislatures might delay or prevent the ratification of the Constitution, as it would take power away from them. In principle, the Constitution was intended to be an act of the people, deriving its authority from a source different from legislative decisions, thus taking priority over them.
Article VII's departure from the unanimity requirement of the Articles of Confederation was also significant. The previous difficulty in securing amendments due to a single state's blocking power was addressed by requiring ratification by nine states, ensuring consensus without allowing a small number of states to dominate. This aspect of Article VII contributed to the desirability of the Constitution by promoting consensus support and limiting opposition.
Amendments: Their Home in the North Carolina Constitution
You may want to see also
The Constitution became good law when ratified by nine states
The US Constitution is regarded as the foundational text of American law, but it was not the first form of governance in the country. In 1777, the Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, which established a "league of friendship" between 13 independent states. However, the Articles of Confederation left the federal government with very little power.
In 1787, Alexander Hamilton proposed a conference to revise the Articles of Confederation. This led to the Constitutional Convention, where delegates (known as "the Framers") initially intended to amend the Articles of Confederation to keep most government power with the states. However, they soon decided to draft a new constitution instead. The Framers' decision to require ratification by conventions rather than state legislatures reflected their principle that the Constitution should be an act of the people rather than the legislature. This also addressed pragmatic concerns, as the proposed Constitution would take power away from state legislatures, which could have delayed or blocked ratification.
The delegates at the Constitutional Convention spent the summer of 1787 working on a plan for a new form of government. On September 17, 1787, they signed the new United States Constitution. Article VII of the Constitution states that ratification by nine states would be sufficient for the establishment of the Constitution between those states. Delaware became the first state to ratify the Constitution on December 7, 1787, and New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify on June 21, 1788. Thus, the Constitution became good law when ratified by nine states, as specified in Article VII. This requirement for a supermajority of nine out of thirteen states ensured a consensus and prevented a small number of states from blocking the new Constitution.
Exploring Constitutional Amendments: Convention Required?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Article VII of the U.S. Constitution outlines the process for ratifying the Constitution and addresses the role of conventions in the ratification process.
Article VII has been interpreted as having significant implications for federalism and secession. The requirement for ratification by the people in convention demonstrated that the Constitution was an emanation of the people as a whole, rather than a compact between individual states.
Article VII itself does not detail the process for amending the Constitution. Amendments to the Constitution are covered under Article V, which requires ratification by three-fourths of the states for an amendment to take effect.
