Isabella Carter
The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. It was signed on September 17, 1787, and ratified on June 21, 1788. The Constitution superseded the Articles of Confederation, which was America's first constitution. The delegates at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 were tasked with revising the Articles of Confederation, but by mid-June, they had decided to create a new government. One of the main concerns was the lack of enforcement powers, the inability to regulate commerce, and the power to make rules and request funds from the states. Another major unresolved problem was the method of electing the executive. There were also concerns about individual liberties, with George Mason expressing dismay that a bill of rights was not included in the Constitution. Despite these concerns, the Constitution was ratified by 9 of the 13 states, with the Federalists advocating for a strong central government.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Number of signers | 39 |
| Ratification | Ratified on June 21, 1788 |
| Amendments | 27 |
| Bill of Rights | Not included |
| Ratification method | Ratified through conventions of the people, not Congress or state legislatures |
| Number of states required for ratification | 9 of 13 |
| Treason | Congress cannot change federal law on treason by a simple majority statute |
Explore related products
![New Constitution of the State of Missouri, Adopted in Convention August 2, 1875; and an Ordinance Prohibiting the Payment of Missing Railroad Bonds, Also the Address of the 1875 [Leather Bound]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/617DLHXyzlL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
What You'll Learn
No 'Bill of Rights'
The absence of a Bill of Rights in the new Constitution was a significant concern for some delegates, who believed it was necessary to ensure individual liberties. George Mason, for instance, was vehemently opposed to the absence of a Bill of Rights, going so far as to say that he "would sooner chop off his right hand than put it to the Constitution as it now stands." He proposed a new convention to address this issue, but his motion was overwhelmingly rejected.
The debate surrounding the inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the new Constitution was a contentious one. The anti-Federalists, who advocated for a Bill of Rights, scored a significant victory when John Hancock, the revolutionary leader, threw his support behind the idea during the Massachusetts ratifying convention. Six other states followed suit, appending recommendations for a Bill of Rights to their constitutions.
The Federalists, on the other hand, were apprehensive about the idea and employed tactics to avoid defeat, such as adjourning the New Hampshire convention. Despite their efforts, the Federalists were unable to prevent the inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the end. The first ten amendments to the Constitution, ratified on December 15, 1791, comprised the Bill of Rights.
The delegates who supported the new Constitution, despite their initial dissatisfaction with certain aspects, believed that it was the best option available at the time. Benjamin Franklin, one of the signers, acknowledged that there were parts of the Constitution he did not approve of but accepted it because he "expected no better."
In conclusion, the absence of a Bill of Rights in the new Constitution was a point of contention, with some delegates vehemently opposed to its exclusion. However, the issue was ultimately resolved with the ratification of the Bill of Rights as the first ten amendments to the Constitution a few years after its formation.
The Day You Legally Own Your Property
You may want to see also
No enforcement powers
The lack of enforcement powers in the new constitution is a significant feature. This means that the document, by itself, does not provide any mechanisms or authorities to ensure its provisions are upheld and implemented. The constitution relies on other institutions and processes to enforce its principles and regulations.
This absence of enforcement powers is intentional and stems from the belief that the constitution should serve as a framework for governance, with the specifics of implementation left to other branches of government. This separation of powers is a fundamental principle in many democratic systems, aiming to prevent the concentration of power in a single entity and promote checks and balances.
Consequently, the interpretation and enforcement of the constitution are typically handled by the judicial branch of government, which includes courts and tribunals. These institutions are responsible for resolving disputes, interpreting laws, and ensuring that the constitution is applied fairly and consistently. The independence of the judiciary is crucial to this process, ensuring impartiality and safeguarding against arbitrary enforcement.
While the judiciary plays a pivotal role in interpreting and enforcing the constitution, other mechanisms also contribute to ensuring constitutional compliance. For instance, executive branches of government are responsible for implementing policies and taking actions that align with constitutional principles. Additionally, legislative bodies create laws and regulations that must conform to the constitution, and their actions can be reviewed and challenged through judicial processes.
In some cases, independent bodies or commissions may be established to oversee specific aspects of constitutional enforcement. These bodies can provide additional expertise and focus on particular areas, such as human rights, electoral processes, or anti-corruption measures. Their independence allows them to act impartially and provide additional checks and balances within the system.
Overall, the absence of enforcement powers within the constitution reflects a deliberate design choice to maintain a separation of powers and promote democratic principles. The interpretation and enforcement of constitutional provisions are critical functions that rely on a robust and independent judiciary, as well as the effective functioning of other branches of government, and, in some instances, dedicated oversight bodies.
Implied Powers: Regulating Commerce, Money, and Coinage
You may want to see also
No regulation of commerce
America's first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, gave the Confederation Congress the power to make rules and request funds from the states. However, it had no enforcement powers, and notably, it could not regulate commerce or print money.
The lack of regulatory power over commerce meant that the states' disputes over territory, war pensions, taxation, and trade threatened to tear the young country apart. This was a significant concern for James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington, who feared their young country was on the brink of collapse.
The inability to regulate commerce was a critical issue that the new constitution sought to address. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 recognized the need for a powerful central government that could effectively manage interstate commerce and resolve disputes.
The new constitution, signed by 38 delegates on September 17, 1787, established a strong federal government with the authority to regulate commerce and address the issues that had plagued the young nation. This marked a significant shift from the Articles of Confederation, which had limited the country's ability to manage its economy and trade effectively.
The inclusion of commerce regulation in the new constitution was a pivotal step towards creating a unified and stable economy, ensuring the country's prosperity and longevity.
Abuse of Power: Understanding Constitutional Overreach
You may want to see also
Explore related products
No power to print money
The power to print money was not granted to the federal government by the new Constitution of the United States. This was a notable omission, as it meant that the federal government did not have the explicit authority to issue currency or regulate its value.
At the time of the Constitution's drafting, the issue of currency and money supply was a highly contentious topic. The founding fathers were wary of centralising too much economic power in the hands of the federal government, having just fought a war against what they saw as an oppressive and controlling monarchy. They were concerned that giving the federal government the power to print money could lead to abuse and corruption, with the potential for the government to debase the currency or engage in reckless monetary policies that could harm the economy and erode the wealth of the people.
As a result, the power to print money was left to the individual states, which had their own currencies during the early years of the United States. This led to a period of monetary chaos, with a variety of currencies in circulation and varying levels of stability and value. It became clear over time that a uniform national currency was needed for a more stable and efficient economy.
In 1791, the First Bank of the United States was established, which helped to create a more standardised monetary system. However, it was not until 1861, with the passage of the Legal Tender Act during the Civil War, that the federal government officially gained the power to print money in the form of the US dollar. This act authorised the issuance of paper currency, known as greenbacks, to fund the war effort.
Today, the power to print money in the United States is vested in the Federal Reserve System, the country's central bank. Established in 1913, the Federal Reserve has the exclusive authority to issue Federal Reserve notes, which serve as the country's legal tender. The Federal Reserve's monetary policies and control over the money supply are crucial for maintaining price stability and promoting economic growth in the United States.
How the Constitution Shapes Citizen Participation
You may want to see also
No unanimous support
The United States Constitution was signed by 39 framers on 17 September 1787, and ratified on 21 June 1788. However, it did not have unanimous support. The advocates of the Constitution were keen to obtain unanimous support from all twelve states represented in the convention. Their formula for the closing endorsement was "Done in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present". In the end, the proposal was agreed to by eleven state delegations and the lone remaining delegate from New York, Alexander Hamilton.
Several of the delegates were disappointed with the result, seeing it as a series of unfortunate compromises. Three delegates refused to sign, and some left before the ceremony. Benjamin Franklin, one of the signers, summed up the sentiment of these delegates, saying, "There are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them." He accepted the Constitution because he "expect [ed] no better" and was "not sure that it [was] not the best".
George Mason, another delegate, was so unhappy with the Constitution that he exclaimed he "would sooner chop off his right hand than put it to the Constitution as it now stands." Mason was concerned that the convention was rushing to create a potentially ruinous central authority, and that a "bill of rights" ensuring individual liberties had not been included. He called for a new convention to reconsider the formation of a new government, but his motion was voted down.
The nationalists, led by Madison, wanted to bring the issue of the new constitution before "the people", knowing that ratification was more likely this way than through the state legislatures, where many state political leaders stood to lose power. John Hancock, the revolutionary leader, was seduced by the Federalists with visions of the vice presidency and possibly the presidency, and he delivered a critical block of votes. The Federalists also adjourned the New Hampshire convention when they sensed imminent defeat, and Rhode Island turned down the Constitution in a popular referendum by an overwhelming vote of 10 to 1.
Caseinase Test: Milk Agar Positive Results Explained
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
America's first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, gave the Confederation Congress the authority to make rules and request funds from the states, but it lacked enforcement powers, the ability to regulate commerce, and the ability to print money.
A "'bill of rights' ensuring individual liberties was notably absent from the Constitution, which caused concern for some.
The accepted formula for the closing endorsement was "Done in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present".
After three days of debate, Paterson's plan was rejected.
