George Mason and Article V: The Untold
Story
By
James Scott Trimm
Up until recently I supported calling an
Article V Convention of the States as part of an effort to bring the Federal
Government under control. But I have
recently changed my mind about this.
Here is why:
It was September 15, 1787, and after nearly
four months the Constitutional Convention was drawing to a close. As the convention was reviewing the language
of Article V, George Mason a delegate from Virginia had a concern. Mason had sought to attach a Bill of Rights
to the Constitution at the Convention but had failed. Mason’s concern was recorded in the official record as follows:
Col: Mason thought the plan of amending the
Constitution exceptionable & dangerous. As the proposing of amendments is
in both the modes to depend, in the first immediately, and in the second,
ultimately, on Congress, no amendments of the proper kind would ever be
obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive, as he
verily believed would be the case.
Mr. Govr. Morris & Mr. Gerry moved to
amend the article so as to require a Convention on application of 2/3 of the
Sts
Mr Madison did not see why Congress would
not be as much bound to propose amendments applied for by two thirds of the
States as to call a call a Convention on the like application. He saw no
objection however against providing for a Convention for the purpose of
amendments, except only that difficulties might arise as to the form, the
quorum &c. which in Constitutional regulations ought to be as much as
possible avoided.
The motion of Mr. Govr Morris and Mr. Gerry
was agreed to nem: con
But Mason was still not satisfied and
refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights.
Mason Continues His Campaign for a Bill of
Rights
‘
Although the Bill of Rights with its Tenth
Amendment was not yet part of the Constitution, James Madison wrote in
Federalist Paper 45, Jan. 26, 1788:
The powers delegated by the proposed
Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to
remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be
exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negociation, and
foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part
be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the
objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties
and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and
prosperity of the State.
But these words were yet hollow because the
Tenth Amendment was not yet part of the Constitution.
George Mason, father of the Bill of Rights
George Mason campaigned for and once again failed to
get a Bill of Rights attached to the Constitution at the Virginia Ratifying
Convention in June of 1788.
Mason’s failed fight for a Bill of Rights
inspired fellow Virginian James Madison to introduce it a year later during the
First Congress in 1789, and it was ratified in 1791. One year later George Mason died.
Mason is regarded as the father of the Bill
of Rights and was the primary author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights,
which served as a basis for the United States Bill of Rights.
When we look at the whole picture, it appears Mason had been concerned at the Constitutional Convention that the Federal
Government would never pass the Bill of Rights and he wanted to have a way that
the States could add a Bill of Rights on their own. This is clearly what he had in mind when he
referred to “amendments of the proper kind” which could “be obtained by the
people, if the Government should become oppressive, as he verily believed would
be the case.”
The Alien and Sedition Acts
In 1798 Congress passed the Alien and
Sedition Acts. These acts were clearly
unconstitutional, threatening to prosecute or deport those who criticized the
Federal government.
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison reacted
quickly, but what is especially telling is what they did not do. They did not start a process of rallying the
states to call for an Article V convention.
There would be no point in introducing an amendment guaranteeing freedom
of speech and freedom of the press.
Such an amendment had already been passed and ratified in 1791 with the
Bill of Rights, the Federal Government was simply ignoring it. Clearly passing amendments would not
restrain the Federal Leviathan.
Instead Jefferson and Madison passed the
Kentucky and Virginia resolutions laying down the groundwork to enforce the
Constitution that they already had through interposition and
nullification. This is the method laid
out in the currently proposed Texas Sovereignty Act, which, if passed, would
facilitate Tenth Amendment enforcement (and enforcement of the rest of the
Constitution as well.
George Mason only intended his suggested
revision to Article V as a means to allow the separate states to amend the
Constitution with a Bill of Rights, because it did not yet have one. However adding more amendments to a
Constitution when the ones we already have are being ignored, would be as non
productive as calling an Article V Convention of the States in the wake of the
Alien and Seditions Acts.
Once the Bill of Rights was successfully
added to the Constitution and were being ignored, George Mason would certainly
have favored enforcing the Bill of Rights, not adding more amendments for the
Federal Government to also ignore.
Very telling is Madison’s prescription for
States brining an oppressive Federal government under control in Federalis
Paper 46:
…should an unwarrantable measure of the
federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail
to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the
case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude
of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the
officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the
embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on
such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised;
would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the
sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present
obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.
Madison here suggests four things:
1. The disquietude of the people;
2.
their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers
of the Union;
3.
the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State;
4.
the embarrassments created by legislative devices
Notice he did not suggest calling for an
Article V Convention of the States.
Proposed Amendments Could Undermine State
Sovereignty
Some of the proposed amendments for an
Article V convention would undermine many of the rights the states have right
now.
The Supreme Court has become the final interpreter of the
Constitution for one simple reason: because they say they are. The
Supreme Court usurped this authority, claiming it for itself in 1803 in Marbury
v. Madison. Nowhere does the Constitution assign this role to the Supreme
Court, they simply have it because they say they do,
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says:
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, anything in the constitution or
laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
(Article 6; Clause 2)
Note that it is the Constitution, not the federal government that is the
“supreme law of the land”. The Constitution is not the same thing as the
federal government. The Constitution is the instrument that creates and
restrains the federal government, it is not the federal government itself.
The Constitution is also not the same thing as the Supreme Court. And in
fact the Supreme Court is not even mentioned in the Supremacy Clause.
To the contrary Thomas Jefferson wrote:
“…this [federal] government, created by this compact [the Constitution], was
not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to
itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution,
the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among
powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for
itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
(Thomas Jefferson; Kentucky Resolution 1798)
And James Madison wrote:
"…the powers of the federal government as resulting from the compact to
which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of
the instrument constituting that compact, as no further valid than they are
authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that, in case of a
deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by
the said compact, the states, who are parties thereto, have the right, and are
in duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and for
maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and
liberties, appertaining to them."
(James Madison; Virginia Resolution of 1798)
The Constitution is a compact between a given state, and the other states in
the Union. Just as when two foreign powers, for example France and Great
Britain enter into a compact, each party has a right to determine for itself
its own understanding of the terms of the compact. Likewise each state
maintains the right to determine for itself its own understanding of meaning of
the terms of the Constitution. This does not conflict with the Supremacy Clause
because it is the Constitution (but not the Federal Government ) which is the
Supreme Law of the land.
Not only does the Constitution not mention the US Supreme Court in the
Supremacy Clause, the Constitution indicates that it is State judges
who are expected to determine if a state law is constitutional saying “…and the
judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the
constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”
The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people
This means that the federal government (the Supreme Court included) does not
have any power that the states have not specifically delegated to the federal
government in the Constitution. No where in the Constitution do the
states delegate to the Federal Government the power to determine for themselves
whether or not they deem a state law to be Constitutional, or to determine for
itself what it understands the Constitution to mean.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"That the several states composing the United States of America are not
united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government;
but that, by compact, under the style and title of a Constitution for the
United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government
for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers,
reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own
self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated
powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this
compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, its co-States
forming, as to itself, the other party;…”
(Thomas Jefferson; Kentucky Resolution 1798)
Madison wrote in his Report of the Virginia Resolutions:
The Constitution of the United States was formed by the
sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the
stability and dignity, as well as to the authority, of the Constitution, that
it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The states, then, being the
parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it
follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their
authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be
violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must
themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient
magnitude to require their interposition.
(James Madison; Report on the Virginia Resolutions of 1798)
The 2016 Texas Republican Party Platform calls upon our
state several times to single handedly exercise this Tenth Amendment power to
enforce that Constitution in Texas and nullify unconstitutional federal acts
including Supreme Court Rulings that Texas determines are unconstitutional.
However one amendment proposed by both
Mark Levin and Gov. Greg Abbot would allow 2/3 of the states to override a U.S.
Supreme Court decision. The problem is
that under our current Constitution, if it were enforced, one state can
override a U.S. Supreme Court Ruling that it finds unconstitutional right
now. This is the very process that
Thomas Jefferson had initiated in reaction to the Alien and Sedition Acts, the
very process that is laid out in the Texas Sovereignty Act, but a process that
would be undermined by instead requiring 2/3 of the states to act together.
Another proposed amendment would require a
seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that
invalidate a democratically enacted law.
The problem is that the Supreme Court has no such Constitutional power
under a simple majority now. They gave
it to themselves in 1803 in the Marbury v. Madison decision. Since SCOTUS is not given this power in the
Constitution, and since the Tenth amendment says the Federal government has no
powers not delegated to in the Constitution, SCOTUS does not actually have this
power (if we enforce the Constitution that we have). But this amendment would give them this right that they don’t
legitimately have now and substantially curb our current Tenth Amendment
rights.
Texas Governor Greg Abbot says he wants to strengthen the
Tenth amendment, yet these amendments would both undermine it.
This would be like Jefferson and Madison
responding to the Alien and Sedition Acts by calling for an Article V
Convention to supposedly “strengthen” the First amendment, and then proposing
amendments that actually allowed the Federal government the power to regulate
speech as long as a super-majority in Congress supported it and 2/3 of the
states did not overturn them!
I believe that the best way for Texas to
bring the Federal Government under control is to enforce the Constitution that we have now,
rather than adding amendments when the ones we have are already ignored. Certainly a prerequisite for adding amendments
would be to enforce the ones that we have first. However if we enforce the Constitution we have, then we likely
would not need and Article V Convention of the States.
If we pass the Texas Sovereignty Act we would
probably not need an Article V Convention, however some of the proposed
amendments would undermine the power of the State of Texas to enforce the
Constitution as laid out in the Texas Sovereignty Act.
