American Constitution quesiton

[solkoe]

Why did it take 13 years before the Americans decided they needed a constitution?

[Civil Guy]

Our leaders at the time thought we should give it a try as thirteen more nearly independent states. New York didn't want to cede any political power to Virginia, thank you very much, and all around vice versa.

That, and you think it's easy to write a set of rules that'll last 200 years? It is not, by all accounts of the day.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by solkoe

Why did it take 13 years before the Americans decided they needed a constitution?

Because we had a system of government in place for that 13 years. The Articles of Confederation were adopted in 1777, while the Revolution was still going on. It provided for a VERY weak central government, making the new nation pretty much a loose alliance of sovereign states.

The problems that this caused for things like paying the soldiers and the new country's debts wasn't fully obvious until more than a decade after they were adopted, at least in part because of the fact that the Revolution was a pretty huge distraction from the niceties of political philosophy.

The Constitutional Convention was supposed to only suggest ways to improve the Articles. There was actually quite a bit of suspicion that some of the delegates were going to try to do exactly what they did: draft and vote on a completely new system of government. Patrick Henry was chosen as a delegate but refused to attend because, as he put it, he "smelt a rat".

Even after the Constitution was drafted, it wasn't immediately obvious as an improvement over the Articles. It took a very long struggle to get the thing ratified because of states-rights advocates who considered it to be a usurpation of the sovereignty of the states.

[Mehitabel]

During the end of the Revolutionary War, we used a governing document called the Articles of Confederation, which ended up being inadequate after the war.

Edit: Hey, Jayjay simulposted and did it better!

[solkoe]

Was it a given at that time that countries needed a constitution or was the
US one of the first to write one? What I mean is, did someone come along and say, "Why don't we write a constitution that binds as together" or was it more like "Hey fellas, I thinks its time we write that constitution. I think we need one now."

[kunilou]

Am I correct that Great Britain still doesn't have a written consitution?

[Revenant Threshold]

Originally Posted by kunilou

Am I correct that Great Britain still doesn't have a written consitution?

You are correct in that there is no single document we could point to. We do have constitutional law covering the same ideas, but that's spread around many different pieces of legislation. And we have unwritten rules, which are followed even though there is technically no actual law to enforce them.

[Harriet the Spry]

Originally Posted by solkoe

Was it a given at that time that countries needed a constitution or was the
US one of the first to write one? What I mean is, did someone come along and say, "Why don't we write a constitution that binds as together" or was it more like "Hey fellas, I thinks its time we write that constitution. I think we need one now."

Like jayjay said, the Constitution was written to address problems arising from trying to "run the place" with the Articles of Confederation. It wasn't like we needed one to be ISO 1776 compliant (tee hee).

[dtilque]

Originally Posted by solkoe

Was it a given at that time that countries needed a constitution or was the
US one of the first to write one?

The Articles of Confederation were a constitution. So the current constitution is actually the second one the US has had. Virginia first adopted one in 1776, so that predated the Articles. I don't think there were any earlier ones.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by dtilque

The Articles of Confederation were a constitution. So the current constitution is actually the second one the US has had. Virginia first adopted one in 1776, so that predated the Articles. I don't think there were any earlier ones.

From Wikipedia:

In 1639, the Colony of Connecticut adopted the Fundamental Orders, which is considered the first North American constitution, and is the basis for every new Connecticut constitution since, and is also the reason for Connecticut's nickname, the Constitution State.

[Mehitabel]

Well, if you're using Constitution to mean a set of rules preceded by the reasons said rules should exist, then maybe the Mayflower Compact of 1620 would count, but I wouldn't really press that.

However, the current Massachusetts Constitution from 1780, copies of which I used to hand out to schoolchildren over 200 years later, is considered the oldest functioning one in the world. Its preamble may sound a little familiar:

Originally posted by the Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts Bay:

The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government, is to secure the existence of the body politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying in safety and tranquillity their natural rights, and the blessings of life: and whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness.

Yes, Virginia's first constitution was a bit older, but it has since had five or six major revisions, with new Conventions, so it's not usually considered the same document. MA has had the same one with over a hundred amendments added but with the same document, although things like "white", "males", "landowners", and such phrases have been taken out and things like terms altered.

Sorry, I know how furriners hate it when we have to answer "It's one of those things that's different for every state!" but it's true again here. My own NY state has a 45-page monstrosity that looks like it was written by a lawyer because it mostly was.

Ahem. So, the point is that constitutions were already part of our culture and it seemed logical, when a new system was needed, to write one covering the entire country. It is most renowned for the great compromise that meant small and large states both got voices in Congress--an upper house with equal representation in Congress and a lower with seats allocated by population.

[waterj2]

Originally Posted by Mehitabel

My own NY state has a 45-page monstrosity that looks like it was written by a lawyer because it mostly was.

I've heard that over half the length of the New York Constitution is simply amendments exempting particular pieces of land in the Adirondacks from provisions that would otherwise preclude any development on them.

[Sage Rat]

Parallel to the OP, I'll just point out that the EU is in a similar state where a little over a decade after forming, a need to rework the system was necessary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_...ion_for_Europe

What looks good on paper will usually be found to have flaws once put into effect.

[Duckster]

Originally Posted by dtilque

The Articles of Confederation were a constitution. So the current constitution is actually the second one the US has had. Virginia first adopted one in 1776, so that predated the Articles. I don't think there were any earlier ones.

Ah, no. The USA as a sovereign country did not exist prior to the ratification of the Constitution. The Articles governed thirteen sovereign countries in a loose confederation.

[Chessic Sense]

Originally Posted by Mehitabel

Sorry, I know how furriners hate it when we have to answer "It's one of those things that's different for every state!" but it's true again here.

Let this serve as an example of exactly why every state is different. Originally (back when the world was huge), the states wanted to be independent and have a very loose federal government. That gave rise to small things like our separate systems of state and federal courts and big things like the American Civil War (one that still subtlely rages in parts of the south).

[Scuba_Ben]

Originally Posted by Duckster

Ah, no. The USA as a sovereign country did not exist prior to the ratification of the Constitution. The Articles governed thirteen sovereign countries in a loose confederation.

Do you have a cite that the USA was not a sovereign country between 1781 (end of the war / adoption of the Articles of Confederation) and 1788 (adoption of the Constitution)?

A weak-central-government confederation is still a sovereign country.

[Pleonast]

Originally Posted by Duckster

Ah, no. The USA as a sovereign country did not exist prior to the ratification of the Constitution. The Articles governed thirteen sovereign countries in a loose confederation.

Of course the United States existed under the Articles. The central government was given the power to deal with other nations. It also had sole authority over military forces. And it could maintain its own currency. Those are all things sovereign nations do.

The central government didn't have as much power as it would under the Constitution, but that doesn't mean the US didn't exist.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Originally Posted by Civil Guy

Our leaders at the time thought we should give it a try as thirteen more nearly independent states.

The states are not nearly as independent as they were in this vision, but important remnants of it still exist in our political and legal structure. For instance, each state decides when to have its primary election, even for President and Vice President. And almost all the laws that govern our daily lives, from parking violations to felonies to building codes to business and professions, are set forth in state statutes rather than federal ones. Even doctors, whose privileges of prescribing narcotics are managed by the federal DEA, still are licensed by state boards.

Do any other countries have this type of arrangement? For instance, do Canadian provinces or German Laender have such extensive legal codes that are applicable only within their borders?

[Subway Prophet]

Originally Posted by Harriet the Spry

ISO 1776 compliant

Niiiiiiice line. I'll be using this one today. Thanks!

[DSYoungEsq]

Originally Posted by Duckster

Ah, no. The USA as a sovereign country did not exist prior to the ratification of the Constitution. The Articles governed thirteen sovereign countries in a loose confederation.

Most incorrect. VERY incorrect. Made on the basis of a false assumption entirely.

Indeed, for the period 1776 to 1781, the United States of America had no written constitution. That is, it had no single document titled a constitution, or which carried out the function of a constitution. The method of government was, like that of the United Kingdom, based upon what the delegates to the Continental Congress decided to do, to the extent that the sovereign states allowed.

At present, there is little difference, except that the sovereign states gave up some portions of their sovereignity to the federal government when they adopted the Constitution of 1787.

But, since July 4, 1776, there has been in existence The United States of America.

[Zsofia]

A trick question here is "Who was the first president?" The expected answer is George Washington, but the first president under the Articles was Samuel Huntington, a man whose name very few schoolchildren know. However, it's misleading, as the "president" of the AoC was the guy who ran the Congress, not a chief executive.

[yabob]

Originally Posted by Zsofia

A trick question here is "Who was the first president?" The expected answer is George Washington, but the first president under the Articles was Samuel Huntington, a man whose name very few schoolchildren know. However, it's misleading, as the "president" of the AoC was the guy who ran the Congress, not a chief executive.

There's several trick answers to that question. The usual answer a "trickster" is going for is John Hanson, who served the first full term under the Articles of Confederation, and was the first to formally use the title "President of the United States in Congress Assembled". In essence, though, he was President of the Continental Congress, and we might as well nominate Peyton Randolph.

[Freddy the Pig]

Originally Posted by solkoe

Was it a given at that time that countries needed a constitution or was the US one of the first to write one? What I mean is, did someone come along and say, "Why don't we write a constitution that binds as together" or was it more like "Hey fellas, I thinks its time we write that constitution. I think we need one now."

The notion of a written Constitution, laying out the powers of government and superior to ordinary statutory law, dates back at least to the ancient Greeks in the time of Solon. Aristotle later expounded on the virtue of constitutional government in more detail.

In medieval Europe, on the continent at least, the practice fell into abeyance as monarchs ruled by divine right. But England preserved at least some of the substance of constitutional government, if not the modern written form, from the time of Magna Charta.

Constitutional notions received further reinforcement from the royal charters the English kings and queens used to found the American colonies. The charters specified how and by whom the new colonies were to be governed, and usually allowed the settlers to elect an assembly. The assembly might be subservient to a royal or proprietary governor, but even so, the charters accustomed the colonists to living under a written "higher law".

When the colonies declared independence, they naturally rewrote their charters as "constitutions" (some used that word even before independence), and just as naturally, when they wished to create a central government, they sought to write a written constitution to do so.

Contra the OP, it didn’t take 13 years; one of the first things the Continental Congress set out to do after 7/4/1776 was to draft the Articles of Confederation. Because of disagreements, drafting them required more than a year, and ratification by all 13 states required another four years.

The mania for written Constitutions returned to Europe. The deputies to the French Estates General swore the famous Tennis Court Oath to draft a Constitution in 1789, and few monarchs other than the Saudis have been able to resist the demand in the ensuing decades and centuries.

[Duckster]

Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq

At present, there is little difference, except that the sovereign states gave up some portions of their sovereignity to the federal government when they adopted the Constitution of 1787.

The Declaration of Independence turned 13 colonies into 13 independent countries. They remained so until the ratification of the Constitution in 1789. In the meantime, as independent countries they remained so, only offering up limited support to each other under the Articles.

But, since July 4, 1776, there has been in existence The United States of America.

As a title, yes. As a sovereign country, no.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Duckster

The Declaration of Independence turned 13 colonies into 13 independent countries. They remained so until the ratification of the Constitution in 1789. In the meantime, as independent countries they remained so, only offering up limited support to each other under the Articles.

I don't think I'd agree with you there. The United States under the Articles was described as a "perpetual Union", and acted as a sovereign state...meanwhile, the states didn't have a lot of the powers that are usually associated with sovereign states...those powers given over to the United States Congress. The states couldn't engage in foreign relations, declare war, or have an independent army or navy. They couldn't even form agreements between each other without consent of the Congress. The Congress also had the power to create a standard of weights and measures and a standard of coinage. The individual states also had to turn their western territory over to the United States, and the United States administered it.

So, while it's true that the individual states had more power, and the national government less under the Articles than under the Constitution, I don't think it's true to say that the states were independent under the Articles...they had a kind of limited sovereignty (and still do), but far short of true independence.

[DSYoungEsq]

Originally Posted by Duckster

The Declaration of Independence turned 13 colonies into 13 independent countries. They remained so until the ratification of the Constitution in 1789. In the meantime, as independent countries they remained so, only offering up limited support to each other under the Articles.

As a title, yes. As a sovereign country, no.

Your assertion is without foundation either in fact or in political theory. You clearly fail to understand the concept of a "federation" of states into a nation. I suggest before posting further with this incorrect blather that you educate yourself on the subject; I'm not wasting any further time on such silliness.

[DSYoungEsq]

Ok, I'm going to waste some time on it.

The United States of America had all the trappings of a "nation" from July 4, 1776 on. It negotiated with foreign states as a nation. It had a unified military command as a nation. It issued coinage as a nation. It obtained loans as a nation. Each of these powers were confirmed by the Articles of Confederation, adopted in 1781. Indeed, the Treaty of Paris that ended the war shows that England and France and Spain all considered the United States as a single country. These are the actions of a "nation." They are not the actions of 13 fully sovereign states with some sort of loose agreement among themselves for common defence.

I like this quote, found at Wikipedia: Second Continental Congress

"The appointment of the delegates to both these congresses was generally by popular conventions, though in some instances by state assemblies. But in neither case can the appointing body be considered the original depositary of the power by which the delegates acted; for the conventions were either self-appointed "committees of safety" or hastily assembled popular gatherings, including but a small fraction of the population to be represented, and the state assemblies had no right to surrender to another body one atom of the power which had been granted to them, or to create a new power which should govern the people without their will. The source of the powers of congress is to be sought solely in the acquiescence of the people, without which every congressional resolution, with or without the benediction of popular conventions or state legislatures, would have been a mere brutum fulmen; and, as the congress unquestionably exercised national powers, operating over the whole country, the conclusion is inevitable that the will of the whole people is the source of national government in the United States, even from its first imperfect appearance in the second continental congress."

CONGRESS. Cyclopædia of Political Science. New York: Maynard, Merrill, and Co., 1899.

[DSYoungEsq]

Now if you want to get to the edge of what can be considered a "nation," I suggest looking at, say, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from 1447 to 1569. Or the United Colonies of New England (1643 - 1654). A quick look at their articles of Confederation will show the true distinction between sovereigns simply banding together for defence without a centralized government, and the United States of America post 7/4/1776.

[Hari Seldon]

Originally Posted by Civil Guy

Our leaders at the time thought we should give it a try as thirteen more nearly independent states. New York didn't want to cede any political power to Virginia, thank you very much, and all around vice versa.

That, and you think it's easy to write a set of rules that'll last 200 years? It is not, by all accounts of the day.

It just occurred to me that the constitution is less a set of rules than a set of metarules: rules about how to make rules. Not entirely true, but largely so. Many of the rules in it are subjec to modification by Congress including, disasterously in the case of habeas corpus, the one allowing Congress to change what kind of cases the Supreme Court may hear.

[DSYoungEsq]

Originally Posted by Hari Seldon

It just occurred to me that the constitution is less a set of rules than a set of metarules: rules about how to make rules. Not entirely true, but largely so. Many of the rules in it are subjec to modification by Congress including, disasterously in the case of habeas corpus, the one allowing Congress to change what kind of cases the Supreme Court may hear.

With respect, this is not "disaterous" in any respect of the word. The Supreme Court of the United States is not intended as the final word on everything. It has always had limits on its jurisdiction other than that which is explicitly vested in it by the Constitution. The original enabling act limited its ability to hear certain cases, and that has continued to be true all along. Amazingly enough, the country hasn't come to a screeching halt or anything because of it.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by Spectre of Pithecanthropus

Do any other countries have this type of arrangement? For instance, do Canadian provinces or German Laender have such extensive legal codes that are applicable only within their borders?

In general, that is one of the characteristics of a federal state: the central government has certain powers, and the local governments have certain powers, both guaranteed by the Constitution and not subject to unilateral amendment by the other level of government. As well, the laws of the local governments are normally only in force in that government's territory.

With response to your question about Canadian provinces, the answer is yes. The Constitution Act, 1867 divdes the topics of legislative jurisdiction between the federal Parliament and the provincial Legislatures, primarily in sections 91 (federal powers) and 92 (provincial powers).

In some ways, the provinces of Canada are more powerful than the states are in the U.S. system. For example, under our system, the provincial legislative powers are exclusive - Parliament cannot legislate with respect to one of the subject matters assigned to the provinces, and the federal trade and commerce power has not been given the same broad interpretation as the federal commerce clause has been given in the U.S.

So, for example, most laws governing contract, property and other civil rights are provincial. That encompasses a broad swath of legislation, including issues such as workplace safety and industrial relations. About 85% of workers in Canada are under provincial employment laws, not federal. If you want to see the range of statutes passed by a province, try this URL=http://www.publications.gov.sk.ca/deplist.cfm?d=1&c=42]web-page of the Saskatchewan Queen's Printer[/url], listing all the statutes enacted by the Saskatchewan Legislature. The titles of the Acts should give you an indication of the range of provincial powers.

On the other hand, one of the main areas of federal power in Canada is the criminal law power. There is only one Criminal Code, passed by Parliament and applicable throughout the country. Provinces cannot pass criminal laws.

Can't speak specifically to the inquiry about Germany, but my recollection is that the German federation has a different allocation of powers between the central and Lander governments, with the central government having primary responsiblity of legisation, and the the Lander being responsible for administring many federal laws. Perhaps one of our German Dopers could assist us on this point.

[Sonia Montdore]

Solkoe, an excellent book on why and how the U.S. Constitution was written is 1787: the Grand Convention by Clinton Lawrence Rossiter. It's available used at Alibris.

[solkoe]

Originally Posted by Sonia Montdore

Solkoe, an excellent book on why and how the U.S. Constitution was written is 1787: the Grand Convention by Clinton Lawrence Rossiter. It's available used at Alibris.

Thanks, I'll look for it.

[kellner]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

Can't speak specifically to the inquiry about Germany, but my recollection is that the German federation has a different allocation of powers between the central and Lander governments, with the central government having primary responsiblity of legisation, and the the Lander being responsible for administring many federal laws. Perhaps one of our German Dopers could assist us on this point.

In real life, that's spot-on. In theory the differences are a bit smaller than in practice. The idea is that Germany is a voluntary federation of originally souvereign Länder ("countries"). Those have their own constitutions, legislature etc. and organize their own internal structure. They retain all powers that aren't explicitely delegated by the constitution. However in practice large parts of the legislature are, including all criminal and civil law.
As you said, even if the laws are federal, they are mostly implemented by the states. For an ordinary citizen contact with federal administration is fairly limited in everyday life. The Employment Office is federal, railway stations and airports are guarded by federal officers and there are a few other things. Probably I forget something obvious but the rest is mostly relevant to specific groups or very specific circumstances. Although a very large part of our taxes ends up in the pockets of the Federation, only the Länder actually collect taxes. All regular courts are under the control of the Länder, just like most of the police force.
Another difference is that the Länder are directly represented in one chamber of parliament. There are no separate "senators", that job is done by heads of the Land executives together with Land-level cabinet members and each Land can only vote as a bloc.

[Northern Piper]

Kellner, is my recollection on this point correct: I seem to recall that one of the reasons for decentralising the administration to the Lander, particularly the police and the courts, was that Hitler had centralised control over the police and the courts, making it easier to establish his police state? Decentralising the administration of the law enforcement functions therefore helped to prevent a similar event from happening in the future?

[kellner]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

Kellner, is my recollection on this point correct: I seem to recall that one of the reasons for decentralising the administration to the Lander, particularly the police and the courts, was that Hitler had centralised control over the police and the courts, making it easier to establish his police state? Decentralising the administration of the law enforcement functions therefore helped to prevent a similar event from happening in the future?

Yes, that's true. The current constitution is full of measures that are supposed to prevent concentration of power and changes to the fundamental structure of the country. However this model was also a natural choice because Germany has had a strong federalist tradition since the middle ages and handling these things on a sub-national level was the norm for most of German history.