FRtR > Documents > The Anti-Federalist Papers > 21
The Anti-Federalist Papers
The Constitutional Convention Debates
Method of Ratification
(July 23)
*** Index
* Quote
* Context ***
- COLONEL MASON
- considered a reference of the plan to the
authority of the people as one of the most important and essential
of the Resolutions. The Legislatures have no power to ratify it.
They are the mere creatures of the State Constitutions, and can
not be greater than their creators. And he knew of no power in
any of the Constitutions, he knew there was no power in some of
them, that could be competent to this object. Whither then must
we resort. To the people with whom all power remains that has
not been given up in the Constitutions derived from them. It was
of great moment he observed that this doctrine should be
cherished as the basis of free Government. Another strong reason
was that admitting the legislatures to have a competent authority,
it would be wrong to refer the plan to them, because succeeding
Legislatures having equal authority could undo the acts of their
predecessors, and the National Government would stand in each
State on the weak and tottering foundation of an Act of Assembly.
There was a remaining consideration of some weight. In
some of the States the Governments were not derived from the
clear and undisputed authority of the people. This was the case
in Virginia. Some of the best and wisest citizens considered the
Constitution as established by an assumed authority. A National
Consitution derived from such a source would be exposed to the
severest criticisms...
- MR. ELLSWORTH
- If there be any Legislatures who should flnd
themselves incompetent to the ratification, he should be content
to let them advise with their constituents and pursue such a mode
as would be competent. He thought more was to be expected
from the Legislatures than from the people. The prevailing wish
of the people in the Eastern States is to get rid of the public debt,
and the idea of strengthening the National Government carries
with it that of strengthening the public debt. It was said by
Colonel Mason
- that the Legislatures have no authority in this
case
- that their successors having equal authority could
rescind their acts.
As to the second point he could not admit it to
be well founded. An Act to which the States by their Legislatures, make themselves parties,
becomes a compact from which
no one of the parties can recede of itself. As to the first point, he
observed that a new set of ideas seemed to have crept in since
the articles of Confederation were established. Conventions of
the people, or with power derived expressly from the people,
were not then thought of. The Legislatures were considered as
competent. Their ratification has been acquiesced in without
complaint. To whom have Congress applied on subsequent occasions for further powers.
To the Legislatures, not to the people,
The fact is that we exist at present, and we need not enquire
how, as a federal Society, united by a charter one article of
which is that alterations therein may be made by the Legislative
authority of the States. It has been said that if the confederation
is to be observed, the States must unanimously concur in the
proposed innovations. He would answer that if such were the
urgency and necessity of our situation as to warrant a new
compact among a part of the States, founded on the consent of
the people, the same pleas would be equally valid in favor of a
partial compact, founded on the consent of the Legislatures.
- MR. MADISON
- thought it clear that the Legislatures were incompetent
to the proposed changes. These changes would make
essential inroads on the State Constitutions, and it would be a
novel and dangerous doctrine that a Legislature could change the
constitution under which it held its existence. There might indeed
be some Constitutions within the Union, which had given a
power to the Legislature to concur in alterations of the federal
Compact. But there vere certainly some which had not; and in
the case of these, a ratification must of necessity be obtained
from the people. He considered the difference between a system
founded on the Legislatures only, and one founded on the people,
to be the true difference between a leagu or treaty and a
Constitution. The former in point of moral obligation might be
as inviolable as the latter. In point of political operation, there
were two important distinctions in favor of the latter.
- A law
violating a treaty ratified by a pre-existing law, might be
respected by the Judges as a law, though an unwise or perfidious
one. A law violating a constitution established by the people
themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null and void.
- The doctrine laid down by the law of Nations in the case of
treaties is that a breach of any one article by any of the parties,
frees the other parties from their engagements. In the case of a
union of people under one Constitution, the nature of the pact
has always been understood to exclude such an interpretation.
Comparing the two modes in point of expediency he thought all
the considerations which recommended this Convention in preference
to Congress for proposing the reform were in favor of
State Conventions in preference to the Legislatures for exanmining and adopting it.