Introduction - the Ties that Bind U.S.
As Benjamin Franklin exited the Second Constitutional Convention, Elizabeth Willing Powel reportedly approached him to ask what kind of government we would have. His response was “A republic, if you can keep it.” He wrote and spoke extensively about this new government, warning that apathy could erode hard-won freedoms, leaving us vulnerable to internal or external threats. He also feared that someday we would overindulge in those very freedoms to the point that we would need a more autocratic government to restore order. He placed particular emphasis on the People’s civic responsibility in protecting and promoting this new form of government.
For the last few months we have examined the interplay of Articles I, II, and III as the bedrock of our constitutional democracy* and the powers, checks, and balances that the Constitution grants to each branch of government. These articles are crucial to understanding this grand American experiment, but Articles IV-VII really bring it all home. This is where states, citizens, and the federal government’s relationships are laid out and where the key question gets answered: what principles ensure longevity and cooperation between these entities in a democratic republic?
Overview of Articles IV, V, and VI
Article IV doesn’t get much press coverage these days, but it serves the key role of gluing the states together. Through it, legal rulings and citizens’ rights cross state lines. The process for adding new states is also included in this Article, which served to expand the current Union from 13 states to 50. Lastly, the federal government is also responsible for protecting every State against invasion and ensuring a “Republican Form of Government.”
Understanding that this Constitution enables a more perfect union, but would not be perfect in and of itself, Article V lays out the process by which amendments can be made to the Constitution. Importantly, this can be initiated by either a 2/3 majority of State legislatures OR by 2/3 of both the U.S. House and Senate.
Article VI is fairly administrative, in that it states that the Constitution itself, once ratified, and any laws and treaties made under its authority, will be the supreme law of the land. States cannot contradict the Constitution or federal law. Furthermore, this Article requires all Senators, Representatives, executive officers, judges, and state legislators to take an oath in support of the Constitution and not face any religious test as a qualification for office.
Article VII simply stated that at least nine states were required to ratify the Constitution. In the end, all 13 original states ratified it.
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
The explicit directive in Article IV to respect other states’ laws, allow free movement of people, and ensure a republican form of government in each state set the stage for mutual respect between peer states. However, these instructions would be toothless without the Supremacy Clause in Article VI. Even when states disagree, the nation is still bound together under Federal law, under the umbrella of the Constitution.
This is one reason that issues like extreme partisan gerrymandering in the redistricting process can be so problematic: it allows individual states to pursue extra weight in the U.S. House and pursue federal legislation that otherwise would be impossible to pass, which can then supersede state laws. In today’s fractured political, social, and media landscape, when House seats are essentially decided by primaries instead of by the general election, these Representatives become responsive to a small fraction of the overall population and they are encouraged to be as extreme as possible to appeal to this population.
This Constitution was not imposed from above; it was ratified by each state to build a system that could be permanent without being overly rigid. At the outset of this nation, no one expected federal domination to create uniformity in each state. Rather, the framework enacted here comes from the inherent cooperation necessary among them, to remain in a structured and lawful relationship. When this union of trust breaks down, or when any state or party attempts to gain and exert excessive control, it jeopardizes “The Grand Experiment,” putting lives, livelihoods, and our nation at risk.
For example, when the South seceded prior to the Civil War, they appealed to one prevalent legal theory that the union was a voluntary compact among individual states that could be dissolved for non-performance. In this view, northern states and the federal government disrespected their judgments in refusing to return fugitive slaves. This notion was rejected following a civil war, a Supreme Court ruling, and a constitutional amendment, all of which clarified states’ roles with respect to one another and the federal government. With this in mind, the importance of the relationship between citizens, states, and the federal government cannot be understated. Much like the checks and balances between federal branches, none of these stakeholders have unilateral, supreme authority over the others.
The Architecture of Change
People often speak of our founding fathers as if they had nearly superhuman insight to enact a few perfect, permanent paragraphs that would never need to be challenged. However, nothing could be further from the truth. The amendment process outlined in Article V is the clearest indication that they knew this Constitution was a solid start, but it would need updates over time.
James Madison stated that the need for “useful alterations” was obvious, and he described the balance they struck between stability and adaptability in Federalist No. 43. Alexander Hamilton also exposed the grave doubts they faced that their Constitution would survive the scrutiny of the ages without the ability to adapt: “I never expect to see a perfect work from imperfect man… experience must guide their labour; time must bring it to perfection” (Federalist No. 85).
Some quick stats: To date, 27 amendments have been made to the Constitution. The first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were ratified as a group in 1791 once the Constitution was ratified, and in the 234 years since then, we have averaged a new amendment every 13.8 years. The last amendment enacted was 33 years ago, in 1992 (curiously, this particular amendment was originally proposed in 1789 and then forgotten until a university student received a C grade on a paper and began a state-by-state letter-writing campaign).
One side effect of a stronger, growing Executive branch is that many Americans understandably don’t know where executive power ends and legislate or judicial power begins. With more and more federal action being taken unilaterally by Presidents and supported by complicity in Congress in recent years, it may be time to consider Amendments that curtail unchecked presidential power from either party. Furthermore, unlike many other countries, the United States does not distinguish between a “natural person” (humans) and “legal person” (often companies and corporations), so the 2010 Citizens United has caused untraceable funding to flood every aspect of our politics and water down the will of The People. Campaign finance reform, overturning Citizens United, or defining legal personhood could all be considered as amendments to restore public trust in elections and the political system.
Other proposed amendments that have strong public support include congressional term limits (83% to 87% support), abolition of the Electoral College (63%), and measures aimed at the Supreme Court such as a formal ethics code (77%), mandatory retirement age (69%), and term limits (68%).
Civic Power in a Polarized Age
The People remain the most important, enduring foundation of the Constitution. Power flows to state and federal governments from the people. The law does not uphold itself; it is the People’s belief in the law that serves as the bedrock of order in our society. When states agree to uphold each other’s judgments (IV), when officials swear oaths to uphold the Constitution (VI), and when the People ultimately authorize and amend it (V, VII), they are performing acts of political faith with real, intentional engagement.
These acts do not happen in a vacuum, however, nor are they limited to politicians. Every individual act of political faith requires civic engagement – education on the issues, elevation in our civic discourse, and activation: the concrete steps toward the goals laid out in the preamble. Even if you’re just starting a state-level letter-writing campaign, it is your right and responsibility to pursue unity, justice, peace, security, well-being, and liberty. For all.
As we finish our review of the Constitution itself in this piece, before we look more closely at the amendments and history that has shaped our understanding of it, we should take a moment to appreciate that our founding document is embedded with such flexibility and permanence. Both of these depend on our willingness to uphold the ideals of this nation, even when we disagree, and to make changes when needed.
We don’t pledge loyalty to any party or figure. We pledge loyalty to shared life and law. That’s our civic contract – and our hope for this republic to endure.
* We intentionally shift between terms like constitutional democracy, democratic republic, democracy, republic, and representative democracy because all of these terms highlight important elements of our complex system, and are commonly used to express the key values and ideals laid out in the Constitution.