The Signing of the US Constitution

As recorded in The Records of the Federal Convention, 17 September 1787

George Washington addresses the Convention (bold added):

When the President rose, for the purpose of putting the question, he said that although his situation had hitherto restrained him from offering his sentiments on questions depending in the House, and it might be thought, ought now to impose silence on him, yet he could not forbear expressing his wish that the alteration proposed might take place. It was much to be desired that the objections to the plan recommended might be made as few as possible – The smallness of the proportion of Representatives had been considered by many members of the Convention, an insufficient security for the rights & interests of the people. He acknowledged that it had always appeared to himself among the exceptionable parts of the plan; and late as the present moment was for admitting amendments, he thought this of so much consequence that it would give much satisfaction to see it adopted.

Yes ... "among the exceptionable parts of the plan."
Happy Constitution Day! ~ And thanks George!

A chorus excerpt from: thereafter ~ (Or, The crows of Wicker Park)
A 2013 novella

Today in George Washington's life: The Battle of Harlem Heights (16 September 1776)

"~"
“My name is from 16 September 1776,” said Virginia.

“How so?” Ice asked.

“George Washington ordered some American rebels to flank the British soldiers and it worked. Two rebel leaders were casualties during the battle; Colonel Thomas Knowlton died on the field and my namesake, Major Andrew Leitch of Virginia, died 13 days later. Washington ordered the call and response – the passwords – for the next day to be ‘Leitch’ and ‘Virginia’ – for the mortally wounded Major.”

“So your name was first spoken on 17 September 1776?”

“Yeah – I guess it was.”

"~"

Excerpt from Chapter 3:8, Oligarchy
The Book of the Is (2013)

Today in George Washington's life: The Battle of Kip's Bay ~ 15 September 1776

8
Recall the Federalists supported ratification. Three of them, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, wrote a collection of essays called The Federalist Papers. At the time of ratification, the Federalists defended the concept of constitutional representation. They wrote essays to the people of New York to convince them to ratify the Constitution (which New York did). The documents make clear, and we will go into some detail below, that the Federalists believed one Representative for every 30,000 inhabitants would make the House safe, and also more importantly, keep it safe, in its role of balancing power.

The Convention designed the House to be a dynamic institution, bound to change, with an equal place in power. It was built to channel factionalism into representative government.

As the country grew in population, the ratifiers knew the number of Representatives would also grow. Writing in Federalist 55, Madison projected: “At the expiration of twenty-five years, according to the computed rate of increase, the number of representatives will amount to two hundred, and of fifty years, to four hundred.”

The Convention agreed that the Legislative Branch would represent the people and the states. This was one of the early key compromises – called the Connecticut Compromise. They agreed to divide the legislature into two sections to split the law-making power. State representation was set at two members for all, thus making large and small states equal. The House of Representatives is where size mattered: as a state’s population grew, so would representation. For example, Delaware and New York would be represented equally in the Senate with two members, and the difference in population would be represented in the House.

If we look at Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, we can find what was agreed to and ratified. This section included the most recognizable failure of the Constitution: the “three fifths” deal. At the Convention, Southern states wanted slaves to count toward representation; Northern states didn’t. The “compromise” was to count: “the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [slaves].” This aspect of Clause 3 was replaced by the 14th Amendment (1868).

Clause 3 also states that a census must be taken within three years of ratification – and it was – and that every ten years a census be taken for the purpose of representation – and it has been. Clause 3 also apportioned the first House based on agreement. Since there wasn’t a census to work with, they simply agreed to the number of Representatives for each state. These numbers were based on a state’s estimated population; for example, it was proposed that New York would begin with six Representatives and Delaware with one.

In the Senate the founders agreed to two Senators for each state; for the House they chose this wording: “The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative.” At the time, this theory of representation – that one could represent 30,000 – it was a big deal. In the state legislatures of the period, the representation ratio was often much lower. For example, we read in Federalist 55, that in Pennsylvania the ratio was one for every four or five thousand, in Rhode Island one for a thousand, and in several Georgia districts they had an incredibly low ratio of one for ten.

People at the time realized, and we should also, that there is no magic number when it comes to ratios and representation. Madison knew this and said so in Federalist 55: “Nothing can be more fallacious than to found our political calculations on arithmetical principles.” One for every 30,000 isn’t a magical ratio that solves all of our problems and makes everyone happy. In fact, Madison warns us of thinking that a large assembly will make us a better nation. His fear of the mob was evident: “In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever character composed, passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason. Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.”

George Washington is our Socrates. He presided over the drafting of our Constitution as President of the Convention and chose not to speak during the deliberations. He was silent (during debates) until the last day, 17 September 1787. After the proposed Constitution had been read aloud, he rose and announced a request. He asked those gathered to make one change: he asked them to lower the ratio for representation from, “one for every forty Thousand,” to “one for every thirty Thousand.” The request was unanimously approved and the change was made – then they signed it.

Remember that moment: George Washington, war hero, deliverer and arguably the person most responsible for our revolution, he requested a lowering of the ratio to provide the House with more power. Yet every time since then, the Representatives have declined to keep the ratio lower: it’s in their interest, and not ours, to keep representation small. Twenty-one censuses in a row and you’d think just once we’d side with Washington’s leadership on We the People’s House.

Excerpt from Chapter 3:9, Oligarchy
The Book of the Is (2013)

9
In Federalist 56, Madison defends the House against the charge that it: “will be too small to possess a due knowledge of the interests of its constituents.” The founders wanted to insure local interests were represented; Madison’s theories require Representatives to bring local knowledge to the federal House. The founders also believed: “every Representative will have much information to acquire concerning all other States.”

The House wasn’t (just) designed as a place to make laws: it was designed as a place of knowledge as well. Not only would a large House send more Representatives to Washington, it would also send more Representatives back home with new knowledge. The initial House had 65 members: the current has 435. It’s hard to see how 435 can come home and let 300 million of us know what’s going on – thus the form letters. 

Excerpt from Chapter 3:10, Oligarchy
The Book of the Is (2013)

10
In Federalist 57, the charge is found in the title of the essay: The Alleged Tendency of the New Plan to Elevate the Few at the Expense of the Many Considered in Connection with Representation. This one paints a portrait of a House of Representatives from the general population. Madison asks: “Who are to be the electors of the federal representatives?” We the People is the easy answer, but he wrote it supremely:

Not the rich, more than the poor; not the learned, more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscurity and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States.

As there would be no qualification for office (“not of wealth, of birth, of religious faith, or of civil profession”), the people would choose a local to “confer the representative trust.” In the voice of someone who believed in conferring the representative trust, Madison anticipated the relationship between the Representative and constituent to be based on: “Duty, gratitude, interest, and ambition itself.”

Again from Federalist 57:

The city of Philadelphia is supposed to contain between fifty and sixty thousand souls. It will therefore form nearly two districts for the choice of federal representatives.

Today, with an approximate population of sixty thousand souls, Dubuque, Iowa would be equal to the founders’ Philadelphia. Today with 1.5 million souls, Philadelphia would warrant more than fifty federal Representatives under Constitutional Representation.    

Excerpt from Chapter 3:11, Oligarchy
The Book of the Is (2013)

11
The previous charge might raise some eyebrows as it looks a lot like what has happened. We can look at why Madison said this wouldn’t happen, as discussed in Federalist 58, and maybe we can see why one for every thirty Thousand is a fair and agreed upon number.

In Federalist 58, Madison again places the charge to be defended in the title: “Objection That The Number of Members Will Not Be Augmented as the Progress of Population Demands Considered.” Madison and the others saw the problem clearly and even anticipated what we now face. Here is also where we see an assumption made by the Constitutional Convention breakdown: the founders thought the large states would defend this principle.

Perhaps it just hasn’t happened yet, as it probably will be the large states that will demand House augmentation. Madison: “There is a peculiarity in the federal Constitution which insures a watchful attention in a majority both of the people and of their representatives to a constitutional augmentation of the latter.”

I see how Madison is still going to be correct; he and the others thought augmentation would take place because the general population in the larger states would demand it. If states like California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio, if they demanded constitutional representation, they would achieve it.

This “peculiarity” hasn’t materialized only because the large states haven’t demanded it. Madison wrote that from the interest of the large states: “it may with certainty be inferred that the larger States will be strenuous advocates for increasing the number and weight of that part of the legislature in which their influence predominates.” Madison argued that if there were problems, the general population could step in by building a coalition of the constitutionally willing:

Should the representatives or people, therefore, of the smaller States oppose at any time a reasonable addition of members, a coalition of a very few States will be sufficient to overrule the opposition; a coalition which, notwithstanding the rivalship and local prejudices which might prevent it on ordinary occasions, would not fail to take place, when not merely prompted by common interest, but justified by equity and the principles of the Constitution.

By Bryan W. Brickner and Stephen Young
    Steve and Bryan have been writing together about cannabis and cannabinoids for more than a decade; sometimes the news is just too much …
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/8/prweb11081001.htm
31 August 2013 / The Compassion Chronicles