Studies in Civics Part 35

This provision settles definitely, and in what would seem to be unmistakable terms, the question of supremacy, about which so much discussion has been carried on. Within its sphere, within the limitations placed upon it by the const.i.tution itself, the national government has the supremacy over any and all state governments.

_Clause 3.--Oath of Office._

_The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this const.i.tution;[1] but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.[2]

[1] The first law pa.s.sed by congress under the const.i.tution was an act prescribing the form of the oath required by the provision above. It is as follows: "I, A. B., do solemnly swear, or affirm (as the case may be), that I will support the const.i.tution of the United States."

[2] In all other countries at the time of the adoption of this const.i.tution eligibility to public office was limited to members of the established church of the country. This const.i.tution set the example of abolis.h.i.+ng religious tests for public office, and the wisdom of this is so apparent that it has been followed entirely or in part by many of the civilized nations.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

ARTICLE VII.--RATIFICATION OF THIS CONSt.i.tUTION.

_The ratification of the conventions of nine states shall be sufficient for the establishment of this const.i.tution between the states so ratifying the same._

Nine states made two-thirds of the entire number. Eleven states ratified the const.i.tution within nine months of the time of its submission to them.

As soon as nine states had ratified, congress made arrangements for putting the new form of government into operation.

The mode of ratification herein specified ignored the existence of the articles of confederation, and in specifying this mode the convention disregarded the instructions of the congress which called it. The congress had expressly provided that the work of the convention should be submitted to the congress and the state legislatures for approval. But this provision places the power to ratify in the hands of conventions elected by the people in the several states, which arrangement is in harmony with the opening words of the preamble.

_Pertinent Questions._

What is the recognized law of nations in regard to the payment of the debts of a nation when it changes its form of government? If England should become a republic would this rule apply? Does it apply when a territory becomes a state? Were the debts of the confederation paid? How?

What was the amount of the debt of the United States at the time of the adoption of the const.i.tution? What is the value of the notes and bonds of the "Confederate States of America"? Why?

Which is sovereign, the nation or the individual states? Where else are there any provisions which teach the same thing? Why should _judges_ be specially mentioned in VI. 2? What department of the government makes treaties? Are they binding upon the other departments? Upon the several states? Can a state nullify an act of congress? Has any state ever tried to do so?

Why are _state_ officers bound to support the const.i.tution of the _United States_? Is the requirement to take the "oath of office" a religious test?

Why is the choice of oath or affirmation given? What was the iron-clad oath?

Would the ratification of the const.i.tution by nine states have made it binding upon the other four? The articles of confederation required the consent of all the states to any amendment to them; by what right was this const.i.tution adopted against the wishes of Rhode Island and North Carolina? If those two states had persisted in their refusal to ratify the const.i.tution, what would have been their relations to the United States?

Justify your answer.

CHAPTER XXIX.

THE AMENDMENTS.

We have now considered the const.i.tution about as it was presented to the states for ratification. Judging by our own affection for the n.o.ble instrument we would expect to learn that it was ratified promptly and unanimously. But, as a matter of fact, much hard work was required on the part of its friends to secure its ratification. Its every provision had to be explained and justified. Probably the most able exposition was made by Hamilton, Madison and Jay, in a series of papers ent.i.tled, "The Federalist."

One of the greatest objections urged against the const.i.tution was that it did not guarantee sufficiently the rights of individuals. It will be remembered in this connection that the princ.i.p.al grievance against England, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, was that personal rights had not been respected; and that, in consequence, the first form of government organized after independence, The Articles of Confederation, gave the general government no power to reach individuals.

Experience showed this to have been a mistake, and the const.i.tution authorizes the general government to execute its laws directly, enabling it to hold individuals responsible. On account of this re-enlargement of power, many people honestly feared that the new government might trespa.s.s upon personal rights as England had done. And several states at the time of ratifying suggested the propriety of so amending the const.i.tution as to remove these fears.

In accordance with these recommendations, amendments were proposed at the first session of congress. The house of representatives proposed seventeen, to twelve of which the senate agreed. Only ten, however, were ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. They are, of course, the first ten among those that follow. It was decided by the same congress that the amendments should not be incorporated into the main body of the const.i.tution, but should be appended to it as distinct articles.

They have, however, the same force as the original const.i.tution.

ARTICLE I.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION, OF SPEECH, AND OF a.s.sEMBLY.

_Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;[1] or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press;[2] or the right of the people peaceably to a.s.semble and to pet.i.tion the government for a redress or grievances.[3]_

[1] The chief purpose for which many of the early settlers came to America was that they might "wors.h.i.+p G.o.d according to the dictates of their own conscience." Hence their descendants put _first_ among the individual rights to be protected, this freedom of religion. But this provision does not authorize any one to commit crime in the name of religion.

[2] The only limitation upon speech in this country is that the rights of others be respected. Any one may think as he pleases upon any subject, and may freely express his opinion, provided that in doing so he does not trespa.s.s upon the rights of others.

[3] It would seem that under a republican form of government this right might be a.s.sumed to be secure. The provision is meant to "make a.s.surance doubly sure." History had shown the necessity of such precaution.

ARTICLE II.

RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

_A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._

It should not be the policy of a republic to keep a large standing army.

An army is expensive, it takes so many men from productive industries, and it is dangerous to liberty--it may from its training become the instrument of tyranny.

But a republic must have defenders against foes foreign or domestic. A well-trained militia may be depended upon to fight with valor against a foreign foe, and may at the same time serve as a check upon usurpation.

For definition of _militia_, see page 162.

ARTICLE III.

QUARTERING SOLDIERS.

_No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be described by law._

To "quarter" soldiers in any house is to allot them to it for food and shelter.

This, it will be remembered, was one of the grievances of the colonies.

This quartering of soldiers had been, and indeed is in some countries to this day, a mode of watching and worrying persons for whom officers of the government entertained suspicion or ill will.

ARTICLE IV.

SECURITY AGAINST UNWARRANTED SEARCHES.

_The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches, and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized._