{"id":148521,"date":"2023-11-16T16:32:58","date_gmt":"2023-11-16T22:32:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jbs.org\/?post_type=jbsvideo&p=148521"},"modified":"2024-08-27T11:25:49","modified_gmt":"2024-08-27T16:25:49","slug":"15-1787-ratification-process-changed","status":"publish","type":"jbsvideo","link":"https:\/\/jbs.org\/video\/understanding-article-v\/15-1787-ratification-process-changed\/","title":{"rendered":"1:5 – 1787: Ratification Process Changed\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"
Originally, the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 were tasked to simply revise, or amend, the Articles of Confederation and to \u201crender,\u201d or make, the then-existing Federal Constitution and the Federal form of government under it \u201cadequate to the exigencies of the Union.\u201d In other words, they were supposed to keep their form of government and improve the Articles of Confederation to meet the needs of the crisis at hand.<\/p>
One of the delegates, John Lansing of New York, confirmed how the convention would be limited: \u201c[T]he power of the Convention was restrained to amendments of a Federal nature, and having for their basis the Confederacy in being. The acts of Congress, the tenor of the acts of the States, the commissions produced by the several Deputations, all proved this. [\u2026] it was un-necessary and improper to go further.\u201d<\/p>
(James Madison recorded in his detailed diary of the convention)<\/p>
Add to that, the Articles of Confederation said that any \u201calterations\u201d or changes to them had to be made by the Confederation Congress and \u201cafterwards con-firmed by the legislatures of every state.<\/em>\u201d<\/p> However, that\u2019s not<\/em> how the Convention played out.<\/p> Instead, the Articles of Confederation were replaced with a brand-new Constitution along with a more centralized form of government. The new Constitution was then ratified according to its own mode of ratification, spelled out in Article VII of the Constitution, which says: \u201cThe Ratification of the Conventions<\/em> of nine<\/em> States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.\u201d<\/p> On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify it.<\/p> And on September 13, 1788, with only 11 of the 13 states having ratified the Constitution, the Confederation Congress passed a resolution stating that the new Constitution \u201c\u2026has been ratified in the manner therein declared to be sufficient for the establishment of the same, and such ratifications, duly authenticated, have been received by Congress, and filed in the office of the secretary.\u201d<\/p> The old framework of government, along with the rules to change it, were tossed aside and new one was created with its own rules for adopting it.<\/p> Given this historical precedent, who is to say that delegates to a Constitutional Convention, under Article V, today would not likewise dispense with the current Constitution and draft an entirely new one containing a new form of government and new method for ratification?<\/p> A new constitution could transform our form of a government from that of a Republic to a \u201cdemocracy,\u201d and in keeping with that spirit of \u201cdemocracy,\u201d require the new constitution to be ratified not by 3\/4ths of the states but by the \u201cpeople\u201d themselves in form a national referendum. Given the results of the 2020 presidential elections, would you trust the results of a nationwide election to adopt a new constitution?<\/p> Learn more about Article V and the amendment process by visiting JBS.org.<\/strong><\/p>","protected":false},"author":63908,"featured_media":145017,"template":"","tags":[13294,13295,14541],"playlist":[14435],"class_list":["post-148521","jbsvideo","type-jbsvideo","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","tag-article-v","tag-constitutional-convention","tag-articles-of-confederation","playlist-understanding-article-v"],"yoast_head":"\n