In the nature of a contract!

By definition, a contract is “an agreement, especially one legally enforceable, between two or more persons [parties] to do or forbear something”. (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, Second Ed. 1954)

Certainly, the Constitution must be considered an “agreement” between the federal government and the states. In the original wording, it was not “We the people of the United States . . .”, but the complete listing of all 13 colonies (states). Considered too cumbersome, the final version is as we now have it. The intent remained, i.e. it was the states that were participants to the “agreement”, not the individual citizens. Each individual states’ legislature was to determine how the ratification process would be completed. The actual document contains the signatures of the representative(s) of the state for which they signed.

The original Constitution was criticized at the outset for not guaranteeing certain “natural” rights. Thus, the insistence that lead to the first ten amendments commonly recognized as the “Bill of Rights”. Some 20 odd amendments were proposed before the final 12 were submitted to the states for ratification and of which only 10 were incorporated in the original document.

A true “contract” cannot be changed without the agreement of all, or a specified majority, of the parties thereto. Unilateral changes are not permissible! Art. V provided the method for changes to the basic document and the specific procedure. At least three fourths of the states must ratify any amendment before it may become part of the operating agreement. Note again that the word is “states” and not people (of the states or the nation). Further, in a contract, whatever the words finally approved are it. No distortions, inserted amplifications or other content modifications are permissible.

The advantages of a contract are that it is specific, defining the responsibilities of the participants. Each party thus knows exactly what is expected and acceptable. The greatness of the Constitution is that it can be readily understood by anyone with an 8th grade education. While a legal document, it avoided legal terminology. It is specific and clear. Considering that there were many lawyers among the Founding Fathers, it is an amazing achievement.

The uniqueness of the “contract” as finally presented for ratification was the result of a willingness on the part of the Founding Fathers to “try something new”. They respected the individual and sought to achieve maximum freedom and liberty. They decided against a king, a monarch or a dictator, believing in the “wisdom of the common man”. They expected that free and independent citizens collectively would make the decisions most beneficial to the whole. This was predicated on a moral, informed electorate, one educated in the Constitution and history of the country for which it was to serve.

The Founding Fathers recognized that this was an “experiment”. They also understood the necessity for making the adjustments (amendments) to the “contract”, knowing that they could not anticipate future events. Thus, changes were possible but only after due deliberation and thoughtful consideration.

While mistakes might be made (Amendment XVIII prohibiting the sale of liquor) they could be corrected (Amendment XXI repealed it). No consideration was given to the possibility of an “underworld” far worse than the approved sale of liquor might engender. With repeal, the crime syndicates based on illegal liquor distribution disappeared.

The “contract”, undoubtedly the most successful yet devised by man, stands as a firm foundation. The fact that it has been ignored, distorted and abused does not negate either its value or relevance. More on this another time.