GOD-less Constitution?
Many times we have heard the erroneous pronouncement that The Constitution of the United States of America has no GOD reference. This is a typical mistake by Justices, judges, journalists, scholars, educators, politicians, lawyers, clergy, laymen, and other citizens. The usual suspects who have allowed their education to stifle their common sense. The most complete record of the Federal Constitutional Convention, Notes on the Debates of the Federal Convention, by James Madison-VA, belies that assertion. According to these "Notes", during the September 17th, 1787 session, Benjamin Franklin-PA, made a motion and gave a speech entreating each delegate to sign the Constitution. Due to ill health, Mr. Franklin was unable to stand for lengthy time periods, so James Wilson-PA read, and though not specified, probably seconded the motion. The substance of the motion is what I term the "Signatory Clause", which should be designated as Article-VII, Paragraph-2, but it has in modern times been misconstrued as a mere afterthought, an inconsequential appendage to the Constitution. However, this is caused by lengthy judicial neglect, due to lack of being cited in judicial proceedings, so it has accrued no constitutional, official, lawful, or legal precedent standing.
I quote the whole text of the Signatory Clause, "Done in Convention by the unanimous consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names", (italic emphasis mine-"Year of our Lord").
Two hundred years and more our Courts have ignored the Signatory Clause, or perhaps our earliest judges and Justices thought it unnecessary to cite the Signatory Clause as a point of argument or source of judicial opinion or precedent because our Founders and subsequent generations of government officials were believers in the Almighty, and did not advocate a strict secular view of religious and governmental inter-action, as cited in the 1947 United States Supreme Court opinion in Everson v. Board of Education heralding the doctrinal precedent of “the wall of separation between church and state”. So until recently, there were not the constant assaults by Secularist and Atheist against the, Free Exercise Clause, by way of the Establishment Clause, though both are implied references to the Supreme Being, written into the First Amendment. How else could explicit mentions of religion in the instrument of governance, The Constitution, be construed than to be an implied recognition of GOD? Conceivably, the Judicial neglect of the Signatory Clause was similar to their previous disregard of the Ninth Amendment which is currently utilized in Judicial decisions to produce several recently defined new rights; such as, abortion, adultery, bestiality, blasphemy, euthanasia, fornication, pedophilia, sodomy, suicide, and treason.
The Signatory Clause proclaims the accomplishment of the Convention, specifies the date of the action, the date is expressed in the Christian calendar dating method and mentions The Lord; thereby, invoking the Christian concept of GOD, The Trinity. God glorified and personified in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Next the business of the Convention is witnessed by signatures of thirty-nine of the forty-two delegates present at the final session of the Federal Convention. The Signatory Clause is written on the original parchment document. It is not an attachment such as the accompanying letter to the final Confederation Congress, which is written on a separate parchment and begins, quote, "Resolved, That the preceding Constitution…" observe the word ‘preceding‘. The Signatory Clause and accompanying endorsing signatures are written on and are a necessary part of the preceding document, which is, The Constitution of the United States of America. Frequently, facsimile publications of the Constitution omit the Signatory Clause, as though it is completely unnecessary or important! Why is this so? Because Article-VII, Paragraph-1, states the criteria of ratification of the entire original Constitution, so when that became an accomplished fact, the “Signatory Clause” after a passage of time and the previously mentioned neglect, was wrongly deemed an unnecessary appendage. I shall prove otherwise.
The Signatory Clause certainly has as much validity for recognition as an integral part of the Constitution as does The Preamble, a favorite reference for justification of several dubious Federal government enactments. The wording of the Preamble and the final edit and order of the Constitution have been credited to Gouverneur Morris-PA, and the other delegate members of the Committee of Stile. Mr. Morris is credited with composing and adding the Preamble to the text, which he logically placed at the beginning of the Constitution as a brief statement of ideals and intentions of the Framers and of the People. The final form of The Preamble was accepted unanimously without debate, unlike the Signatory Clause, a portion of which was actually debated during the September 17th, 1787 Convention final session by the Committee of the Whole. Also, it should be recognized, that The Preamble calls for the People through the Constitution to "secure the blessings of liberty", and that the People "ordain and establish this Constitution". It has often been said throughout European and Western Hemisphere historical records that all blessings; that is, joy and happiness flow from GOD, and to ordain is to decree something with almost sacred and certainly reverential regard. These words; blessings and ordain, as well as, sacred and reverential, are used almost exclusively in religiously ritualistic or religiously solemn context.
The debate of the Signatory Clause was centered on the meaning of the phrase, "unanimous consent of the States present", rather than an alternative such as, "unanimous consent of the [delegates of the] states present", because some delegates had doubts about either advocating, remaining neutral, or opposing the Constitution in the upcoming ratification debates in the proposed State ratifying conventions, mentioned in the text of the accompanying letter recommending the Constitution and method of ratification procedure to the last Confederation Congress. Declaring unanimous consent of the "states" though not the "delegates" in the final form of the motion, technically would enable the Convention to later claim unanimous consent and present a united front for ratification of the Constitution. A few of the reluctant delegates are listed in the "Notes" as having signed this proffered form of the Clause after its addition to the Constitution. The motion was debated by; Edmund Randolph-VA, Gouverneur Morris-PA (signed after expressing doubts though not dissent), Hugh Williamson-NC (signed after suggesting the attached letter to Congress be signed by the delegates, as well), Alexander Hamilton-NY, William Blount-NC (a dissenter, but signed this phrasing of the motion), Benjamin Franklin-PA, E. Randolph again, Elbridge Gerry-MA, Gen. Charles Pinckney-SC, B. Franklin again, and Jared Ingersol-PA, all of whom commented, the motion passed, and the Signatory Clause as motioned by Benjamin Franklin-PA, was resolved by the convention and included in the Constitution. Finally, E. Gerry-MA, E. Randolph-VA, and George Mason-VA decided not to sign the Constitution.
As there is no Salutation or Post Script before the Signatory Clause, it does not in any way take the form, or can reasonably be construed, as an appendage. It is clear the delegates viewed the Clause and their affixed signatures as essential Convention business. Some of the delegates probably would not have signed the Constitution without this specific wording in the Signatory Clause! Further proving its essential nature to the Conventions' business. Curiously, the phrase of the Clause mentioning the dating by the Christian calendar and referring to the "Year of our Lord", was not mentioned in the floor debate of September 17, 1787. Perhaps, its reference to the Lord was accepted without debate or opposition, simply by reason of, the delegates' probable unanimous belief in, The Lord.
In his "Notes", although these "Notes" are necessarily brief they are the best record we have, Mr. Madison opines that Mr. Franklin's form of the Signatory Clause is ambiguous, and was drawn up by Mr. G. Morris-PA in order to gain affirmation of dissenting members. Yes, it was designed to gain the signatures of dissenting or doubtful delegates, a paramount calculation for public consumption. It succeeded in garnering the endorsing signature of perhaps a half dozen hesitant delegates. However, I think Mr. Madison's opinion of the wording and source of Mr. Franklin's motion to be partly mistaken. I would argue that the Signatory Clause motion by Mr. Franklin contains no ambiguity and is no accident; as evidenced by the June 28th, 1787 session. That day, Mr. Franklin motioned for future sessions to begin with daily prayer. I quote from his motion, "that GOD Governs in the affairs of men". So twice during the Convention, Mr. Franklin offered motions referring to the Lord GOD. Mr. Franklin's motion prompted a debate on June 28th, 1787, several delegates expressed apprehension that commencement of daily prayers after such a lengthy passage of days since the beginning of Convention proceedings (a quorum of state delegations was assembled and called to order on May 25th, 1787) would give the public reason to doubt the harmony and progress of the Convention, doubts which would have been well founded since the rationale for Franklin's motion was to ask GOD's Divine guidance and intervention in the proceedings to break an impasse threatening to terminate the Convention, and possibly lead to a disbanding of the Union. The Franklin motion passed and daily prayers began on July 5th, the day after the Independence Day holiday break, at the suggestion of E. Randolph-VA, a stratagem to allay public worries of discord within the convention.
While ratification is an accomplished fact and obsoletes Article-VII, Paragraph-1, the position of the Signatory Clause immediately following Article-VII, Paragraph-1, does not negative the Signatory Clause's validity as part of the Constitution. Thus, it is proper to bestow official and judicial recognition upon the Clause by designating it as Article-VII, Paragraph-2, because the signatures of the delegates were as mandatory on the Constitution as they were on the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. The reason being that the decrease in the criteria of ratification, effect, and implementation from the unanimous total of thirteen states as specified in The Articles of Confederation, to a lesser necessary total of nine states or a three/fourths majority, and this to be done by the People of each State separately in Convention, confirming the pre-eminent position of the People in the sanction of the Government, rather than by the state legislatures. Then as well as in the present, many witnesses to the events, and historians consider the initiative of the Federal Convention tantamount to a Revolution, or at the least, a bloodless coup.
Though, I disagree, though the delegates exceeded their suggested mandate to modify the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution is no more than a very comprehensive restructuring of our national government, of which there have been several, both good and ill. The first being, the pre-independence Continental Association of 1774, then the Declaration of Independence of 1776, and the Articles of Confederation ratified 1781, and the Constitution of the United States, ratified and effective in 1789. Amendments have adjusted and modified the Constitution twenty-eight times spanning two hundred thirty years, and the War Between the States and subsequent Reconstruction Period 1861-1870 may certainly be considered a reorganization of our governance under the Constitution. It must be said that 1913, the start of the infamous Income Tax, Federal Reserve Bank, and popular election of Senators, changed aspects of our government, as did the Great Depression New Deal legislation agenda (1933-1940), and the World War II Era (1941-1945) advent of a military establishment. The Great Society and Civil Rights movements of the 1960’s. Also, the response to the Terrorist War of (2001-?) has spawned several organizational changes in the federal government.
The Federal Convention was charged with a heavy responsibility as resolved by the Continental Congress, "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several (state) legislatures such alterations and provisions therein". The delegates, many of whom were uncomfortable with the scope of the revisions, succeeded in almost completely restructuring the organization of the government from a confederation to a federal republic, including a complete re-write and name change of the document of Governance. Probably, to minimize any confusion as to which document was being referenced during the ratification debate. Having two different documents named the Articles of Confederation would have hastened the onslaught of Anarchy, a possibility the Convention was called forth to avert.
So ratification would have been in great jeopardy had the delegates not signed their work and recommended the Constitution as the best compromise that could be reached. In query, which documents, papers, essays, reports, letters, electronic mail, or memoranda of your own creation would you not sign? Would you logically sign most personal communications at the last, both as to placement on the text and time of completion? If anyone expects or wants their work to be taken seriously, it is best to sign one’s work, either proudly with your own name, or for safety’s sake use a pseudonym.
Most scholars have accepted Article-VII, Paragraph-1 to be the final viable provision of the Constitution, and so since its reason for inclusion has been realized, they correctly recognize it to be obsolete because of its position near the end of the Constitution by the Committee of Stile before the concluding session of September 17, 1787, and after debate, passage, and acceptance by the delegates of all the governmental organization provisions and prior to introduction of the Signatory Clause. Furthermore, they reason it to be obsolete because it pertains only to the criteria of ratification, implementation, and effect of the Constitution. But this location in the document is simply a result of logical thinking that the ratification methodology should be near the close of the document, but also it may be reasonably supposed that the Ratification Clause could have stood alone immediately after The Preamble as Article I, and before the actual Articles I-VI in the text, thus the Signatory Clause would have stood alone as the closing Clause or Article had the delegates so arranged the document. Or the ratification paragraph could have been included within the preamble with a minimum of change.
The Preamble--- “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”.
Article-VII, Paragraph-1, The Criteria of Ratification--- “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of the Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.”
The Criteria of Ratification Clause (now considered obsolete as Article VII- paragraph one, thus separating the Signatory Clause from reality), could well have been placed as an additional paragraph immediately after The Preamble, or as a separate Article I re-ordering the subsequent Articles I as II, II as III, III as IV, IV as V, V as VI, and VI as VII; thus Article VII would have included the Signatory Clause. Also the Criteria of Ratification could have been incorporated into The Preamble, perhaps like this,---
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, Do upon the Ratification of the Conventions of nine of the several States and for all of the several States so ratifying, Ordain and Establish this Constitution of the United States of America.”
So had either of these equally plausible alternatives to ordering the final document been followed, the Signatory Clause would have been placed at the end of the final but active Article and would not now be construed as an orphan. Its words would have carried the weight due them throughout our entire history.
It is not logical that the actual placement of Ratification Clause, Article-VII, Paragraph-1 should as a consequence of its recognized obsolescence, should exclude the Signatory Clause, Article-VII, Paragraph-2; as a part of the Constitution. Particularly considering that failure of the delegates to sign would have doomed ratification of the Constitution. Since their endorsing signatures were required, they would logically be affixed as the closing entry of the document and the last of the proceedings. No other placement or time for the signatures can be reasonably contemplated. No one would ever blindly sign a blank check or statement of confession, why then pre-sign a Constitution, potentially governing a nation for future generations.
Further proof the business of the Convention was not finished, and that some manner of Closing statement was to be expected by all delegates and that the Signatory Clause motion was not an isolated afterthought but was essential to the ultimate ratification of the Constitution. An unrelated motion was offered during the same last session of September 17th, 1787 by Nathaniel Gorham-MA to change the House of Representatives initial population proportion, and seconded by both Rufus King-MA, and Daniel Carroll-MD. The Convention President, the retired General George Washington-VA, and future first President of the United Sates under the Constitution, made his only verbal debate statement during the proceedings of the Convention in support of this representative apportionment motion, which passed unanimously.
I do not think the form, wording, or the substance of the Signatory Clause, specifically the date, was merely a fluffy, flowery, or pompous example of 18th Century legalese, because this formal dating is in common usage in our time on various legal documents especially those relevant to Property Rights. Also, because the only other mention of a date in the Constitution, "the year one thousand eight hundred and eight", Article-I, Section-9, Paragraph-1, is in a more common form with no mention of The Lord, and refers to the cessation of the slave trade. Possibly, the Founder's could not bring themselves to use the more formal form of dating that would mention The Lord, included in a Clause referring to the slave trade, and being a part of such an important, historic, and potentially the nation's governing document. The slave trade, a heinous practice denounced by many delegates in floor speeches and debate, but finally condoned only for the pragmatic political reason of preserving the Union.
In the original Constitution, without the later inclusion of the Bill of Rights, the Signatory Clause mentions The Lord explicitly. And the "No Religious Test" Clause in Article-VI, by stating the word "religious", implicitly references the Supreme Being. Together, these demonstrate the Founding Father's recognized a position for religious observances in the public domain, not to endorse any particular sect over any other, but to acknowledge the spiritual needs of man's being, especially that spirit of Liberty necessary for the foundation of an enduring Constitutional government espousing, "That all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".
So be truthful to yourself, when you hear or read the above mentioned Clauses or the later adopted First Amendment, and despite whatever you may imagine or have persuaded yourself to believe to the contrary, you do not think of no god, or the absence of any god, you may possibly think of many gods, or another god, but you will probably and almost definitely think of the Lord GOD, because the culture in which we live, and despite any denials, is based on Judeo-Christian ethos.
The Signatory Clause is a statement similar to The Preamble, an explicit statement of the Founder's ideals, intentions, and belief's; and genuinely expresses acknowledgement of their gratitude and praise for GODs' guidance, and it should in the present be recognized as such with all the attendant implications. These implications being that our nation is founded on the principles of the rule of law, individual liberty, security of property, majority rule tempered by representation for the protection of the minority from violent persecution, and the philosophical and moral precepts of the religious faiths of Judaism and especially Christianity.