Health & Fitness
What would Jefferson do?
The impact of Article the First in breaking the grid-lock in Congress may be our last, best hope. The Constitution gives us the solution to our present crisis. Will we use it?
What would Jefferson do?
In seeking to demonstrate wisdom in governance, many will invoke the intelligence of Thomas Jefferson, the "sage of Monticello." Indeed, both of the so-called "major" parties attempt to wrap themselves in Jefferson's
mantle as a part of their own founding history. This is quite simply a fiction.
That said, Jefferson's party, the "Democratic-Republican" party, has re-organized to promote the legacy we all own - our Constitution, and it's collective amendments.
Find out what's happening in Laceywith free, real-time updates from Patch.
When the "Articles of Amendment," what we know of today as "the Bill of Rights," were drafted, the recording of the individual ratifications by the States fell on the then Secretary of State - Thomas Jefferson.
As each State's legislature reviewed the final proposed amendments - all 12 - for ratification, it appears that, at least in Delaware, there was some difficulty with "Article the First." It must be explained, however, that the difficulty did not lay in the proposed article, or the premise it raised.
Find out what's happening in Laceywith free, real-time updates from Patch.
There was a difficulty in the "propriety in language," which was the cause given for postponement. Delaware's unique position on "Article the First" was not to decline the Article, but, rather, to postpone.
We may now know why.
The language of Article the First, as proposed in Congress and assented to in both the House and the Senate, contained a last minute change, which, when properly placed, set both a floor and a ceiling on the size of Congressional Districts, once that body exceeded 200 members. (as it now does)
We know what the "correct" placement of that change was, as it was recorded by then Senate Majority Leader Oliver Ellsworth, in his own hand - Ellsworth, who, with fellow Connecticut Statesman Roger Sherman, sat on a committee of three Senators and three Congressmen charged with the task of finalizing agreement between the two Legislative bodies.
Ellsworth's noted command of grammar and the English Language leave no doubt as to his meaning when he wrote "in the last line but one." The bi-cameral committee had most assuredly agreed to make the change in "the second-to-last" or "penutlimate" line.
With the change of the single word "less" to "more" in the correct place, the Article becomes mathematically functional in setting a floor as well as a ceiling. Left alone, it ONLY established a ceiling.
Unfortunately, the gentleman charged with transcribing Mr. Ellsworth's notes, John Beckley, a clerk, committed a "scrivener's error," penning "in the last place of the last line," rather than Ellsworth's direct instruction.
Why does this color what Delaware might have done?
Another member of that elite committee of six was Congressman John Vining of Delaware, who, as Delaware's only Representative, would have been privy to the proceedings the following January in the Delaware State Legislature, so much so that the ratification vote, uniquely engrossed on the bottom of the vellum copy transmitted to the State of Delaware as prepared by Congress in the days following the September 24th/25th proposal, arrived in New York, turned over to Washington's secretary, Lear, on the SAME DAY that John Vining arrived - March 8th, 1790 - over two months late for the beginning of the Spring 1790 Session.
To presume that the documents did NOT travel with Mr. Vining is certainly hair-splitting at its finest.
Delaware postponed Article the First due to a "propriety in language"...which,
while an extinct usage today, meant a "peculiarity", "non-conformity", or "incorrectness." Vining would certainly have been privy to the development of the "correct" language, and all it's implications, and, as it was such a source of contention (along with changes to Articles Three and Eight, one recorded in writing and voted on as a separate resolution, and the other as a voice vote (as the "less to more" change was apparently voted - it is only recorded as having been 'recommended') that Vining would have immediately noticed the error. The notation made in the Journal of Delaware's legislature explaining the reason for the postponement falls within the dates when Mr. Vining was indeed still in Delaware, even though he was to have returned to New York by the Fourth of January, 1790.
It bears repeating that both the return of the engrossed "copy", with the ratification appended to it, and the arrival in New York of Mr. Vining were concurrent. Coincidence?
It is of further note that Mr. Vining was still technically a member of the Delaware State Legislature while serving in Congress, at the very least through the end of the Fall Session - which, while disallowed today, was not considered in any way a conflict at that time.
I can find no record of his having left that position on a specific date, but he was apparently party to decisions made in October of 1789, after the end of the Federal Session in New York that September.
March 4, 1789
March 3, 1791
This is further supported by the equally unique action taken by the Connecticut Legislature, wherein the "Lower House," effectively their "legislative branch," and, as such, the only one whose ratification was necessary, had ratified all twelve articles on their arrival in Connecticut in the Fall of 1789.
Once the Spring session began, the "Upper House," generally viewed as their "Executive", ALSO ratified the several Articles, rendering moot any argument that the later efforts to rescind by the Lower House had any standing. This is because amendments, in the Constitutional law-making process, are "self-enacting."
In short, while the "copies" distributed to the States may have contained an error - (they actually contain several, even to differences between the individual ngrossed copies themselves - differences which have been used in court to prove the provenance of a copy that turned up for public sale, and was restored to the State of North Carolina as its own) - it is the language as assented to IN CONGRESS that is the law. Otherwise, it would have to be interpreted that the language as voted in the several States would apply only to them - defeating them as uniform Federal Legislation. (See "Cruel and Unusual IMPRISONMENT?")
So, now we know what Article the First actually says. We know with some certainty why there was difficulty in Connecticut post-ratification, and may surmise why they neglected to report, and also with fair certainty why Delaware postponed Article the First.
Does this matter?
No. It is historically interesting, but it really only proves that Ellsworth's language is the true and correct version. Read as such, it can only mean
what we proposed that it means - that, today, with over 200 persons seated in the House, there may be NO district apportioned that is larger than 50,000 persons.
It is clear that 12 of the then 15 States had ratified by 1792. With that tally, 80 percent had been achieved, clearly surpassing the 75 percent requirement.
Article the First is, in fact, the law of the land, and has been so for over 220 years, although it would seem, no one knew.
Now, we do.
Every single person serving in an elected office in the Federal Government takes an oath to uphold/protect/defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Every SINGLE one.
Every member of our Armed Forces does the same.
Article the First is part of that Constitution.
Will our government honor their oath, and uphold it?
What would Jefferson do?
Frederick John LaVergne, "Democratic-Republican" for Congress
New Jersey
Third Congressional District.
