The Theory and Meaning of America, Part 2

Authority Flowing to the US Constitution

In the first installment in this series, I cited plain language written within the terms of the Treaty of Paris of 1783, certifying that both nations entering into that treaty, did so under the authority of God of the Bible, described in the text as, “the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity.”  I wrote that that treaty in question was ratified by the sitting authorized bodies at the time. In America's case, that body was one the treaty refers as, 'American Congress of the Confederation.'  And so, at least in that respect, I finished by concluding that, according to that landmark agreement, America is a nation ordained under the authority of the God.

But that was then, and this is now. At that former time, operating under a certain governing agreement we will discuss below, the thirteen original states each agreed to abide within the confederation government described and authorized under that document, much different than the government of today.  Today's government did not come into existence until the Constitution would be written and ratified unanimously, a task which did not complete for another six years.

Now the Constitution, proposed for ratification in 1787, and not ratified until 1789, cites no direct reference to the authority of God, certainly not the Holy Trinity.  There are veiled references such as, the ‘blessings of liberty,” and a date stamp which identifies the date of submission as, ‘in the year of our Lord,’ but nothing those who care not to agree would understand. And therefore, the Constitution of the United States offers no direct evidence that such a nation might be under any authority beyond that which is generally understood as conveyed by, "We the people of the United States of America."  And because that is true, those who purport that America is not a ‘nation under God,’ cite the Constitution as the primary evidence supporting their claim.  On a certain surface, that claim may seem sustainable.

But to truly understand the nature of the American sovereignty, one must know what sovereignty is in the first place.  So, let's look at that.  A nation is sovereign, only if it possesses 'the right' to make its own decisions, and without obtaining permission from any higher authority.  That 'right' is a nation's sovereign authority.  Clearly, in 1787, as the authors of the Constitution convened to begin discussing of a new style of government, the terms of which still remain as detailed under our present constitutional document.  Without authority to act in that capacity, any product of their deliberations would have been unauthoritative, and therefore null and void.  That means that some agreement, in place at the time, conveyed authority for each participant to act for the people of the states they represented.  Because that authority was never canceled or rescinded, that authority, in place prior to the discussions, also remaining after the discussions, and indeed which authorized the sitting congress to subsequently consider the product of the constitutional convention, was the only authority those men had, or would have.  So let's discover where that authority came from prior to the constitutional convention, and the path it took to get there, on its way to us today.

At the time of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the government in place was that described under a document entitled, Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.  Shortly after the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, that document began its journey toward authorization, ultimately becoming the law over the union of thirteen states of the confederation. But that document did not become unanimously ratified, as its terms required, until 1781, the state of Maryland being the last to formally agree to abide under its authority.  Thus, by the agreement of all thirteen states, under that contract each state ceded certain authority over to a common government, the “stile” of which they referred as, “United States of America.”

Under the Articles of Confederation, one conveyed authority, agreed by each state, was that which could be used to change its original terms, which, of course, in the most extreme case might even allow a complete rewrite and replacement of the standing agreement.  But according to the AoC, for any change or rewrite to carry authority, certain conditions had to be met.  Article X of that contract imposes the condition that before a change could even be considered, 9 of 13 states had to agree to even propose it.  But Article XIII also requires that for any proposed change to carry authority, that change had to carry the unanimous approval of all 13 state legislatures!  So as the representatives of the states came together at the Constitutional convention, common in their understanding was that the Articles of Confederation carried authority necessary for them to come to order; that those articles also conveyed authority for the proceedings, and that the existing agreement among the 13 states would remain authorized and in effect until some trigger within its terms, previously agreed at its ratification, allowed certain or all aspects of that agreement to change.  But whatever change or changes might occur, those changes had to be proposed, and authorized, according to the principles already agreed in that document.  Stated another way, each representative to the constitutional convention understood that, because the AoC was 'authorized' by American sovereign authority, and was indeed the only operating agreement among the states represented, then for any change to carry authority, that change had to be proposed and agreed according to the terms that were already authorized and in place.  They would not be able to legally write a new agreement by breaking the existing agreement.  Every jot and tittle, every requirement of the existing agreement had to be fulfilled were any new agreement to carry authority.

By now, it might be apparent that authority itself has a certain flow to it.  Authority can flow from one authorized document to another, from one person or group of people to another. Authority can be limited in scope, and it can also be conditional.  By that I mean that, just because I might authorize someone to represent me in certain dealings, that does not mean that such a person would be blanketly authorized in all dealings.  So the authority I convey to another only extends subject to the conditions that I agree to, and it never extends to conditions to which I do not agree.

So concluding this juncture of the discussion, we know that the representatives who convened in 1787, and who would subsequently draft a constitution, were at least authorized to sit and discuss its terms.  That authority came to them both under the terms of each state constitution conveying authority for them to represent the people of the respective states, but also, importantly, from the terms of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, which terms as we have noted, were the previously agreed principles, in place as the constitutional convention gavel went down.

Next time, we will delve further into this subject, discovering the results of the constitutional convention, and then begin our look backward toward the conditions imposed upon American sovereign authority under the terms of its founding document, the Declaration of Independence.  Thank you for participating.

-Hank