Politics & Policy

Two Cheers for Constitution Day!

Albert Herter’s Signing of the Constitution hangs in the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
With the benefit of hindsight, the Framers might prefer the Constitution they didn’t sign.

Two hundred and twenty-seven years ago the Framers devised the wisest constitution then known to man. That was on September 3, 1787. Unfortunately, they then began to tamper with it, and the document they signed two weeks later has given us the maladies that now beset us.

What was the difference between the two constitutions? On September 3 the delegates had arrived at what they thought were two settled principles. The first was that Congress should appoint the president. Over the prior three and a half months, they had voted six times for a congressionally appointed president. At no time did they vote for a popularly elected president. The second principle was that the president might be removed by a simple majority vote in the Senate, after impeachment in the House. The senators, moreover, might do so whenever they thought the president was failing on the job and guilty of “maladministration.”

What would that have looked like, in practice? First, we wouldn’t have the gridlock that today paralyzes Washington. A president chosen by Congress would be far more likely to agree with it, especially if he could so easily be removed. We wouldn’t have our current regime, where presidents are reliably Democratic and Congress is reliably Republican, and the two are scarcely on speaking terms with each other.

I think we’d also see less extremism and more movement toward the political center. Were all sides to talk to one another, they’d find more common ground on which to agree. There would be less tub-thumping from people pushing ideas they knew would never go anywhere.

Finally, the September 3 constitution would rein in what many see as dangerously excessive executive powers. Given today’s gridlock, the president asserts that if he wishes to achieve anything, he has no choice but to legislate from the White House. And so we now expect to see a presidential amnesty for millions of undocumented aliens after the November election. That’s not in line with what the Framers envisioned, of course. They thought that Congress should do the legislating — that it would be something more than the venue for State of the Union addresses. Reining in the executive would be far easier under the September 3 constitution.

The September 17 constitution, by contrast, makes it virtually impossible to remove a president. To do so, you’d need a president from one party, the House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate in the hands of the other party, and misbehavior that, in Congress’s view, rose to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” That happened once in American history, in 1868, and even then the GOP-dominated Senate failed to remove Democrat Andrew Johnson. Ninety years later, John F. Kennedy wrote a book that praised the heroism of the Republican senator who switched his vote to save Johnson. That’s a nice story, but it lacks the added advantage of accuracy. The senator was bribed, many say (and Kennedy’s book was really written by Teddy Sorenson).

So how did we come to abandon the September 3 constitution? Blame Gouverneur Morris, perhaps the smartest man in Philadelphia that summer. Morris was a nationalist who wanted a strong president able to govern the country through the exercise of his executive powers. As a member of the Committee of Unfinished Parts, which the Constitutional Convention had appointed to clear up the few remaining points, Morris on September 4 presented a quite different plan for presidential appointments.

It was late in the day. The delegates wanted to go home. They didn’t attend to the details of the new plan. They didn’t seem to notice that the September 4 constitution required a supermajority in the Senate to remove a president. They wondered at the complicated scheme for presidential appointments but didn’t really think much had changed. They didn’t think that national candidates after Washington would emerge to win a majority of votes in the Electoral College. And if no one wins a majority, Article II throws the election to the House, voting by state, which is a form of congressional appointment. The delegates did notice that the “maladministration” standard for impeachment had been dropped; but, sadly, they resisted George Mason’s call to reinsert it.

A good many people think that the September 17 constitution is broken, and one hears calls for an Article V Constitutional Convention. Mostly, the proposals are entirely fanciful, drawn up by true believers Left and Right: Overturn Citizens United; adopt a balanced-budget amendment. Such ideas would never command the support of three-quarters of the states, as prescribed by Article V. And they are entirely at odds with what the Framers intended.

But the September 3 constitution, now that I think the Framers might like, with the benefit of hindsight. It would give us the kind of balanced government they wanted, and not the lopsided one in which the president rules as what the never-too-much-to-be praised George Mason described as an elective monarch. Mason didn’t sign the September 17 constitution, but we just might have gotten him to sign the September 3 constitution!

— F. H. Buckley is a Foundation Professor at George Mason Law School and the author of The Once and Future King: The Rise of Crown Government in America.

Most Popular

Law & the Courts

‘Judges for the #Resistance’

At Politico, I wrote today about the judiciary’s activism against Trump on immigration: There is a lawlessness rampant in the land, but it isn’t emanating from the Trump administration. The source is the federal judges who are making a mockery of their profession by twisting the law to block the Trump ... Read More
White House

Trump’s Friendships Are America’s Asset

The stale, clichéd conceptions of Donald Trump held by both Left and Right — a man either utterly useless or only rigidly, transactionally tolerable — conceal the fact that the president does possess redeeming talents that are uniquely his, and deserve praise on their own merit. One is personal friendliness ... Read More

Columbia 1968: Another Untold Story

Fifty years ago this week, Columbia students riding the combined wave of the civil-rights and anti-war movements went on strike, occupied buildings across campus, and shut the university down. As you revisit that episode of the larger drama that was the annus horribilis 1968, bear in mind that the past isn’t ... Read More

Only the Strident Survive

‘I am not prone to anxiety,” historian Niall Ferguson wrote in the Times of London on April 22. “Last week, however, for the first time since I went through the emotional trauma of divorce, I experienced an uncontrollable panic attack.” The cause? “A few intemperate emails, inadvertently forwarded ... Read More

Poll Finds Nevada Voters Support School-Choice Programs

According to an April poll, a large number of Nevada voters support school-choice programs. The poll, conducted by Nevada Independent/Mellman, found that 70 percent of voters support a proposal for a special-needs Education Savings Account and 59 percent support expanding the funding for the current tax-credit ... Read More