CONSTITUTION WEEK
September 18, 2012 § 2 Comments
It was 225 years ago this week, on September 17, 1787, that the Constitution of the United States was adopted and sent to the various states for ratification. It would take three years after that to achieve ratification by the requisite nine states.
The convention, which met in secret in the Pennsylvania State House, took 100 days to produce what is the organic law of our nation. That three and a half months was filled with drama, rancor, conflict, backroom negotiations and masterful compromise.
Of the fifty-five delegates who were elected to the convention 34 were lawyers, 8 had signed the Declaration of Independence, and almost half were Revolutionary War veterans. The remaining members were planters, educators, ministers, physicians, financiers, judges and merchants. About a quarter of them were large land owners and all of them held some type of public office (39 were former Congressmen and 8 were present or past governors).
Of the 55 elected delegates, only forty-two attended most of the meetings, and of those thirty-nine actually signed the Constitution. Nineteen of the members who were chosen to represent their state never attended a meeting, some because their state would not or could not pay their expenses, some due to health, and some for political reasons. Patrick Henry, although elected, refused to attend because he “smelt a rat.” Three members, Edmond Randolph and George Mason of Virginia, and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts refused to sign, primarily due to the lack of a bill of rights.
The durability of the Constitution is itself a marvel. It has been effect for more than 220 years, longer than any other instrument of its kind. And its original form has proven durable as well. Although more than 11,000 amendments have been introduced in Congress, only thirty three have gone to the states to be ratified and only twenty seven have received the necessary approval from the states to actually become amendments to the Constitution.
The genius of the Constitution’s balance of powers and protection of individual rights has long been recognized. Many states and foreign governments emulate the Constitution in their own organic law.
To me, though, the genius of the Constitution lies in how it came about. It was the product of intensive negotiation and clever compromise. No one who came into the convention left with all he wanted to achieve, and everyone had to give some ground. The crafting of this greatest article of law is a model for the way that all law coming in its wake should be crafted.
If you’re looking for an entertaining read on the subject, I recommend David O. Stewart’s The Summer of 1787, a brilliant account of the proceedings and the personalities of the participants.
THE US CONSTITUTION AT LONG LAST ARRIVES FOR THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN MISSISSIPPI
May 17, 2011 § 3 Comments
Every lawyer sworn in on and after July 1, 2011, will have to swear to support not only the Constitution of the State of Mississippi, but also the Constitution of the United States. Which means that only 193 years and 7 months after Mississippi was admitted to statehood, the lawyers thereof will now be getting around to swearing (or affirming) to support the national constitution.
Here is the oath prescribed in MCA § 73-3-35 as it is pre-July 1:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will demean myself, as an attorney and counselor of this court, according to the best of my learning and ability, and with all good fidelity as well to the court as to the client; that I will use no falsehood nor delay any person’s cause for lucre or malice, and that I will support the Constitution of the State of Mississippi so long as I continue a citizen thereof. So help me God.”
The code shows the first appearance of the oath among our statues in the 1848 Hutchinson’s Code. It’s impossible to tell from the currnt code whether the US Constitution ever appeared in the oath, or whether it was deleted. Legislative history is not included in the judges’ Westlaw subscription — at least mine — so I can’t follow that up.
I am not aware of any requirement that the pre-July 1 lawyers will have to take a new vow vis a vis the US Constitution. So does this set up the likelihood of warring factions among attorneys with loyalties divided between competing sources of organic law? Are we to conclude that all pre-July 1 lawyers are exempt from supporting the US Constitution? No, that would be erroneous, my dear friends. MCA § 73-7-37 lists among the seven statutory duties of attorneys the duty “To support the Constitution and laws of this state and of the United States,” thus allaying fears of a bar civil war.
In 1945, the president of the Mississippi State Bar, Bidwell Adam, said with respect to the US Constitution, “It is my firm belief and honest conviction that no progress can be made in the direction of undermining this great Constitution … so long as the lawyers of this state and Republic continue to contribute their time, talents, energy, training and experience as its defenders. Without the lawyers of this state and country, our Constitution would be lost to humanity and decadence would follow.” Even 66 years ago, the need for lawyers to support the US Constitution was apparent, at least to the bar association.
But why was that particular requirement omitted from the oath and yet enshrined in statute?
The judicial oath of office set out in Article 6, § 159 of the Mississippi Constitution does include both the state and the US Constitution:
“I, ____________, solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all duties incumbent upon me as ____________ according to the best of my ability and understanding, agreeably as to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Mississippi. So help me God.”
I am sure there is some history behind all of this. If anybody knows why the US Constitution was left out of the attorney’s oath, I wish you would enlighten us.
The Better Chancery Practice Blog 