"THE BASIS OF OUR POLITICAL SYSTEMS IS THE See also the Constitution of Rhode Island, Art. 1, Sec. 1. こん AFE JAZ CONSTITUTION-MAKING IN RHODE ISLAND AMASA M. EATON, A.M., LL.B. This contribution to the discussion concerning "Constitution-making in Rhode PROVIDENCE, R. I. 1899 CONTENTS. 1. Art. I, Sec. 1, of constitution of Rhode Island, cited and commented on. The right therein reserved (of the people, to make and alter their constitu- tion of government) exists, even if not stated in the constitution. But it is explicitly stated in our constitution as the very rights of all rights. 2. An appropriate and common means to this end is a call for a convention by the legislature, when necessity arises. The general assembly has such implied power and should exercise it when It is common knowledge that public opinion has called for years for a new The general assembly has officially recognized such necessity by a resolution. The right expressly stated in Art. I, Sec. 1, cannot be limited by an impli- 4. A construction to be favored that will give effect to both articles. Instead of a construction that enlarges the operation of one to the exclusion The power to call a constitutional convention has been frequently exercised Although these calls were before the adoption of the constitution of 1842, That it is not exclusive is shown because it relates only to amendments initiated by the general assembly, while Art. I, Sec. 1, relates to the right of another party (the people) to do another thing (to make and alter their constitution of government). The framers of the constitution, aware of the fact that the general assembly The constitution of 1842 was the work of a majority. A majority now, as then, can make and alter their constitution of govern- A statement of a way in which an agent of the people can propose amend- ments is no limitation of the expressly stated power of the principal, the PAGE. 5. The power of the general assembly to propose amendments is extraneous and in addition to the expressly reserved power of the people. Art. XIII states the limitations upon the powers therein granted. Art. I, Sec. 1, states a power without limitations. In the absence of any limitation, the power therein expressly stated can be exercised by a majority, as heretofore. The framers of the constitution of 1842 had the good sense not to undertake to limit this power. Had they attempted it, it would have been futile. For the same power that made can unmake. 6. A majority made the constitution in 1842; a majority can at any time unmake it and make a new constitution. By a majority of the electors, including those who will become electors under such a new constitution. This is what was done in 1842. In the last analysis the power rests with those commanding the greatest physical force, and that is the majority. The physical majority governs, as expressed by the vote of the majority. One of the attributes of sovereignty. The sovereign power rules through this expression of the will of the majority. Jameson defines sovereignty as indefeasible, i. e., incapable of abrogation. Therefore the sovereign right of the majority to govern cannot be abrogated. 7. Sovereignty is and remains in the people. 3 Dallas, 54. It cannot pass from the State. Lieber Pol. Ethics, 250. A sovereign power, although it may temporarily limit itself, can, at any time, set aside such self-imposed limitations. Here is no contention for changing the constitution in a way not recognized in it. For, although the right of the people to make and alter their constitution of government is expressly stated in our constitution, it is not stated how this is to be done. Necessarily, therefore, the general assembly may call a constitutional convention, there being a recognized necessity. The constitution so framed by such convention should be submitted to the vote of those who will become qualified electors under its terms. If a majority votes for it, it becomes the supreme law of the State, subject to the constitution and laws of the United States. This alone is a republican form of government. 8. The argument is that the power of the majority to make and alter their constitution of government cannot be defeated. In Maryland and in Delaware the constitutions were changed in a different manner than that provided in the constitution. Defence of the course adopted: By Senator Bayard-his argument stated. By Senator Johnson-his argument stated. PAGE. 9. A provision in a constitution limiting the power of the majority to alter it would be void. Art. XIII reconcilable with this, because it relates only to amendments and was to provide against a hasty change. This is rather an excuse than a defence. It is a mistake to undertake to prevent a majority from rewriting or amending their constitution. 10. If a distinction is made, the party in power will adopt the course most likely to carry out their aim. The "Revised Constitution" so-called, by legal fiction, was really a new constitution. It reversed the distinction between Art. I, Sec. 1, and Art. XIII of the present constitution. It put the will of the general assembly above the will of the people. It put it in the hands of the party in power to adopt the course the most likely to subserve their ends. 11. Constitutions are too sacred to be framed so they can be thus juggled with. To prevent it, the majority should govern, however a change in the constitution is instituted. The fundamental principle of all Anglo-Saxon government is that the majority rule when its will is ascertained through the forms prescribed to that end. This is what Washington meant in his language quoted in Art. I, Sec. 1. Except a vote of majority of all the electors might be made requisite. Necessity for vote of more than bare majority to change constitution is Such a claim involves want of faith inconsistent with faith in our system of government. 12. The majority rules in England, without our guarantees of a written constitution. 13. In this State this want of faith is relic of policy of Anti-Dorrites. The principles Dorr contended for were right. His error was in appealing to arms. The principal should be adopted that the majority shall rule when their will is ascertained in a lawful, explicit, and authentic manner. To deny it is to establish an obligarchic form of governmont ; One inconsistent with Art. IV, Sec. 4, constitution of the United States. It is not a republican form of government if the majority cannot make or alter their constitution of government. A republican form of government is one in which the majority governs. That our forefathers in this State intended the majority should govern is evident from examination of their compacts of government. These compacts examined : |