“THE BASIS OF OUR POLITICAL SYSTEMS IS THE See also the Constitution of Rhode Island, Art. 1, Sec. 1. 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. xxi. Perition to general assembly. 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. The constitution is silent as to how this right shall be carried into effect. The rule is that statements of rights shall be broadly construed and carried into effect by appropriate legislation. 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 the necessity occurs. It is common knowledge that public opinion has called for years for a new constitution. The general assembly has officially recognized such necessity by a resolution. cation in another article. 3. Art. XIII does not therefore limit this right. 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 of the other. The power to call a constitutional convention has been frequently exercised by the general assembly. 4. Although these calls were before the adoption of the constitution of 1842, the general assembly still has the same power. Because Art. XIII is not exclusive: 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 had called constitutional conventions repeatedly, took it for granted it still could do so, especially in view of Art. IV, Sec. 10. ment. 5. 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 people. PAGE. and in addition to the expressly reserved power of the people. exercised by a majority, as heretofore. to limit this power. For the same power that made can unmake. 6. A majority made the constitution in 1842; a majority can at any time un make it and make a new constitution. By a majority of the electors, including those who will become electors under such a new constitution. physical force, and that is the majority. jority. 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. time, set aside such self-imposed limitations. 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 con vention, 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 con stitution of government cannot be defeated. In Maryland and in Delaware the constitutions were changed in a different manner than that provided in the constitution. By Senator Bayard-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 amend ing 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 consti. tution 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. While power of general assembly to propose amendments can be limited, no limitations can be imposed upon right of people to make and alter their constitution of government. defended to prevent hasty action. government. 12. The majority rules in England, without our guarantees of a written consti tution. is ascertained in a lawful, explicit, and authentic manner. One inconsistent with Art. IV, Sec. 4, constitution of the Unitǝd 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. 13. These compacts examined : |
0 Resensi Ulasan tidak diverifikasi, tetapi Google akan memeriksa dan menghapus konten palsu jika konten tersebut teridentifikasi Tulis resensi |