On Monday, September 17, 1787, the delegates to the Federal Convention in Philadelphia gathered for their last order of business.  Benjamin Franklin made a motion that the Constitution be signed by all the delegates, pleading for a show of unity.¹

Before Franklin’s motion came to a vote, Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts introduced a last-minute motion to change the threshold number of legislators per capita in the House of Representatives—from a maximum of one rep for every 40,000, to one for every 30,000.

Then, in what must have been a dramatic moment, George Washington—who had presided over nearly four months of debate without addressing a single word to the Convention for or against any position on any matter—rose to address Mr. Gorham’s motion.

One might have expected the General to bristle at this eleventh-hour suggestion and to sternly refuse any further alteration of the document, which was already drawn and ready for signatures.  But instead Washington lent his immeasurably credible support to the motion, saying that it was of paramount importance to secure the rights and interests of the people.  By increasing the number of legislators per capita—i.e., increasing the size of Congress—the government would be made more accountable to the people.  The motion passed unanimously.²

You can see the smudge where the word 'forty' was altered to 'thirty' in Article I, section 2.

This is the first post in a blog dedicated to the history and meaning of the Constitution. The story I’ve told illustrates one of my themes: that the legacy of our Constitution is at once profoundly pragmatic and dramatically progressive.

It is often assumed that to interpret the Constitution according to what we may know of its original meaning would be to yield constitutional law to a deeply conservative ideology. I believe this assumption is faulty. The text, history, and theory of the Constitution establish an ideologically neutral foundation for government that is manifestly consistent with a progressive vision of the law—that is, a vision of law that is deferential to legislative efforts to protect individual rights and liberties and to promote community interests and welfare.

This constitutional vision is profoundly pragmatic in that it is not shackled to any rigid conception of federalism which would persist in metaphysical reverence for the “sovereignty” of the states or of the nation they comprise. No ideology will be permitted to stand athwart the fundamental (but evolving and often unknowable) values that drive our collective (but disjointed) efforts to define and redefine the meanings and purposes of our own time on Earth.

The purpose of this blog, as perhaps hinted by its titular allusion, will be to re-evaluate and reframe our constitution in light of our national experience and ever-shifting historical circumstances, as if in preparation for our own impending vote on ratification.

So imagine, if you will, that we are delegates to a constitutional re-convention. Where do we stand? And what constitution should we adopt?

1. See Madison’s journal from the convention at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/917.htm. [↩]
2. Incidentally, if the House of Representatives were increased to its maximum constitutional size, it would contain over 10,000 members. Currently, we have about one representative per 690,000 citizens. [↩]