HOT MESS – The Election Law Debate

Part Two, with this and other posts raising issues worth considering in advance of the upcoming Presidential election.

PART TWO: Hot Mess

Anyone who has been part of a committee, whether in government, business, or even the local PTA, and a committee member for some time, recognizes that the same discussion points come up over, and over, and over again.

So imagine yourself in May of 1787, at the Constitutional Convention.

The topic de jure was the present form of government — the Articles of Confederation — and how to improve on what was, by then, governmental gridlock (sound familiar?).

Those in attendance had a choice of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as it were, or improving upon what got them there.

The delegates needed to ask themselves who they wanted to govern, themselves (as States) or a national government with power over the states.

In retrospect, the choice of what to do was clear — the country was broke, divided, and was headed toward extinction.

So in retrospect, out went the baby — but in 1787 it was dealing with a young country that, to put bluntly, was a hot mess of people, politics and problems.

UNITY AT A COST

Keep in mind, the Articles of Confederation were years (decades) in the making, and were fashioned with state-interests in mind.

So in 1787, as the days drug-on, and as the weather changed from comfortable to hot, so too did the debate over what to do, how to do it, and why.

The debate lasted for more than three months.

Context is important. As of 1787, the alliance of states was only four years removed from the cessation of hostilities with England and those in attendance — generally the most wealthy and influential of the citizenry — had very real experience in dealing with a King.

Issues such as “taxation without representation” and “quartering soldiers” were not simply concepts but real-life experiences.

Imagine that your friends, acquaintances, and randoms — some of whom you had or would develop a personal distaste for — will determine the future of your government. Sure, the end-result might be more successful when done as a group, but, then again, most of the delegates enjoyed success on your own and certainly don’t want to hitch your wagon to people that, perhaps not overtly objectionable, were from vastly different backgrounds.

Ultimately, the folks that attended the convention understood that despite their personal views, Team USA would work better as a whole if they put trust in a process.

That process that would eventually become the Constitution – a document that was literally and figuratively months and years in the making.

THE PRICE OF TEA

Now pretend your pre-Constitutional debate was over something like, say, tea. We’re talking tea, as in the drink.

According to Mary Beth Norton phenomenal book, 1774 The Long Year of Revolution, that cursed tea was one of the most consumed imports amongst Americans, fawning a lengthy and prosperous legal and illegal trade.

So it was no easy conclusion — and far from unanimous — to side with the folks in Boston harbor that, allegedly dressed in Indian garb, decided that rather than accept a “tea-tax” imposed by the British crown, they would raid the tea-carrying-ships and dump the tea into the water below. This act became known as the Boston Tea Party. It occurred in 1773.

And this act spurred reprisal from England, such as shutting down the Boston harbor and using local governors to end election or gatherings within the territories — such as the Continental Congress.

The stakes were high then, and perhaps even higher when the delegates convened in 1787.

THE POLITICAL COSTS

The beauty of 1787 — and in many ways the beauty of the American-form of government — is that despite the high stakes and despite the different statehood interests that delegates brought to Philadelphia, they were able to speak, debate and listen to each other despite disagreement.

Indeed, less than a decade removed from kingly-rule, delegates were set on creating a government that functioned without having a puppeteer pulling the strings.

Of course, what developed over the course of the Constitutional Convention had ramifications beyond the document itself as the very system of modern-day politics — that is, the “party system” — was taking shape.

On one side were Federalists who favored a strong national governing body.

On the other side were Anti-Federalists (a creative name) who, while in favor of a national governing body, wanted to reign in national-powers.

So it was that the Constitutional Convention debated the role of the president, discussed in my next blog: Vampire Weekend – The Election Law Debate, found here:  https://www.condon-law.com/vampire-weekend-…ction-law-debate/

Jacques C. Condon, Marquette 1999, is owner of Condon Law Firm, LLC, in Thiensville, handling civil litigation, business law, and problem-solving cases ranging on everything from sports and entertainment to local-level government action.