The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1899-01-25
SHALL THE MAJORITY RULE?
If the Constitution Is to Live 1t Must
Change-As 1T Now Stands 1t Is
Practically Unamendable.

Change-As 1T Now Stands 1t Is
Practically UnamendabIe.
At the state Democratic convention at
Marshalltown, Iowa, the following plank
was adopted, after hot debate:
We believe that the constitution of the
United States is the most excellent or
ganic law ever adopted by any people,
but We believe that the lapse of years
and changed conditions have brought the
time when further amendments to it
should be brought forward for adoption.
We hold that its provisions for its
own amendments are utterly inadequate
to give expression to the will of the peo-
pie, and we, therefore, favor the amend
ment of Article of the constitution
of the United States, to the end that
whenever majority Of both houses
of congress shall deem 1t necessary that
congress shall propose amendments to
the constitution, which shall be submit
ted to popular vote and. shall be valid
as part thereof when ratified by a ma
jority of the votes Of the people of the
United States cast at any general or
special election at which such question
shall be submitted to a VOTE
j. H. Quick, mayor of Sioux City,
progressive and reliable man, was the
author of the plank, and says regard
ing it:
"The United States constitution is a
tool to promote the public welfare. Only
the Intellectually dead look upon it as
fetish to be worshiped. People who
delight in using the brains of century
ago to do their thinking are apt
to froth at the mouth when constitu-
tional amendments are spoken of. Yet
nobody can deny that the only safeguard
of the constitution is it's power of
growth, and it can grow through amend
ment only.
The stagnationists will always oppose
amendments. But if the constitution is
to live, it must change, for life is only
another term for change. and the consti-
tuition of the United States as it now
stands, is, to all intents and purposes,
practically unamendable.
The first few amendments engrafted
upon it were really part of the original
instrument, and grew by unanimous con-
sent out of the agitation which gave it
birth. Not one of them touched upon
any vested wrong or aroused the oppo-
30 ,,,,;x-o i,,%o
amendments which grew out of the civil
war, and to which any great opposi-
ton existed, we're only made possible
by the civil war. I am convinced that
unless we provide some better method
of amendment, the people will again find
their path to larger liberty blocked by
rigid constitution, supported by an oil
garchical judiciary, and that the al
tentative will be presented of the sub
mission Of the will of the majority to
the tyranny of the few or a resort to
force. In such juncture we know what
the Anglo-Saxon will do. He will achive
liberty if it breaks the constitution.
What is the proposition in our plat
form? Simply that the majority shall
rule. If there is anybody who denies their
right to rule. I have no argument with
him. Let our history answer him. From
those who concede the right of the ma
jority to rule l can imagine no valid
objection to the proposed reform. The
American people are the only branch of
the Anglo-Saxon race who have felt
called upon to assume constitutional
straight jacket for fear of doing them
selves harm.
When the majority of the people Of
Canada call for the law they get it, and
there is no fourths majority Sec
ton in any constitution to intervene
and block the way of progress. The
people of Australia have experienced no
harm from having the will of the ma
jority carried out at once. No one can
call the government of England "a radi-
cal one Of passion"
In all these countries the people seem
intelligent enough, sane enough and just
enough to govern themselves without
the interposition Of the dead hand of
ancestral legislation between the desire
of the people and it's fruition. Are the
American people more passionate, less
sane, less just or more untrustwOrthy
than our English-speaking cousins? l
deny it. The proposition is infamous. 1t