Constitution Day: How Debate Shaped the Constitution

Tuesday, September 15, 2026

Every September 17, Americans observe Constitution Day, commemorating the day in 1787 when delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia signed the document that would become the Constitution of the United States.

It is easy, more than two centuries later, to view the Constitution as an inevitable part of American history. It wasn't.

The document signed in Philadelphia was produced after months of difficult debate among men who disagreed—sometimes profoundly—about representation, federal power, state sovereignty, slavery, individual rights, commerce, and the basic structure of the new government. Some delegates left the Convention before it finished. Three who remained on September 17 refused to sign.

Even many of those who did sign believed the finished Constitution was imperfect.

Perhaps that is one of the most important things to remember on Constitution Day: the Constitution was not the product of unanimity. It was the product of debate, compromise, and an attempt to construct a government capable of governing while preventing power from being concentrated without restraint.

A Government That Wasn't Working

Before the Constitution, the United States operated under the Articles of Confederation. Adopted by Congress in 1777 and finally ratified by all thirteen states in 1781, the Articles created what amounted to a loose confederation of states with a comparatively weak national government.

That arrangement presented serious problems.

Congress could request money from the states but lacked an independent power to tax individuals directly and had no effective means of compelling the states to provide the requested funds. It also lacked adequate authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. These weaknesses made it difficult for the national government to meet its financial obligations and address problems involving the states collectively. [National Archives]

By the middle of the 1780s, concern about the system was growing. Interstate commercial disputes, national debt, difficulties raising revenue, and unrest such as Shays' Rebellion in Massachusetts added urgency to calls for reform.

Delegates eventually assembled in Philadelphia in May 1787. They had gathered to revise the Articles of Confederation.

What emerged instead was an entirely new framework of government. [National Archives]

Four Months Behind Closed Doors

The Constitutional Convention spent nearly four months debating that new government.

The disagreements were substantial.

Large and small states clashed over representation. Delegates argued over the respective powers of the national and state governments. They confronted sectional economic interests and, inseparably from the nation's early political structure, the institution of slavery. They debated the executive, the legislature, the judiciary, taxation, commerce, and how the new government itself would be restrained.

James Madison described the difficulty unusually candidly in an October 24, 1787 letter to Thomas Jefferson.

Among the problems, Madison identified the need to divide authority appropriately between the national government and the states, reconcile the interests of different regions, and settle the competing demands of large and small states. Taken together, he wrote, they created "a task more difficult than can be well conceived" by anyone who had not participated. [James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, October 24, 1787 — Founders Online]

One of the most consequential compromises produced the Congress we recognize today: representation based on population in the House of Representatives, coupled with equal representation of the states in the Senate.

Madison later told Jefferson that the conflict over representation produced "greater alarm for the issue of the Convention than all the rest put together." Small states insisted upon equality in the Senate; large states argued for representation according to population. [James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, October 24, 1787 — Founders Online]

The Constitution that resulted did not eliminate those competing interests. It constructed a system in which they would have to operate together.

Dividing Power to Restrain Power

The Constitution established three branches of the federal government—legislative, executive, and judicial—with different responsibilities and overlapping checks.

Article I vested legislative powers granted by the Constitution in Congress. Article II vested executive power in the President. Article III vested the judicial power of the United States in one Supreme Court and in such inferior federal courts as Congress might establish.

But the branches were not made completely independent of one another. Presidential vetoes, congressional override authority, Senate confirmation of certain presidential appointments, impeachment, and other constitutional mechanisms created a system in which governmental powers were separated while important powers were also shared.

The Constitution likewise divided authority between the federal government and the states.

The result was not simply a stronger national government than existed under the Articles of Confederation. It was an attempt to create a government strong enough to function while making the exercise of governmental power structurally difficult to concentrate. Congress's Constitution Annotated describes the constitutional system as combining separated governmental powers with checks that make the branches interdependent in important respects. [Constitution Annotated — Congress.gov]

That tension—between granting government sufficient power to govern and restraining the misuse of that power—runs throughout the Constitution.

An Imperfect Document, Even to Those Who Signed It

On September 17, 1787, the finished Constitution was presented for signatures.

Forty-two delegates were present. Thirty-eight personally signed the Constitution. George Read of Delaware also signed the name of fellow Delaware delegate John Dickinson, who was absent, bringing the number of names affixed to the document to thirty-nine. George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, and Edmund Randolph refused to sign. [National Archives]

Their refusal is important because disagreement did not end when the Convention did.

Mason, in particular, objected that the Constitution contained no declaration of rights. He also raised concerns about the power and structure of the new federal government. His objections became part of a much larger national argument that would soon erupt over whether the Constitution should be ratified. [Library of Congress]

Those who signed were not necessarily declaring the document flawless, either.

Only a week after the Convention adjourned, George Washington sent a copy of the Constitution to Benjamin Harrison. Washington wrote:

"I wish the Constitution which is offered had been made more perfect, but I sincerely believe it is the best that could be obtained at this time."

Washington immediately pointed to something extraordinarily important: a "constitutional door" had been opened for later amendment. [George Washington to Benjamin Harrison, September 24, 1787 — Founders Online]

Madison also had significant reservations. Despite becoming one of the Constitution's foremost defenders during ratification, he had failed to secure several provisions he considered important. His private correspondence after the Convention makes clear that the document adopted in Philadelphia was not identical to the system he personally would have designed. [James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, October 24, 1787 — Founders Online]

The Constitution was, in a very literal sense, a compromise.

Signing Was Only the Beginning

September 17 did not make the Constitution the governing law of the United States.

Article VII required ratification by conventions in nine states before the new constitutional system could take effect among the states ratifying it.

What followed was an intense national political debate.

Supporters of ratification became known as Federalists. Opponents, generally called Anti-Federalists, warned about centralized federal power and repeatedly attacked the Constitution's failure to include explicit protections for individual liberties.

The outcome was far from certain. According to the National Archives, only six of the thirteen states initially appeared to have pro-Constitution majorities. [National Archives]

The absence of a bill of rights became particularly important.

Ironically, the issue had been raised in Philadelphia. On September 12, just five days before the signing, George Mason and Elbridge Gerry proposed that the Constitution be prefaced with a bill of rights. After little debate, the proposal was rejected. [Library of Congress]

Outside the Convention, however, the issue would not disappear.

Several state ratifying conventions called for amendments, and the prospect that amendments would be considered helped overcome opposition during the ratification struggle. [National Archives]

The Bill of Rights

Once the new government began operating, James Madison—who had earlier questioned the necessity of a bill of rights—became instrumental in securing one.

Madison's position had evolved as the ratification debate demonstrated how strongly many Americans valued explicit constitutional protections for individual rights. He also came to see advantages in placing such protections in the Constitution, including their potential to educate the public about its rights and discourage abuses of governmental power. [National Archives]

On June 8, 1789, Madison introduced proposed constitutional amendments in the House of Representatives. After debate and revision in the House and Senate, Congress ultimately approved twelve proposed amendments and sent them to the states on September 25, 1789.

Ten were ratified by the required number of states on December 15, 1791.

Those ten became the Bill of Rights. [National Archives]

They protect or recognize freedoms and rights that have become inseparable from American constitutional government: freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition; the right to keep and bear arms; protections against unreasonable searches and seizures; due process; protections for criminal defendants; jury rights; protection against cruel and unusual punishment; recognition that enumerating certain rights does not deny others retained by the people; and reservation of undelegated powers to the states or the people. [National Archives — Bill of Rights Transcript]

For those of us in the firearms community, the Second Amendment naturally holds particular significance. But it exists within a broader Bill of Rights whose protections collectively place important limits on government and recognize liberties belonging to the people.

Celebrating the Constitution means appreciating that larger inheritance as well.

A Constitution Designed to Be Changed

The Constitution signed in 1787 was not frozen permanently in the form produced by the Philadelphia Convention.

The Framers included Article V, establishing a deliberately demanding process for amendment.

The Bill of Rights demonstrated that process almost immediately. Subsequent amendments abolished slavery, established constitutional protections of citizenship and equal protection, expanded voting rights, changed the method of electing senators, limited presidents to two elected terms, and made numerous other changes to the nation's constitutional structure.

There are 27 ratified amendments today—including one with a remarkable connection to the original Bill of Rights. Of the twelve amendments Congress proposed in 1789, the second, concerning congressional compensation, remained unratified for more than two centuries before finally becoming the 27th Amendment in 1992. The first of the original twelve, concerning the size of the House of Representatives, was never ratified. [National Archives]

The ability to amend the Constitution is therefore not evidence that the original system failed. The amendment process is itself part of the original constitutional design.

What We Celebrate on September 17

The Constitution signed on September 17, 1787, was not immediately law. It did not yet contain the Bill of Rights. It did not resolve every political conflict facing the new nation, and some of its compromises—most consequentially those involving slavery—reflected injustices whose consequences would continue long after the founding generation.

Nor did every delegate believe the finished document was ideal.

Yet the document created a constitutional framework capable of surviving disagreement, accommodating lawful change, dividing governmental authority, and being amended by later generations.

That may be one reason Washington's observation from September 1787 remains so fitting.

He did not call the Constitution perfect.

He called it the best that could be obtained at the time—and emphasized that the door remained open for amendment. [George Washington to Benjamin Harrison, September 24, 1787 — Founders Online]

On Constitution Day, we commemorate the signing of that document. But the occasion can also serve as an invitation to do something the Constitution's endurance ultimately depends upon:

Read it. Understand it. Debate it. And appreciate the extraordinary history behind it.

Sources & Further Reading

Leave your comment