[{"command":"add_css","data":[{"rel":"stylesheet","media":"all","href":"\/sites\/default\/files\/css\/css_veuEhhb1658wti0_ZAig66JOyixENU-N9zhjLQSLfOQ.css?delta=0\u0026language=en\u0026theme=heritage_theme\u0026include=eJwrTi1LzdNPzkksLq7Uy8tPSQUAPMsGtA"}]},{"command":"invoke","selector":null,"method":"openEssay","args":["10000136","\n\n\u003Carticle about=\u0022\/constitution\/articles\/7\/essays\/137\/attestation-clause\u0022 class=\u0022node node--type-constitution-essay node--promoted node--view-mode-embedded clearfix\u0022\u003E\n  \u003Ch1 class=\u0022title\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan\u003EAttestation Clause\u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003C\/h1\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-location\u0022\u003E\n      Article VII, Clause 2\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-context\u0022\u003E\n      \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EDone in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names....\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-body\u0022\u003E\n    \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ETwo days before the end of the Constitutional Convention, just before the final vote on the completed document, three delegates voiced objections to the new Constitution. Edmund Randolph of Virginia (who had introduced the Virginia Plan) thought the Constitution was not sufficiently republican, and moved that there should be another convention to address amendments to be proposed by the states. George Mason, also of Virginia, seconded the motion, arguing that without significant changes the new government would end in either monarchy or a tyrannical aristocracy. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts feared the powers of Congress were too broad; he thought the best that could be done was to provide for a second general convention. When the two questions were put to a vote, the eleven states present (Rhode Island had not sent a delegation, and New York\u2019s had left) all voted against a second convention and then all voted in favor of the final text of the Constitution. The document was then ordered engrossed, or formally written, in preparation for endorsement.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EWhen the convention reconvened on September 17, after the final reading of the document, Benjamin Franklin delivered an address (read by James Wilson) strongly endorsing the Constitution despite any perceived imperfections. Hoping to gain the support of critics and create a sense of common accord, Franklin then proposed, and the Convention agreed, that the Constitution be signed by the delegates as individual witnesses of \u201cthe unanimous consent of the states present.\u201d\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThus the signers subscribed their names \u201cIn witness\u201d to what was \u201cDone in Convention,\u201d and, with the exception of George Washington, who signed first and separately (as president and deputy from Virginia), the names are grouped by state. As a result, the document suggests the unanimity of the Declaration of Independence: delegates did not sign \u201con the part and behalf of\u201d particular states, as they had in the Articles of Confederation. The states are listed (as in Article I, Section 2, and the draft of the Preamble, as well as in the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation) in geographical order, from New Hampshire in the north to Georgia in the south.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EIn the end, Randolph, Mason, and Gerry did not sign the Constitution; as Madison wrote in his notes, they \u201cdeclined to give it the sanction of their names.\u201d The arrangement did allow Alexander Hamilton to sign as a witness for New York, even though the rest of his delegation had already departed.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EAt least sixty-five individuals had received appointments to the convention, fifty-five attended at various times over the course of the sessions, and thirty-nine delegates signed the final document. George Read of Delaware signed twice: once for himself, then again for John Dickinson (who had left due to illness, and had authorized Read to sign his name). Although he was not a delegate, William Jackson, the secretary of the convention, signed to attest, or authenticate, the delegates\u2019 signatures.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EAlso of note is the method by which the Constitution is dated: \u201cthe Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord\u201d 1787, and \u201cof the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.\u201d Dating documents to \u201cthe Year of our Lord\u201d had become more unusual; the Declaration of Independence, for instance, simply states \u201cIn Congress, July 4, 1776.\u201d Dating important documents in American political history to the Declaration of Independence was at that point relatively frequent. The dual reference, which was used by the Continental Congress in the late 1770s and early 1780s on various documents and declarations, can be found in two other important national documents: the Articles of Confederation and the Northwest Ordinance (considered, along with the Declaration, to be the \u201corganic documents\u201d of the nation). The language here is not insignificant. The dates serve to place the document in the context of the Christian religious traditions of Western civilization. At the same time, the dates formally link the document to the regime principles proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution having been written in the twelfth year after July 1776. The usage stands in contrast to both the contemporary British tradition, in which documents were dated to the reign of the sitting monarch (see, for example, the Magna Carta of 1215 and the Petition of Right of 1628), and the French decision in 1793 to reject the Gregorian calendar altogether and begin measuring time starting with the French Revolution.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EAkhil Amar suggests that attestations and signatures are not normally regarded as part of the substance of a legal document. Nonetheless, the Attestation Clause has traditionally been included in reprintings of the Constitution.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--media\u0022\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--photo\u0022 style=\u0022background-image: url(\/sites\/default\/files\/Matthew_Spalding.jpg)\u0022\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--info\u0022\u003E\n              \u003Ch4 class=\u0022con-essay-author--name\u0022\u003E\n                      Matthew Spalding\n                  \u003C\/h4\u003E\n                  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--job\u0022\u003E\n         Associate Vice President and Dean of Educational Programs, Hillsdale College\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-tabs\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cul data-tabs class=\u0022tabs\u0022\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000136-taba\u0022\u003EFurther Reading\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000136-tabb\u0022\u003ECase Law\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000136-tabc\u0022\u003ERelated Essays\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n      \u003C\/ul\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv data-tabs-content\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000136-taba\u0022\u003E\n          \n      \u003Cdiv\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EAkhil Reed Amar, Commentary: \u201cThe Constitution and the Candidates: Race, Religion, Romney, and Ryan,\u201d The Daily Beast, August 19, 2012, at http:\/\/ www.law.yale.edu\/news\/15960.htm\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n          \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000136-tabb\u0022\u003E\n          \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000136-tabc\u0022\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000134\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EReligious Test\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000137\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EEstablishment of Religion\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000138\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EFree Exercise of Religion\u003C\/a\u003E\n                  \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n\u003C\/article\u003E\n"]}]