Fascinating New Article on the Signficance of the Signatures to the Constitution and What They Meant

November 30th, 2009

Forthcoming in YLJ on SSRN (H/T Legal Theory Blog):

The signing of the U.S. Constitution is traditionally understood as the closing act of the Constitutional Convention. This Note provides an alternative account, one that understands the Constitution’s signing as the opening act of the ratification campaign that followed in the Convention’s wake. To begin, the Note explains the signatures’ ambiguous form as the product of political maneuvering designed to win support for the Constitution during ratification. The Note then hypothesizes two ways in which the signatures may have helped to secure this support: (1) by highlighting pro-Constitution selling-points likely to resonate with the ratifying public; and (2) by limiting the ability of the signers’ to recant their support for the Constitution once ratification battles had begun. Finally, the Note identifies a few respects in which this ratification-centered account of the Constitution’s signing may influence our modern-day understanding of the document.

The table of contents is enticing:Attesting Versus Endorsing: The Ambiguity Exposed, The Signatures as a Marketing Device, The Signatures as a Constraining Device.

Definitely check this out.