Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 15.djvu/35



Much of the opposition which at one time threatened to prevent the ratification of the Constitution, framed at the memorable convention of 1787 in Philadelphia, was justified by a most serious omission in the structure of that instrument. The omission was nothing less than a failure essentially to recognize the ultimate object for which constitutions are created. The attention of the delegates had been concentrated on the frame while the foundation, corresponding with the individual rights of the citizens for whom the government was to be erected, seemingly had been ignored. It became necessary to supply the deficiency. Instead of altering the completed structure, however, it was proposed to add a series of amendments which should adequately recognize and guard the claims of the common people. The so-called Bill of Rights was accordingly framed. Presented in the form of ten amendments this Bill of Rights became a part of the Constitution as finally adopted.

The prime object in the minds of the delegates, as reflected in the preamble of the Constitution, was to secure the blessings of liberty to the "people of the United States" and their "posterity." Little did they conceive, however, of the future development of the nation that they were founding. In the strongest flights of imagination they could scarcely have grasped the eventual significance of the term posterity which now relates to a population of eighty-five millions. Nor would they have believed that the Constitution might one day protect millions who could not, technically speaking, be called the "people of the United States." Nevertheless it is true that our vast immigrant population enjoys on a practical basis of equality the rights guaranteed to the citizens that compose the nation. It is not enough to say, however, that immigration legislation has been inspired by the spirit of the Constitution. The active manifestation of that