The column below reflects the views of the author, and these opinions are neither endorsed nor supported by WisOpinion.com.

WE THE PEOPLE! September 17th is designated as Constitution Day and Citizenship Day to commemorate the signing of the United States Constitution in Philadelphia on September 17, 1787. This day and the document commemorated have not only profound significance to the world but also to me in a very personal way, which I will illuminate in just a bit.

One of the central points I raise in this article asks us to consider the greatness of our U.S. Constitution and its legacy over time, in stark contrast to now—how distant our political discourse has fallen from our founding legacy. Could we accomplish now what the Framers, the signers, the fighters, the state’s delegates in the ratification process did 239 years ago in forming our country? I regrettably believe not—not without a radical shift in how we think about compromise and cooperation as an essential process and practice of government.

But first, let’s briefly consider the course of events giving rise to this great document.

The U.S. Constitution—A History

1775-1783. The American War of Independence (1775–1783), also known as the Revolutionary War, was the armed conflict in which 13 of Great Britain’s colonies in America threw off British rule, leading to an independent United States of America.

1776. The casting-off of British rule was expressed in the Declaration of Independence signed on July 4th, 1776. A careful reading of the Declaration impresses us as a type of “Bill of Outrages” against the King of England and Great Britain at that time, King George III.

September 9, 1776. The Continental Congress formally passed a resolution replacing the old name—”United Colonies of North America”—with the new name, the United States of America.

1787. Eleven years following the Declaration of Independence, many of the same patriots who fought for independence on the battlefield convened again in Philadelphia to draft a plan for governing the new nation—the Constitution of the United States.

September 17, 1787. Ratification! Article VII of the Constitution is the “ratification” clause, stating, “The ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same. [D]one 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.”

1787-1788. To explain to the people what the new Constitution was all about, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison led the writing and publication of the Federalist Papers. This collection of 85 essays was intended to sway public opinion, particularly in New York, toward supporting ratification of the newly proposed Constitution. The papers are still instrumental in understanding the basis of the new system of federal government that was proposed.

The final draft of the Constitution was signed by 39 delegates and then sent to the states for ratification. This was a unique process. The framers felt it necessary to avoid state legislatures because they feared politicians would oppose losing power. Instead, they asked voters to pick delegates to form specially elected state conventions.

1790. While only nine states were needed to start, all 13 original states eventually ratified the document by May 29, 1790.

The new government was thus established by

The Constitution of the United States of America.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

are America’s founding documents, and together

address mankind’s most basic political desires as well as questions.

(Cato Institute)

Enter the Bill of Rights

The promise that a bill of rights would be drafted for the Constitution persuaded delegates in many states to support ratification. That’s why some historians refer to the Bill of Rights as the “Bill of Promise.”

1789-1791. The Bill of Rights – amendments 1-10—had been added to the Constitution because the Constitution itself was seen as lacking limits on central government power—a principle known as federalism.

Federalists—the Federalist Party is recognized as the first “political” party—advocated for a strong national, central government, believing the people and states automatically kept any powers not expressly retained by the federal government in the Constitution’s text.

Anti-Federalists wanted power to remain with state and local governments and favored a Bill of Rights to safeguard individual liberty. These interests were led by Patrick Henry—a fiery orator from Virginia who argued the Constitution gave the executive branch too much power; George Mason—a Virginia delegate who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a bill of rights. Sharing these views were Samuel Adams and Elbridge Gerry—influential figures from Massachusetts who pushed for local autonomy.

Resolving the Federalist & Anti-Federalist Differences. Concerned about this over-extension of federal power, James Madison, then a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, suggested changing certain provisions within the Constitution’s text where he thought appropriate.

However, several representatives, led by Roger Sherman, objected, saying that Congress had no authority to change the wording of the Constitution which had already been ratified by 9 of the 13 states in 1787.

Sherman played a leading role in the origins of the Bill of Rights. He proposed that the amendments be appended at the end of the original Constitution as supplemental articles, rather than interspersing the changes directly into the existing sentences and paragraphs. Subsequently, Madison’s changes—having been reviewed by Sherman’s 11-member House committee appointed for this purpose—were presented as a list of amendments that would follow Article VII – the final article of the Constitution.

1789-1791. The House approved 17 amendments; the Senate approved 12, which were sent to the states for approval in August 1789. Ultimately, ten amendments were approved (or ratified), constituting the Bill of Rights. Virginia’s legislature was the final state legislature to ratify the amendments, approving them on December 15, 1791.

Our Goals & Visions – Lost in Partisanship?

In sum, our Constitution is an exemplar of profound compromise—our willingness to form a more perfect union and to agree to its specific terms. How far we have fallen in this mentality! The Constitution, therefore, is the central precedent as to what we must do to modify our political discourse.

The Preamble to the constitution represents national goals—a national Vision Statement—using such words as Form, Ensure, Provide, Promote, Secure, and “… do ordain and establish.” Again, in considering the greatness of our U.S. Constitution, do we see how distant our political discourse has fallen from our founding legacy? The Framers, the signers, the fighters, the state’s delegates in the ratification process—all are crying to us from their graves!

New Thinking Necessary!

Can you imagine trying to form and establish a Constitution of the United States of America in our present partisan political climate? This rising inability to compromise toward a unifying vision – is THE problem that tops my to-do list as a public servant and as a legislator. Our efforts at progress will be worthless unless and until we restore the bonds of trust among and between all of our stakeholders—how we interact with each other in public discourse, how we interact with our public sector, and how our elected representatives interact among themselves. There MUST be a NEW attitude among us—one of authentic cooperation and a constructive way of finding common ground.

“Let us begin anew;” understanding that “civility is not a sign of weakness;” and so, “let us explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems that divide us” (JFK).

Constitution Day – Personal Relevance and My Personal Reflections

Aside from this great U.S. Constitution being the Law of the Land, the week of September 17th also has a deep personal significance for me for three reasons.

First, I am a 27-year veteran of the United States Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps—the Army’s uniformed “law firm” that is responsible for a system of military justice and other practice areas. My career formally began by taking an Oath of Enlistment on May 22, 1985 (historically, that Oath became the first “official” oath under the newly adopted U.S. Constitution); it says,

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Second, I had been assigned to the Army’s law school, the Judge Advocate General’s School (the JAG School) in Charlottesville, Virginia, on August 3, 1990—the day after the invasion of Kuwait. The United States had responded to the Iraqi invasion by leading a massive international coalition to expel Iraqi forces through economic sanctions and military action. Many JAG lawyers and staff accompanied the coalition into that theater of operations. Back home, many US and allied senior military officers would “stop by” the JAG School to present situation reports, after-action reports, and essentially rewrite the laws of land warfare.

But something special was happening at the JAG School the same time. It was a time when nations that had been a part of the former Soviet military sphere were working on how best to restructure their own newly independent nations—independence from the Soviet Union! “How do we do that,” was the question. So, while the Liberation of Kuwait was going on in the Middle East, back home at the JAG School, we hosted several nations now independent of the Soviet orbit on HOW TO DRAFT A NATIONAL CONSTITUTION. I was there!

Third, I am now—much later in my life—a candidate for the office of State Representative for Wisconsin’s 46th Assembly District on the November 3, 2026, general election ballot. I will be taking another kind of Oath of Office. The Wisconsin State Constitution very simply states, “The legislative power shall be vested in a senate and assembly” (Wis. Const. art. IV, § 1).

Accordingly, in accordance with the Wisconsin Constitution Article IV, Section 28 and Wisconsin Statute § 19.01, I will say the following oath, remembering the first enlistment oath I took in 1985, and remembering the importance of the notion of constitutions from the days following the fall of communism in the Soviet Union and how newly liberated nations CAME TO US to draft their constitutions.

“I … who have been elected (or appointed) to the office … but have not yet entered upon the duties thereof, swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Wisconsin, and will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of said office to the best of my ability. So help me God.”

John Donohue is a candidate for Wisconsin State Assembly, District 46 on the November 3rd general election ballot. He is a 27-year veteran of the United States Army, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, retired at the rank of Chief Warrant Officer / Legal Administrator. He holds master’s degrees in Development Economics, Social Work (MSW), and Public Administration (MPA). John resides in Fort Atkinson with partner Kelly, and golden doodle, Winston L. S. Churchill.

References

The American Battlefield Trust, Washington, D.C.

Cato Institute, Washington, D.C.

Liberty Fund Network / Liberty Fund, Inc., Carmel, Indiana

National Archives, Washington, D.C.

Pritzker Military Museum & Library, Kenosha, Wisconsin