Constitution

Article VII: Ratification

Article VII made the Constitution take effect once nine states ratified it, and closes with the attestation and signatures of the Convention's delegates.

4Conservative Editors · Published November 8, 2026

The text

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

The Word, "the," being interlined between the seventh and eighth Lines of the first Page, The Word "Thirty" being partly written on an Erazure in the fifteenth Line of the first Page, The Words "is tried" being interlined between the thirty second and thirty third Lines of the first Page and the Word "the" being interlined between the forty third and forty fourth Lines of the second Page.

Attest William Jackson Secretary

done 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 Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

In plain English

Article VII answers a simple question: how does a new Constitution come into force? The Articles of Confederation required unanimous consent of the states for any amendment. Rhode Island had boycotted the Convention, and others might have held out. The Framers therefore chose a lower threshold: ratification by "the Conventions of nine States" would be "sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

Two further points. First, ratification was to be by state conventions, specially elected for the purpose, rather than by the state legislatures. That put the decision directly in the hands of the people, which is consistent with the Preamble's opening words. Second, the Constitution would bind only the states that ratified it; others could remain outside until they chose to join.

New Hampshire's vote on June 21, 1788 was the ninth. Virginia and New York followed within weeks. North Carolina (November 1789) and Rhode Island (May 1790) joined after the new government was in operation.

The remaining text records corrections to the parchment, the date of signing (September 17, 1787) and the signatures. Thirty-nine delegates signed. The National Archives transcription places the attestation of the Convention's secretary, William Jackson, before the signatures.

What the Founders said

Madison defended the ratification plan in Federalist No. 40, which asked whether the Convention had gone beyond its authority. The delegates had been sent to revise the Articles; they produced a new Constitution. Madison's answer was that the Convention had only proposed it, and that the people would decide.

In Federalist No. 39 he wrote that the ratification would be "not a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act," as it would be the assent of the people "considered as so many independent States." The Constitution would bind only ratifying states, which Madison described as parties to a compact among themselves.

The Convention's final act was Benjamin Franklin's speech urging all delegates to sign, even those with doubts. Three delegates present, Edmund Randolph, George Mason and Elbridge Gerry, refused.

How the courts have read it

Courts have seldom needed to interpret Article VII, since ratification is a historical fact. Two decisions touch it.

  • Chisholm v. Georgia (1793): the opinions debated whether the people or the states were the sovereign parties to the Constitution.
  • Texas v. White (1869): the Court held that the Union created by the Constitution was "an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States," a statement that rests on the premise of the Preamble and the ratification process.
  • McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): Chief Justice Marshall observed that the Constitution was submitted to conventions of the people and derived its authority from them, not from the state governments.

Why it matters now

Article VII is a reminder that the Constitution's authority comes from consent. It was not handed down. It was proposed, argued over in every state, and adopted by conventions elected for that purpose, often by narrow margins. The ratification debates, including the Federalist Papers and the speeches of Patrick Henry, George Mason and others who opposed, are the best evidence of what the people understood themselves to be agreeing to.

That is the basis of original-meaning interpretation: the Constitution's words mean what the ratifiers could reasonably have understood them to mean. The approach assumes that a written text binds, and that the people who adopted it did so on the terms it states.

The article also marks the Constitution's origin as a compromise. Nothing in the process was simple, and its closing lines remind readers that the signers did not claim perfection. Their willingness to sign, and to submit the document to the people, is what gave the Constitution its authority.

Latest on this topic