The Constitution Of 1791

In 1789, the need for a constitution was almost undisputed. This fascination with constitutionalism dated back to Enlightenment; to Turgot in the 1770’s; and to the American revolutionaries of the following decade. A constitution was viewed as a cure-all that would heal the ills of a political system that had become corrupt. If the powers and responsibilities of government could be prescribed on paper then they could be clear, unambiguous and limited in their scope. Many political writers thought that France already had a constitution, composed of the hereditary customs and usages governing its political and social life, but the government of France had become too complex and impossible to understand. They thought that a constitution would reform and clarify its operation; just as the US Constitution had been the crowing glory of the American Revolution. Deputies of the National Assembly debated issues and resolved them with the passage of laws. Once laws were passed, particularly constitutional ones, they expected that all parties would abide by them; anything less would show contempt for the law. The crucial belief governing the National Assembly was that, through the Constitution of 1791, law would be the over-arching principle to which all subscribed. The Constitution of 1791 was far from a meager regularization of existing laws and practices, as sensible deputies had first wanted. The task of writing this Constitution was given to the newly-formed National Assembly which, full of idealism had little political experience, none as a national body. It was able to incorporate many liberal political and civil reforms into the document, which it drafted between the years 1789 – 1791. The Declaration of the Right of Man and Citizen was adopted in its entirely as preamble to the document. The principles of popular sovereignty, legal equality, equal taxation, freedom of speech and the press was all asserted. Noble titles, venality and legal privilege were abolished entirely. State charities and public education were included, while marriage was specified as a civil rather than a religious institution. The constitution had to face two significant problems: the first, what role will the king play in this political system? Since most of the National Assembly delegates were moderates, they supported the idea of a constitutional monarchy where the king retained some executive power, provided it was not absolute. The king was given a suspensive refusal over legislation that could postpone endorsement for up to five years. The National Assembly face a dilemma that such a system can only work if the monarch supports it fully, which Louis did not. He accepted the constitution and ratified it but privately thought it to be flawed. The second, who shall be entitled to vote? The constitutions drew distinctions between active citizens (Frenchmen of 25 or above, residents in France, who pay a minimum amount of tax and therefore could vote) and passive citizens (those who did not meet these requirements and therefore could not vote). To the bourgeois delegates of the Assembly this made sense; voting was best left to the informed and those who contributed to society. The weakness of the executive and the unpopularity of the king’s minsters, Louis himself felt, made the constitution not viable. After his escape attempt and capture at Varennes in June 1791, some modifications were made to reinforce his position, but they failed to reassure him and his acceptance, on September 14th, was half-hearted. The constitution, after so much debate and trouble, lasted only eleven months.