Examining the misconceptions of Ed Rivera

Part 2: Was the Constitution Adopted? - By Rick Rickoff

In Ed Rivera's video, What Does The Constitution Say, and in other of his writings and audio recordings
found on the Internet, Rivera makes several claims based upon unsound reasoning. One of those claims
is that the Constitution was never adopted. His explanation is as follows:
The States of the so-called "more perfect Union" ratify "this Constitution," they do not "Adopt" it.
Adoption requires the level of support that would be promised in an oath. No President and no member
of Congress has ever taken the Article VI oath, to support this Constitution, so as a consequence this
Constitution has never been Adopted.
In Part 1 of this series, I explained why Rivera's claim that, "this Constitution" and "the Constitution"
are different constitutions, is a false notion, and that these constitutions are in fact one and the same. I
also explained why, when one understands this, it is very clear that all oaths taken to "the Constitution"
are in fact set in the correct terminology which makes these oaths valid. Therefore, since Rivera's above
claim that, "this Constitution has never been adopted," is reliant upon his belief that, "No President and
no member of Congress has ever taken the Article VI oath ('to support this Constitution')," Rivera's
claim is shown to be false. So, unless Rivera has some other, more convincing argument to offer as to
why he believes the Constitution was never adopted, we must consider this matter as having been
successfully refuted. To explore the concept of adoption further, though, as it applied to the
Constitution, I will offer additional information which helps develop the clearest possible understanding
as to whether or not the Constitution was correctly and formally adopted.
Twice can the word "Adoption" be found in the Constitution (Article II Section 1, and Article VI), but in
neither of these instances is it stated that a President must "adopt" anything. Article II Section 1 does
mention the President, and the word "Adoption," but let's focus on what this Section is really about. It is
telling us who is eligible to sit as President, by listing the qualification factors. We see that first there is
a citizenship requirement, then a minimum age requirement (35 years), and lastly a residency
requirement (14 years). Let's narrow the focus to the first requirement, as that is where the words
"President" and "Adoption" are both found:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption
of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"
The Founders were writing a Constitution not only for the time being, but for future generations as well.
They recognized that in future generations it would be wise to say that only a natural born citizen
(someone born in one of the United States to parents who were both citizens of one or another of the
States at time of the birth) would be eligible. At the time of writing, however, there would have been no
one who could meet that eligibility requirement along with the age and residency requirement, so they
had to include an exception. The exception was that anyone meeting the age and residency
requirements, and being a citizen, "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution," would also qualify
as being eligible. If the exclusion allowance had not been included, 8 of the first 9 Presidents would not
have qualified. Anyways, as should clearly be seen, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution
which states that a President must "adopt" it.
So what did "Adoption" mean? "Adoption" is the act of adopting. To understand what was required to
adopt the Constitution, let's turn to Black's Law Dictionary, which gives this pertinent definition:

page 1 of 5 pages

The Constitution was first adopted at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention on September 17,
1787, when 39 of the delegates voted to accept it, and attached their signatures to it to attest to the fact
that they had accepted it and given their consent for the document to be presented to the several States
for ratification. This adoption was, of course, only as to an agreement on the final form of the
Constitution. Before it could become declared as fully ratified and formally adopted by the United
States, however, the Constitution had to be ratified in Conventions of at least nine States, as stipulated in
Article VII:
"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of
this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."
Article VII makes it rather clear that ratification by nine of the 13 states was "sufficient for the
Establishment of this Constitution.." In other words, upon such ratification of a ninth State, this
Constitution became established as the Constitution. Now let's take a moment to look at the meaning
of "establish," which is the root of "establishment."

Pay special attention to the statement at the bottom of the above definition: "...to settle certainly, or fix
permanently, what was before uncerain, doubtful, or disputed." Until ratification of a ninth state, the
Constitution could not be considered by any State to have been established, and the historic records of
the ratification process make it perfectly clear that there was strong opposition to the new Constitution
among those in the so-called "anti-federalist" movement. Their main objection, of course, was that a bill
of rights had not been included in the Constitution document, and without a promise to include a bill of
rights as amendments to the Constitution, the document most certainly would not have been ratified.

page 2 of 5 pages

New Hampshire, on June 21, 1788, was the ninth State to ratify the Constitution, and thus the
Constitution became officially ratified by the required number of States on that date. Note that "ratify"
and "establish" are synonyms, as can be seen in the definition of "establish" found on page 2, and are
therefore interchangeable terms, while to "adopt," as previously noted, is "to accept, consent to, and put
into effective operation." So, there are three tests to consider:
1. Was the Constitution accepted by the required number of States?
2. Did each of the States give their consent to the establishment of the Constitution?
3. Did the Confederation of States Congress put the new Constitution into effective operation?
The answer to question #1 is certainly, and without question, in the affirmative, and by each of those 9
States accepting and ratifying the new Constitution, and reporting those ratifications to Congress, they
gave their consent for adoption of the Constitution, thus satisfying the test in question #2. The only
remaining question, then, is whether or not the Confederation Congress put the new Constitution into
effective operation, so let's take a look at what actually occurred in Congress.
As each state ratified the new Constitution, they sent notices to Congress confirming their ratification.
As stated above, New Hampshire was the ninth state to ratify, and to confirm that fact to Congress.
Upon receiving that confirmation, Congress appointed a committee, on July 2, 1788, to determine a plan
and timeline for putting the new Constitution into operation. On July 8, 1788, the committee delivered
their recommendations to Congress. On September 13, 1788, Congress officially resolved that the
electors for the states should be appointed by the first Wednesday of January 1789, that the electors were
to assemble and vote for President on the first Wednesday of February, 1789, and that on March 4th of
1789, the Constitution should proceed.
The final agreed upon resolution of September 13, 1788, on the organization of the government under
the new Constitution, was little changed from what the committee report of July 8, 1788 had
recommended. The recommended schedule was simply delayed one month in hopes that all of the states
would have ratified by that delayed time frame, and the place for commencing first proceedings under
the new Constitution, on March 4, 1789, which had not been stated earlier in the committee report, was
decided as being the then current seat of Congress, Federal Hall in Manhattan, New York.
Members of the new Congress had assembled at Federal Hall on March 4, 1789, but neither the House
of Representatives nor the Senate had achieved a required forum for voting at that time, so government
business requiring votes was delayed until April 6th, when a quorum in both the House of
Representatives and Senate was obtained. After each House had elected their presiding officers, the first
business conducted by the new Congress in establishing the new government, under the new
Constitution, was the counting of votes for President and Vice President. Article II, Section 1, clause 3
of the Constitution had required that Congress meet in joint session to open and count the certified
voting list reports of the several States, and that the President of the Senate (the President pro tempore in
this case) conduct the vote counting. George Washington was confirmed as the President elect, and John
Adams was confirmed as Vice President. This date of April 6, 1789, can be said to have become the first
day that the Constitution was officially placed into effective operation, as this was the first joint session
of the new Congress. March 4th had been the day when the Confederation Congress officially
disbanded, and handed off power to the newly created Constitution government, so it could be argued
that the new Constitution went into operation on that date. To my thinking, however there was no
"effective operation" until April 6th. Thus, one could argue whether the third requirement for adoption
occurred on March 4th or April 6th, but in any case, the facts presented herein establish the undeniable
truth that all three of the requirements for lawful adoption, as stated on page 3, in order to officially
page 3 of 5 pages

adopt the Constitution, were in fact indubitably and incontestably established. Thus, most certainly as of
April 6th, 1789, the Consitution was good as gold, firmly established, and no further adoption of any
kind was necessary.
Although George Washington was confirmed by the new Congress on March 6, 1789, and his term of
office officially began on that date, Washington wasn't actually aware that he had been declared elected
until he was notified of that fact by messenger service at 5:00 pm on April 14th, more than a week later.
A letter confirming Washington's election as President had been sent by Senator John Langdon of New
Hampshire, the first president pro tempore of the United States Senate, who had presided over the
counting of the electoral votes. Upon receiving the news of his election, Washington replied immediately
and set off for New York in the morning of April 16th. He arrived in New York on April 23rd, and was
innaugurated April 30, 1789 on the balcony of Federal Hall. Washington was sworn in by Chancellor of
New York Robert Livingston, who administered the oath of office. John Adams had already taken his
oath of office before George Washington was sworn in. Livingston, being the highest judicial officer in
the state of New York, the seat of government, was chosen to administer the oaths for the reason that
Justices of the federal supreme court had not yet been appointed. Certainly, in order to put the new
government into effective operation, even though the new Constitution was already in effective
operation, it was necessary for the elected President and Vice President to be sworn in to their respective
offices, and there can be no doubt that this was in fact accomplished. Both the President, and Vice
President, as well as the members of Congress, had taken proper constitutional oaths to the new
Constitution, which was the Constitution that had been correctly described within the 1787 Constitution
document as being "this Constitution," in order to differentiate it from the preexistent Articles of
Confederation constitution, but which had become "the Constitution" upon the new Constitution's
adoption. Agreements of the several States that had been made under the Articles of Confederation, and
which had not been superseded by provisions made within the new Constitution, remained in effect at
the time of transition, and still remain in effect today.
After explaining everything noted herein to one of Ed Rivera's followers, for some reason that follower
was not convinced of the errors in Rivera's teachings on this subject, and asked the question, "Who
adopted the Constitution?" To me, the answer to that question is rather evident if one has read this
document and understands what is stated herein, but I will honor the requester's question by reiterating
what has already been stated herein in more concise terms. If we consider, once again, the three
elements necessary for lawful adoption of the Constitution, the "who" as related to each of those
elements are as follows:
1. Accept: The Confederation Congress had transmitted copies of the new Constitution to each of the 13
State legislatures in accordance with an Act of that Congress dated September 28, 1787, and instructed
those States to hold ratifying conventions and to report their voting results to Congress. The people of
those States elected delegates to represent them at the ratifying conventions, so in this first requirement,
the people empowered their representative delegates to either accept or deny ratification. Thus the
"who" in this instance was the people, through their elected delegates.
2. Consent to: As each of the several States held their ratifying conventions, and either voted for or
against ratification, a certified report of the voting results was sent to the Confederation Congress.
States that had voted for ratification, rather than against it, and transmitted their certified results to
Congress, had given their consent for the Congress to put the new Constitution into operation. The
convention delegates that voted in their State conventions, and those involved in certifying and
page 4 of 5 pages

transmitting those ratification results to the Congress, therefore, were the "who" involved in successfully
implementing element #2.
3. Put into effective operation: The members of the Confederation Congress, upon receiving
confirmation of New Hampshire being the 9th state to ratify, took the necessary steps to assign a
committee to determine how and when the new Constitution and it's government would be put into
effective operation. The committee reported their suggestions, the Congress voted to accept a revised
plan of action, and a date was established for carrying the plan forward and handing off power to the
new Congress. Thus, the "who" regarding this final requirement for the Constitution to be lawfully and
formally adopted can be said to have been the members of the Confederation Congress, as well as the
members of the newly created United States Congress who carried out the final steps required to put the
new Constitution into effective operation.
So there are the facts, and the answers to the question, "Who adopted the Constitution?" If anyone
needs to know the names of all the individuals involved in these 3 elements of adoption, surely a bit of
research will reveal the names of all the State convention delegates, all the members of the
Confederation Congress who participated in the actions necessary by that body, and the names of all the
United States Congress members who actively participated in putting the new Constitution into effective
operation and establishing the new government under the new Constitution.
For those interested in doing further research I have prepared a timeline showing the actual events which
occurred within the Confederation Congress and United States Congress, showing both the
transcriptions of related records and links to the actual pages where those records are found. That
document can be found at this link.
In conclusion, since it has clearly been shown that all three of the requirements for lawful adoption of
the new Constitution as defined in the Black's Law Dictionary definition shown at the top of page 2, as
listed on page 3, and shown again on this page, were in fact properly established, it must be conceded
that Rivera's claim that, "this Constutution has never been adopted," is patently false. Further, we can
see that even if one subscribes to Rivera's theory, as seen on page 1, that adoption of the Constitution
"requires the level of support that would be promised in an oath," his argument that, "No President and
no member of Congress has ever taken the Article VI oath, 'to support this Constitution'," is shown
herein, and in Part 1 of this series, to have no basis in reality whatsoever.
Please note that this is but one of Ed Rivera's misconceptions explained, and explanations of other such
misconceptions will be forthcoming. Those explanations will quite likely refer back to previous
explanations, as they set a firm foundation for correctly understanding what the Constitution really says,
and dispelling the false teachings of Ed Rivera. Surely some of Ed's teachings must have some validity,
but this series will only concentrate on those teachings which do not. Hopefully, Ed will adjust his
teachings to omit the noted misconceptions, and Ed's followers will also strike those misconceptions
from their understandings so that they may have a clearer view as to what the Constitution really says.

page 5 of 5 pages