On January 14, 1784, the United States narrowly avoided a constitutional catastrophe. On September 3rd 1783, British and American delegates had signed the Treaty of Paris, which ended the American Revolutionary War. However, Congress needed to ratify and return it to London within six-months. It took months for copies to arrive in the United States. But even after the treaty arrived, Congress sat for weeks in Annapolis, Maryland, unable to vote because they lacked a quorum. On January 13th, with the deadline looming, they only needed one more delegate to proceed. In response, Richard Beresford rose from his sickbed and traveled to Philadelphia to finally reach the nine-state threshold. The next day, Congress ratified the treaty, affirming that a republic’s legitimacy depends not on a king’s decree, but on the disciplined, procedural assembly of its representatives.
Two hundred and fifty years later, the mechanics of our government are again under the microscope. On the 21st, the US Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in Trump v. Cook, a case that questions the President’s power to fire independent agency leaders. Simultaneously, federal courts are weighing whether mail-in ballots must be received by Election Day to be counted. These 2026 debates mirror the anxieties of 1784. Who has the legal authority to act? And what happens when procedural rules—like quorums or voting deadlines—become the front lines of political warfare?
Ratification Day reminds us that American independence wasn't just won on the battlefield; it was secured through the legislative process. In 2026, as we test the limits of executive power, we should remember that our sovereignty still rests on that same foundation of the "free consent of the people" and the rule of law.
