In this Collection we seek to examine all of the important documents, court cases, and landmark issues that have contributed to the evolution of American Government.
U.S. Constitution Signed
|
Sep 17, 1787 [The Articles/Sections of the Constitution were not completed until December 1791, with the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights are Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution.] The Constitution of the United States of America is signed by 38 of 41 delegates present at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Supporters of the document waged a hard-won battle to win ratification by the necessary nine out of 13 U.S. states. |
|
The Articles of Confederation, ratified several months before the British surrender at Yorktown in 1781, provided for a loose confederation of U.S. states, which were sovereign in most of their affairs. On paper, Congress--the central authority--had the power to govern foreign affairs, conduct war, and regulate currency, but in practice these powers were sharply limited because Congress was given no authority to enforce its requests to the states for money or troops. By 1786, it was apparent that the Union would soon break up if the Articles of Confederation were not amended or replaced. Five states met in Annapolis, Maryland, to discuss the issue, and all the states were invited to send delegates to a new constitutional convention to be held in Philadelphia.
On May 25, 1787, delegates representing every state except Rhode Island convened at Philadelphia's Pennsylvania State House for the Constitutional Convention. The building, which is now known as Independence Hall, had earlier seen the drafting of the Declaration of Independence and the signing of the Articles of Confederation. The assembly immediately discarded the idea of amending the Articles of Confederation and set about drawing up a new scheme of government. Revolutionary War hero George Washington, a delegate from Virginia, was elected convention president.
During an intensive debate, the delegates devised a brilliant federal organization characterized by an intricate system of checks and balances. The convention was divided over the issue of state representation in Congress, as more-populated states sought proportional legislation, and smaller states wanted equal representation. The problem was resolved by the Connecticut Compromise, which proposed a bicameral legislature with proportional representation in the lower house (House of Representatives) and equal representation of the states in the upper house (Senate).
On September 17, 1787, the Constitution was signed. As dictated by Article VII, the document would not become binding until it was ratified by nine of the 13 states. Beginning on December 7, five states--Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut--ratified it in quick succession. However, other states, especially Massachusetts, opposed the document, as it failed to reserve undelegated powers to the states and lacked constitutional protection of basic political rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press. In February 1788, a compromise was reached under which Massachusetts and other states would agree to ratify the document with the assurance that amendments would be immediately proposed. The Constitution was thus narrowly ratified in Massachusetts, followed by Maryland and South Carolina. On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the document, and it was subsequently agreed that government under the U.S. Constitution would begin on March 4, 1789. In June, Virginia ratified the Constitution, followed by New York in July.
On September 25, 1789, the first Congress of the United States adopted 12 amendments to the U.S. Constitution--the Bill of Rights--and sent them to the states for ratification. Ten of these amendments were ratified in 1791. In November 1789, North Carolina became the 12th state to ratify the U.S. Constitution. Rhode Island, which opposed federal control of currency and was critical of compromise on the issue of slavery, resisted ratifying the Constitution until the U.S. government threatened to sever commercial relations with the state. On May 29, 1790, Rhode Island voted by two votes to ratify the document, and the last of the original 13 colonies joined the United States. Today, the U.S. Constitution is the oldest written constitution in operation in the world.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/us-constitution-signed
******************************************************************************************************************************
The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription
Note: The following text is a transcription of the Constitution in its original form.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article. I.
Section. 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section. 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Section. 3.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Section. 4.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.
Section. 5.
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Section. 6.
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
Section. 7.
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Section. 9.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Section. 10.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Article. II.
Section. 1.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Section. 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Section. 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Article III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section. 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section. 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Section. 3.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Article. VI.
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
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.
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,
On May 25, 1787, delegates representing every state except Rhode Island convened at Philadelphia's Pennsylvania State House for the Constitutional Convention. The building, which is now known as Independence Hall, had earlier seen the drafting of the Declaration of Independence and the signing of the Articles of Confederation. The assembly immediately discarded the idea of amending the Articles of Confederation and set about drawing up a new scheme of government. Revolutionary War hero George Washington, a delegate from Virginia, was elected convention president.
During an intensive debate, the delegates devised a brilliant federal organization characterized by an intricate system of checks and balances. The convention was divided over the issue of state representation in Congress, as more-populated states sought proportional legislation, and smaller states wanted equal representation. The problem was resolved by the Connecticut Compromise, which proposed a bicameral legislature with proportional representation in the lower house (House of Representatives) and equal representation of the states in the upper house (Senate).
On September 17, 1787, the Constitution was signed. As dictated by Article VII, the document would not become binding until it was ratified by nine of the 13 states. Beginning on December 7, five states--Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut--ratified it in quick succession. However, other states, especially Massachusetts, opposed the document, as it failed to reserve undelegated powers to the states and lacked constitutional protection of basic political rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press. In February 1788, a compromise was reached under which Massachusetts and other states would agree to ratify the document with the assurance that amendments would be immediately proposed. The Constitution was thus narrowly ratified in Massachusetts, followed by Maryland and South Carolina. On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the document, and it was subsequently agreed that government under the U.S. Constitution would begin on March 4, 1789. In June, Virginia ratified the Constitution, followed by New York in July.
On September 25, 1789, the first Congress of the United States adopted 12 amendments to the U.S. Constitution--the Bill of Rights--and sent them to the states for ratification. Ten of these amendments were ratified in 1791. In November 1789, North Carolina became the 12th state to ratify the U.S. Constitution. Rhode Island, which opposed federal control of currency and was critical of compromise on the issue of slavery, resisted ratifying the Constitution until the U.S. government threatened to sever commercial relations with the state. On May 29, 1790, Rhode Island voted by two votes to ratify the document, and the last of the original 13 colonies joined the United States. Today, the U.S. Constitution is the oldest written constitution in operation in the world.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/us-constitution-signed
******************************************************************************************************************************
The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription
Note: The following text is a transcription of the Constitution in its original form.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article. I.
Section. 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section. 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Section. 3.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Section. 4.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.
Section. 5.
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Section. 6.
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
Section. 7.
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Section. 9.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Section. 10.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Article. II.
Section. 1.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Section. 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Section. 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Article III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section. 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section. 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Section. 3.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Article. VI.
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
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.
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,
|
G°. Washington
Presidt and deputy from Virginia Delaware Geo: Read Gunning Bedford jun John Dickinson Richard Bassett Jaco: Broom Maryland James McHenry Dan of St Thos. Jenifer Danl. Carroll Virginia John Blair James Madison Jr. North Carolina Wm. Blount Richd. Dobbs Spaight Hu Williamson South Carolina J. Rutledge Charles Cotesworth Pinckney Charles Pinckney Pierce Butler Georgia William Few Abr Baldwin |
New Hampshire John Langdon Nicholas Gilman Massachusetts Nathaniel Gorham Rufus King Connecticut Wm. Saml. Johnson Roger Sherman New York Alexander Hamilton New Jersey Wil: Livingston David Brearley Wm. Paterson Jona: Dayton Pennsylvania B Franklin Thomas Mifflin Robt. Morris Geo. Clymer Thos. FitzSimons Jared Ingersoll James Wilson Gouv Morris |
Constitutional Government
CHAPTER 17A description...|A description...Document 22 James Madison to Thomas Jefferson
24 Oct. 1787 A description...Papers 10:207--15
You will herewith receive the result of the Convention, which continued its Session till the 17th. of September. I take the liberty of making some observations on the subject which will help to make up a letter, if they should answer no other purpose.
It appeared to be the sincere and unanimous wish of the Convention to cherish and preserve the Union of the States. No proposition was made, no suggestion was thrown out, in favor of a partition of the Empire into two or more Confederacies.
It was generally agreed that the objects of the Union could not be secured by any system founded on the principle of a confederation of sovereign States. A voluntary observance of the federal law by all the members, could never be hoped for. A compulsive one could evidently never be reduced to practice, and if it could, involved equal calamities to the innocent & the guilty, the necessity of a military force both obnoxious & dangerous, and in general, a scene resembling much more a civil war, than the administration of a regular Government.
Hence was embraced the alternative of a Government which instead of operating, on the States, should operate without their intervention on the individuals composing them; and hence the change in the principle and proportion of representation.
This ground-work being laid, the great objects which presented themselves were 1. to unite a proper energy in the Executive and a proper stability in the Legislative departments, with the essential characters of Republican Government. 2. to draw a line of demarkation which would give to the General Government every power requisite for general purposes, and leave to the States every power which might be most beneficially administered by them. 3. to provide for the different interests of different parts of the Union. 4. to adjust the clashing pretensions of the large and small States. Each of these objects was pregnant with difficulties. The whole of them together formed a task more difficult than can be well concieved by those who were not concerned in the execution of it. Adding to these considerations the natural diversity of human opinions on all new and complicated subjects, it is impossible to consider the degree of concord which ultimately prevailed as less than a miracle.
The first of these objects as it respects the Executive, was peculiarly embarrassing. On the question whether it should consist of a single person, or a plurality of coordinate members, on the mode of appointment, on the duration in office, on the degree of power, on the re-eligibility, tedious and reiterated discussions took place. The plurality of co-ordinate members had finally but few advocates.
Governour Randolph was at the head of them. The modes of appointment proposed were various, as by the people at large--by electors chosen by the people--by the Executives of the States--by the Congress, some preferring a joint ballot of the two Houses--some a separate concurrent ballot allowing to each a negative on the other house--some a nomination of several canditates by one House, out of whom a choice should be made by the other. Several other modifications were started. The expedient at length adopted seemed to give pretty general satisfaction to the members. As to the duration in office, a few would have preferred a tenure during good behaviour--a considerable number would have done so, in case an easy & effectual removal by impeachment could be settled. It was much agitated whether a long term, seven years for example, with a subsequent & perpetual ineligibility, or a short term with a capacity to be re-elected, should be fixed. In favor of the first opinion were urged the danger of a gradual degeneracy of re-elections from time to time, into first a life and then a heriditary tenure, and the favorable effect of an incapacity to be reappointed, on the independent exercise of the Executive authority.
On the other side it was contended that the prospect of necessary degradation, would discourage the most dignified characters from aspiring to the office, would take away the principal motive to the faithful discharge of its duties--the hope of being rewarded with a reappointment, would stimulate ambition to violent efforts for holding over the constitutional term--and instead of producing an independent administration, and a firmer defence of the constitutional rights of the department, would render the officer more indifferent to the importance of a place which he would soon be obliged to quit for ever, and more ready to yield to the incroachmts. of the Legislature of which he might again be a member. The questions concerning the degree of power turned chiefly on the appointment to offices, and the controul on the Legislature. An absolute appointment to all offices--to some offices--to no offices, formed the scale of opinions on the first point. On the second, some contended for an absolute negative, as the only possible mean of reducing to practice, the theory of a free Government which forbids a mixture of the Legislative & Executive powers. Others would be content with a revisionary power to be overruled by three fourths of both Houses. It was warmly urged that the judiciary department should be associated in the revision. The idea of some was that a separate revision should be given to the two departments--that if either objected two thirds; if both three fourths, should be necessary to overrule.
In forming the Senate, the great anchor of the Government, the questions as they came within the first object turned mostly on the mode of appointment, and the duration of it. The different modes proposed were, 1. by the House of Representatives 2. by the Executive, 3. by electors chosen by the people for the purpose. 4. by the State Legislatures. On the point of duration, the propositions descended from good-behavior to four years, through the intermediate terms of nine, seven, six, & five years. The election of the other branch was first determined to be triennial, and afterwards reduced to biennial.
The second object, the due partition of power, between the General & local Governments, was perhaps of all, the most nice and difficult. A few contended for an entire abolition of the States; some for indefinite power of Legislation in the Congress, with a negative on the laws of the States: some for such a power without a negative: some for a limited power of legislation, with such a negative: the majority finally for a limited power without the negative. The question with regard to the Negative underwent repeated discussions, and was finally rejected by a bare majority. As I formerly intimated to you my opinion in favor of this ingredient, I will take this occasion of explaining myself on the subject. Such a check on the States appears to me necessary 1. to prevent encroachments on the General authority. 2. to prevent instability and injustice in the legislation of the States.
1. Without such a check in the whole over the parts, our system involves the evil of imperia in imperio. If a compleat supremacy some where is not necessary in every Society, a controuling power at least is so, by which the general authority may be defended against encroachments of the subordinate authorities, and by which the latter may be restrained from encroachments on each other. If the supremacy of the British Parliament is not necessary as has been contended, for the harmony of that Empire; it is evident I think that without the royal negative or some equivalent controul, the unity of the system would be destroyed. The want of some such provision seems to have been mortal to the antient Confederacies, and to be the disease of the modern. Of the Lycian Confederacy little is known. That of the Amphyctions is well known to have been rendered of little use whilst it lasted, and in the end to have been destroyed by the predominance of the local over the federal authority. The same observation may be made, on the authority of Polybius, with regard to the Achaean League. The Helvetic System scarcely amounts to a Confederacy, and is distinguished by too many peculiarities, to be a ground of comparison. The case of the United Netherlands is in point. The authority of a Statholder, the influence of a Standing army, the common interest in the conquered possessions, the pressure of surrounding danger, the guarantee of foreign powers, are not sufficient to secure the authority and interests of the generality, agst. the antifederal tendency of the provincial sovereignties. The German Empire is another example. A Hereditary chief with vast independent resources of wealth and power, a federal Diet, with ample parchment authority, a regular Judiciary establishment, the influence of the neighbourhood of great & formidable Nations, have been found unable either to maintain the subordination of the members, or to prevent their mutual contests & encroachments. Still more to the purpose is our own experience both during the war and since the peace. Encroachments of the States on the general authority, sacrifices of national to local interests, interferences of the measures of different States, form a great part of the history of our political system. It may be said that the new Constitution is founded on different principles, and will have a different operation. I admit the difference to be material. It presents the aspect rather of a feudal system of republics, if such a phrase may be used, than of a Confederacy of independent States. And what has been the progress and event of the feudal Constitutions? In all of them a continual struggle between the head and the inferior members, until a final victory has been gained in some instances by one, in others, by the other of them. In one respect indeed there is a remarkable variance between the two cases. In the feudal system the sovereign, though limited, was independent; and having no particular sympathy of interests with the great Barons, his ambition had as full play as theirs in the mutual projects of usurpation. In the American Constitution The general authority will be derived entirely from the subordinate authorities. The Senate will represent the States in their political capacity; the other House will represent the people of the States in their individual capac[it]y. The former will be accountable to their constituents at moderate, the latter at short periods. The President also derives his appointment from the States, and is periodically accountable to them. This dependence of the General, on the local authorities, seems effectually to guard the latter against any dangerous encroachments of the former: Whilst the latter, within their respective limits, will be continually sensible of the abridgment of their power, and be stimulated by ambition to resume the surrendered portion of it. We find the representatives of Counties and corporations in the Legislatures of the States, much more disposed to sacrifice the aggregate interest, and even authority, to the local views of their Constituents: than the latter to the former. I mean not by these remarks to insinuate that an esprit de corps will not exist in the national Goverment or that opportunities may not occur, of extending its jurisdiction in some points. I mean only that the danger of encroachments is much greater from the other side, and that the impossibility of dividing powers of legislation, in such a manner, as to be free from different constructions by different interests, or even from ambiguity in the judgment of the impartial, requires some such expedient as I contend for. Many illustrations might be given of this impossibility. How long has it taken to fix, and how imperfectly is yet fixed the legislative power of corporations, though that power is subordinate in the most compleat manner? The line of distinction between the power of regulating trade and that of drawing revenue from it, which was once considered as the barrier of our liberties, was found on fair discussion, to be absolutely undefinable. No distinction seems to be more obvious than that between spiritual and temporal matters. Yet wherever they have been made objects of Legislation, they have clashed and contended with each other, till one or the other has gained the supremacy. Even the Boundaries between the Executive, Legislative & Judiciary powers, though in general so strongly marked in themselves, consist in many instances of mere shades of difference. It may be said that the Judicial authority under our new system will keep the States within their proper limits, and supply the place of a negative on their laws. The answer is, that it is more convenient to prevent the passage of a law, than to declare it void after it is passed; that this will be particularly the case, where the law aggrieves individuals, who may be unable to support an appeal agst. a State to the supreme Judiciary; that a State which would violate the Legislative rights of the Union, would not be very ready to obey a Judicial decree in support of them, and that a recurrence to force, which in the event of disobedience would be necessary, is an evil which the new Constitution meant to exclude as far as possible.
2. A constitutional negative on the laws of the States seems equally necessary to secure individuals agst. encroachments on their rights. The mutability of the laws of the States is found to be a serious evil. The injustice of them has been so frequent and so flagrant as to alarm the most stedfast friends of Republicanism. I am persuaded I do not err in saying that the evils issuing from these sources contributed more to that uneasiness which produced the Convention, and prepared the public mind for a general reform, than those which accrued to our national character and interest from the inadequacy of the Confederation to its immediate objects. A reform therefore which does not make provision for private rights, must be materially defective. The restraints agst. paper emissions, and violations of contracts are not sufficient. Supposing them to be effectual as far as they go, they are short of the mark. Injustice may be effected by such an infinitude of legislative expedients, that where the disposition exists it can only be controuled by some provision which reaches all cases whatsoever. The partial provision made, supposes the disposition which will evade it. It may be asked how private rights will be more secure under the Guardianship of the General Government than under the State Governments, since they are both founded on the republican principle which refers the ultimate decision to the will of the majority, and are distinguished rather by the extent within which they will operate, than by any material difference in their structure. A full discussion of this question would, if I mistake not, unfold the true principles of Republican Government, and prove in contradiction to the concurrent opinions of theoretical writers, that this form of Goverment, in order to effect its purposes, must operate not within a small but an extensive sphere. I will state some of the ideas which have occurred to me on this subject. Those who contend for a simple Democracy, or a pure republic, actuated by the sense of the majority, and operating within narrow limits, assume or suppose a case which is altogether fictitious. They found their reasoning on the idea, that the people composing the Society, enjoy not only an equality of political rights; but that they have all precisely the same interests, and the same feelings in every respect. Were this in reality the case, their reasoning would be conclusive. The interest of the majority would be that of the minority also; the decisions could only turn on mere opinion concerning the good of the whole, of which the major voice would be the safest criterion; and within a small sphere, this voice could be most easily collected, and the public affairs most accurately managed. We know however that no Society ever did or can consist of so homogeneous a mass of Citizens. In the savage State indeed, an approach is made towards it; but in that State little or no Government is necessary. In all civilized Societies, distinctions are various and unavoidable. A distinction of property results from that very protection which a free Government gives to unequal faculties of acquiring it. There will be rich and poor; creditors and debtors; a landed interest, a monied interest, a mercantile interest, a manufacturing interest. These classes may again be subdivided according to the different productions of different situations & soils, & according to different branches of commerce, and of manufactures. In addition to these natural distinctions, artificial ones will be founded, on accidental differences in political, religious or other opinions, or an attachment to the persons of leading individuals. However erroneous or ridiculous these grounds of dissention and faction, may appear to the enlightened Statesman, or the benevolent philosopher, the bulk of mankind who are neither Statesmen nor Philosophers, will continue to view them in a different light. It remains then to be enquired whether a majority having any common interest, or feeling any common passion, will find sufficient motives to restrain them from oppressing the minority. An individual is never allowed to be a judge or even a witness in his own cause. If two individuals are under the biass of interest or enmity agst. a third, the rights of the latter could never be safely referred to the majority of the three. Will two thousand individuals be less apt to oppress one thousand, or two hundred thousand, one hundred thousand? Three motives only can restrain in such cases. 1. a prudent regard to private or partial good, as essentially involved in the general and permanent good of the whole. This ought no doubt to be sufficient of itself. Experience however shews that it has little effect on individuals, and perhaps still less on a collection of individuals, and least of all on a majority with the public authority in their hands. If the former are ready to forget that honesty is the best policy; the last do more. They often proceed on the converse of the maxim: that whatever is politic is honest. 2. respect for character. This motive is not found sufficient to restrain individuals from injustice, and loses its efficacy in proportion to the number which is to divide the praise or the blame. Besides as it has reference to public opinion, which is that of the majority, the Standard is fixed by those whose conduct is to be measured by it. 3. Religion. The inefficacy of this restraint on individuals is well known. The conduct of every popular Assembly, acting on oath, the strongest of religious ties, shews that individuals join without remorse in acts agst. which their consciences would revolt, if proposed to them separately in their closets. When Indeed Religion is kindled into enthusiasm, its force like that of other passions is increased by the sympathy of a multitude. But enthusiasm is only a temporary state of Religion, and whilst it lasts will hardly be seen with pleasure at the helm. Even in its coolest state, it has been much oftener a motive to oppression than a restraint from it. If then there must be different interests and parties in Society; and a majority when united by a common interest or passion can not be restrained from oppressing the minority, what remedy can be found in a republican Government, where the majority must ultimately decide, but that of giving such an extent to its sphere, that no common interest or passion will be likely to unite a majority of the whole number in an unjust pursuit. In a large Society, the people are broken into so many interests and parties, that a common sentiment is less likely to be felt, and the requisite concert less likely to be formed, by a majority of the whole. The same security seems requisite for the civil as for the religious rights of individuals. If the same sect form a majority and have the power, other sects will be sure to be depressed. Divide et impera, the reprobated axiom of tyranny, is under certain qualifications, the only policy, by which a republic can be administered on just principles. It must be observed however that this doctrine can only hold within a sphere of a mean extent. As in too small a sphere oppressive combinations may be too easily formed agst. the weaker party; so in too extensive a one, a defensive concert may be rendered too difficult against the oppression of those entrusted with the administration. The great desideratum in Government is, so to modify the sovereignty as that it may be sufficiently neutral between different parts of the Society to control one part from invading the rights of another, and at the same time sufficiently controlled itself, from setting up an interest adverse to that of the entire Society. In absolute monarchies, the Prince may be tolerably neutral towards different classes of his subjects, but may sacrifice the happiness of all to his personal ambition or avarice. In small republics, the sovereign will is controlled from such a sacrifice of the entire Society, but is not sufficiently neutral towards the parts composing it. In the extended Republic of the United States, The General Government would hold a pretty even balance between the parties of particular States, and be at the same time sufficiently restrained by its dependence on the community, from betraying its general interests.
Begging pardon for this immoderate digression I return to the third object above mentioned, the adjustment of the different interests of different parts of the Continent. Some contended for an unlimited power over trade including exports as well as imports, and over slaves as well as other imports; some for such a power, provided the concurrence of two thirds of both House were required; Some for such a qualification of the power, with an exemption of exports and slaves, others for an exemption of exports only. The result is seen in the Constitution. S. Carolina & Georgia were inflexible on the point of the slaves.
The remaining object created more embarrassment, and a greater alarm for the issue of the Convention than all the rest put together. The little States insisted on retaining their equality in both branches, unless a compleat abolition of the State Governments should take place; and made an equality in the Senate a sine qua non. The large States on the other hand urged that as the new Government was to be drawn principally from the people immediately and was to operate directly on them, not on the States; and consequently as the States wd. lose that importance which is now proportioned to the importance of their voluntary compliances with the requisitions of Congress, it was necessary that the representation in both Houses should be in proportion to their size. It ended in the compromise which you will see, but very much to the dissatisfaction of several members from the large States.
A description...
The Founders' Constitution
Volume 1, Chapter 17, Document 22
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch17s22.html
Republican Government
A description...CHAPTER 4A description...|A description...Document 19
James Madison, Federalist, no. 10, 56--65
22 Nov. 1787A description...
Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments, never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail therefore to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice and confusion introduced into the public councils, have in truth been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have every where perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American Constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side as was wished and expected. Complaints are every where heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty; that our governments are too unstable; that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties; and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party; but by the superior force of an interested and over-bearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor, have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice, with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.
By a faction I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controling its effects.
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it is worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction, what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
The second expedient is as impracticable, as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of Government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results: and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.
The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them every where brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning Government and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have in turn divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other, than to cooperate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions, and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions, has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold, and those who are without property, have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a monied interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern Legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of Government.
No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause; because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men, are unfit to be both judges and parties, at the same time; yet, what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens; and what are the different classes of legislators, but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side, and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are and must be themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufacturers? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes; and probably by neither, with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property, is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet, there is perhaps no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party, to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they over-burden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.
It is in vain to say, that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm: Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all, without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another, or the good of the whole.
The inference to which we are brought, is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed; and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote: It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government on the other hand enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest, both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good, and private rights, against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our enquiries are directed: Let me add that it is the great desideratum, by which alone this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.
By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time, must be prevented; or the majority, having such co-existent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together; that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.
From this view of the subject, it may be concluded, that a pure Democracy, by which I mean, a Society, consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of Government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of Government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A Republic, by which I mean a Government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure Democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure, and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
The two great points of difference between a Democracy and a Republic are, first, the delegation of the Government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest: secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice, will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good, than if pronounced by the people themselves convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may by intrigue, by corruption or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive Republics are most favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal: and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations.
In the first place it is to be remarked that however small the Republic may be, the Representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence the number of Representatives in the two cases, not being in proportion to that of the Constituents, and being proportionally greatest in the small Republic, it follows, that if the proportion of fit characters, be not less, in the large than in the small Republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.
In the next place, as each Representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small Republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practise with success the vicious arts, by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre on men who possess the most attractive merit, and the most diffusive and established characters.
It must be confessed, that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniencies will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representative too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The Federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular, to the state legislatures.
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of Republican, than of Democratic Government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former, than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked, that where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust, in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.
Hence it clearly appears, that the same advantage, which a Republic has over a Democracy, in controling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small Republic--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does this advantage consist in the substitution of Representatives, whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices, and to schemes of injustice? It will not be denied, that the Representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the encreased variety of parties, comprised within the Union, encrease this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States: a religious sect, may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy: but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it, must secure the national Councils against any danger from that source: a rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union, than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.
In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a Republican remedy for the diseases most incident to Republican Government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride, we feel in being Republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit, and supporting the character of Federalists.
A description...
The Founders' Constitution
Volume 1, Chapter 4, Document 19
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch4s19.html
The University of Chicago Press
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch4s19.html
Here is something you may like, it's the Constitution of the Confederate States: http://www.civilwarhome.com/csconstitution.htm - compare the differences between it and the US Constitution.
Here is a link to most of the Civil War Information available on the internet: http://www.civilwarhome.com/indexcivilwarinfo.htm
24 Oct. 1787 A description...Papers 10:207--15
You will herewith receive the result of the Convention, which continued its Session till the 17th. of September. I take the liberty of making some observations on the subject which will help to make up a letter, if they should answer no other purpose.
It appeared to be the sincere and unanimous wish of the Convention to cherish and preserve the Union of the States. No proposition was made, no suggestion was thrown out, in favor of a partition of the Empire into two or more Confederacies.
It was generally agreed that the objects of the Union could not be secured by any system founded on the principle of a confederation of sovereign States. A voluntary observance of the federal law by all the members, could never be hoped for. A compulsive one could evidently never be reduced to practice, and if it could, involved equal calamities to the innocent & the guilty, the necessity of a military force both obnoxious & dangerous, and in general, a scene resembling much more a civil war, than the administration of a regular Government.
Hence was embraced the alternative of a Government which instead of operating, on the States, should operate without their intervention on the individuals composing them; and hence the change in the principle and proportion of representation.
This ground-work being laid, the great objects which presented themselves were 1. to unite a proper energy in the Executive and a proper stability in the Legislative departments, with the essential characters of Republican Government. 2. to draw a line of demarkation which would give to the General Government every power requisite for general purposes, and leave to the States every power which might be most beneficially administered by them. 3. to provide for the different interests of different parts of the Union. 4. to adjust the clashing pretensions of the large and small States. Each of these objects was pregnant with difficulties. The whole of them together formed a task more difficult than can be well concieved by those who were not concerned in the execution of it. Adding to these considerations the natural diversity of human opinions on all new and complicated subjects, it is impossible to consider the degree of concord which ultimately prevailed as less than a miracle.
The first of these objects as it respects the Executive, was peculiarly embarrassing. On the question whether it should consist of a single person, or a plurality of coordinate members, on the mode of appointment, on the duration in office, on the degree of power, on the re-eligibility, tedious and reiterated discussions took place. The plurality of co-ordinate members had finally but few advocates.
Governour Randolph was at the head of them. The modes of appointment proposed were various, as by the people at large--by electors chosen by the people--by the Executives of the States--by the Congress, some preferring a joint ballot of the two Houses--some a separate concurrent ballot allowing to each a negative on the other house--some a nomination of several canditates by one House, out of whom a choice should be made by the other. Several other modifications were started. The expedient at length adopted seemed to give pretty general satisfaction to the members. As to the duration in office, a few would have preferred a tenure during good behaviour--a considerable number would have done so, in case an easy & effectual removal by impeachment could be settled. It was much agitated whether a long term, seven years for example, with a subsequent & perpetual ineligibility, or a short term with a capacity to be re-elected, should be fixed. In favor of the first opinion were urged the danger of a gradual degeneracy of re-elections from time to time, into first a life and then a heriditary tenure, and the favorable effect of an incapacity to be reappointed, on the independent exercise of the Executive authority.
On the other side it was contended that the prospect of necessary degradation, would discourage the most dignified characters from aspiring to the office, would take away the principal motive to the faithful discharge of its duties--the hope of being rewarded with a reappointment, would stimulate ambition to violent efforts for holding over the constitutional term--and instead of producing an independent administration, and a firmer defence of the constitutional rights of the department, would render the officer more indifferent to the importance of a place which he would soon be obliged to quit for ever, and more ready to yield to the incroachmts. of the Legislature of which he might again be a member. The questions concerning the degree of power turned chiefly on the appointment to offices, and the controul on the Legislature. An absolute appointment to all offices--to some offices--to no offices, formed the scale of opinions on the first point. On the second, some contended for an absolute negative, as the only possible mean of reducing to practice, the theory of a free Government which forbids a mixture of the Legislative & Executive powers. Others would be content with a revisionary power to be overruled by three fourths of both Houses. It was warmly urged that the judiciary department should be associated in the revision. The idea of some was that a separate revision should be given to the two departments--that if either objected two thirds; if both three fourths, should be necessary to overrule.
In forming the Senate, the great anchor of the Government, the questions as they came within the first object turned mostly on the mode of appointment, and the duration of it. The different modes proposed were, 1. by the House of Representatives 2. by the Executive, 3. by electors chosen by the people for the purpose. 4. by the State Legislatures. On the point of duration, the propositions descended from good-behavior to four years, through the intermediate terms of nine, seven, six, & five years. The election of the other branch was first determined to be triennial, and afterwards reduced to biennial.
The second object, the due partition of power, between the General & local Governments, was perhaps of all, the most nice and difficult. A few contended for an entire abolition of the States; some for indefinite power of Legislation in the Congress, with a negative on the laws of the States: some for such a power without a negative: some for a limited power of legislation, with such a negative: the majority finally for a limited power without the negative. The question with regard to the Negative underwent repeated discussions, and was finally rejected by a bare majority. As I formerly intimated to you my opinion in favor of this ingredient, I will take this occasion of explaining myself on the subject. Such a check on the States appears to me necessary 1. to prevent encroachments on the General authority. 2. to prevent instability and injustice in the legislation of the States.
1. Without such a check in the whole over the parts, our system involves the evil of imperia in imperio. If a compleat supremacy some where is not necessary in every Society, a controuling power at least is so, by which the general authority may be defended against encroachments of the subordinate authorities, and by which the latter may be restrained from encroachments on each other. If the supremacy of the British Parliament is not necessary as has been contended, for the harmony of that Empire; it is evident I think that without the royal negative or some equivalent controul, the unity of the system would be destroyed. The want of some such provision seems to have been mortal to the antient Confederacies, and to be the disease of the modern. Of the Lycian Confederacy little is known. That of the Amphyctions is well known to have been rendered of little use whilst it lasted, and in the end to have been destroyed by the predominance of the local over the federal authority. The same observation may be made, on the authority of Polybius, with regard to the Achaean League. The Helvetic System scarcely amounts to a Confederacy, and is distinguished by too many peculiarities, to be a ground of comparison. The case of the United Netherlands is in point. The authority of a Statholder, the influence of a Standing army, the common interest in the conquered possessions, the pressure of surrounding danger, the guarantee of foreign powers, are not sufficient to secure the authority and interests of the generality, agst. the antifederal tendency of the provincial sovereignties. The German Empire is another example. A Hereditary chief with vast independent resources of wealth and power, a federal Diet, with ample parchment authority, a regular Judiciary establishment, the influence of the neighbourhood of great & formidable Nations, have been found unable either to maintain the subordination of the members, or to prevent their mutual contests & encroachments. Still more to the purpose is our own experience both during the war and since the peace. Encroachments of the States on the general authority, sacrifices of national to local interests, interferences of the measures of different States, form a great part of the history of our political system. It may be said that the new Constitution is founded on different principles, and will have a different operation. I admit the difference to be material. It presents the aspect rather of a feudal system of republics, if such a phrase may be used, than of a Confederacy of independent States. And what has been the progress and event of the feudal Constitutions? In all of them a continual struggle between the head and the inferior members, until a final victory has been gained in some instances by one, in others, by the other of them. In one respect indeed there is a remarkable variance between the two cases. In the feudal system the sovereign, though limited, was independent; and having no particular sympathy of interests with the great Barons, his ambition had as full play as theirs in the mutual projects of usurpation. In the American Constitution The general authority will be derived entirely from the subordinate authorities. The Senate will represent the States in their political capacity; the other House will represent the people of the States in their individual capac[it]y. The former will be accountable to their constituents at moderate, the latter at short periods. The President also derives his appointment from the States, and is periodically accountable to them. This dependence of the General, on the local authorities, seems effectually to guard the latter against any dangerous encroachments of the former: Whilst the latter, within their respective limits, will be continually sensible of the abridgment of their power, and be stimulated by ambition to resume the surrendered portion of it. We find the representatives of Counties and corporations in the Legislatures of the States, much more disposed to sacrifice the aggregate interest, and even authority, to the local views of their Constituents: than the latter to the former. I mean not by these remarks to insinuate that an esprit de corps will not exist in the national Goverment or that opportunities may not occur, of extending its jurisdiction in some points. I mean only that the danger of encroachments is much greater from the other side, and that the impossibility of dividing powers of legislation, in such a manner, as to be free from different constructions by different interests, or even from ambiguity in the judgment of the impartial, requires some such expedient as I contend for. Many illustrations might be given of this impossibility. How long has it taken to fix, and how imperfectly is yet fixed the legislative power of corporations, though that power is subordinate in the most compleat manner? The line of distinction between the power of regulating trade and that of drawing revenue from it, which was once considered as the barrier of our liberties, was found on fair discussion, to be absolutely undefinable. No distinction seems to be more obvious than that between spiritual and temporal matters. Yet wherever they have been made objects of Legislation, they have clashed and contended with each other, till one or the other has gained the supremacy. Even the Boundaries between the Executive, Legislative & Judiciary powers, though in general so strongly marked in themselves, consist in many instances of mere shades of difference. It may be said that the Judicial authority under our new system will keep the States within their proper limits, and supply the place of a negative on their laws. The answer is, that it is more convenient to prevent the passage of a law, than to declare it void after it is passed; that this will be particularly the case, where the law aggrieves individuals, who may be unable to support an appeal agst. a State to the supreme Judiciary; that a State which would violate the Legislative rights of the Union, would not be very ready to obey a Judicial decree in support of them, and that a recurrence to force, which in the event of disobedience would be necessary, is an evil which the new Constitution meant to exclude as far as possible.
2. A constitutional negative on the laws of the States seems equally necessary to secure individuals agst. encroachments on their rights. The mutability of the laws of the States is found to be a serious evil. The injustice of them has been so frequent and so flagrant as to alarm the most stedfast friends of Republicanism. I am persuaded I do not err in saying that the evils issuing from these sources contributed more to that uneasiness which produced the Convention, and prepared the public mind for a general reform, than those which accrued to our national character and interest from the inadequacy of the Confederation to its immediate objects. A reform therefore which does not make provision for private rights, must be materially defective. The restraints agst. paper emissions, and violations of contracts are not sufficient. Supposing them to be effectual as far as they go, they are short of the mark. Injustice may be effected by such an infinitude of legislative expedients, that where the disposition exists it can only be controuled by some provision which reaches all cases whatsoever. The partial provision made, supposes the disposition which will evade it. It may be asked how private rights will be more secure under the Guardianship of the General Government than under the State Governments, since they are both founded on the republican principle which refers the ultimate decision to the will of the majority, and are distinguished rather by the extent within which they will operate, than by any material difference in their structure. A full discussion of this question would, if I mistake not, unfold the true principles of Republican Government, and prove in contradiction to the concurrent opinions of theoretical writers, that this form of Goverment, in order to effect its purposes, must operate not within a small but an extensive sphere. I will state some of the ideas which have occurred to me on this subject. Those who contend for a simple Democracy, or a pure republic, actuated by the sense of the majority, and operating within narrow limits, assume or suppose a case which is altogether fictitious. They found their reasoning on the idea, that the people composing the Society, enjoy not only an equality of political rights; but that they have all precisely the same interests, and the same feelings in every respect. Were this in reality the case, their reasoning would be conclusive. The interest of the majority would be that of the minority also; the decisions could only turn on mere opinion concerning the good of the whole, of which the major voice would be the safest criterion; and within a small sphere, this voice could be most easily collected, and the public affairs most accurately managed. We know however that no Society ever did or can consist of so homogeneous a mass of Citizens. In the savage State indeed, an approach is made towards it; but in that State little or no Government is necessary. In all civilized Societies, distinctions are various and unavoidable. A distinction of property results from that very protection which a free Government gives to unequal faculties of acquiring it. There will be rich and poor; creditors and debtors; a landed interest, a monied interest, a mercantile interest, a manufacturing interest. These classes may again be subdivided according to the different productions of different situations & soils, & according to different branches of commerce, and of manufactures. In addition to these natural distinctions, artificial ones will be founded, on accidental differences in political, religious or other opinions, or an attachment to the persons of leading individuals. However erroneous or ridiculous these grounds of dissention and faction, may appear to the enlightened Statesman, or the benevolent philosopher, the bulk of mankind who are neither Statesmen nor Philosophers, will continue to view them in a different light. It remains then to be enquired whether a majority having any common interest, or feeling any common passion, will find sufficient motives to restrain them from oppressing the minority. An individual is never allowed to be a judge or even a witness in his own cause. If two individuals are under the biass of interest or enmity agst. a third, the rights of the latter could never be safely referred to the majority of the three. Will two thousand individuals be less apt to oppress one thousand, or two hundred thousand, one hundred thousand? Three motives only can restrain in such cases. 1. a prudent regard to private or partial good, as essentially involved in the general and permanent good of the whole. This ought no doubt to be sufficient of itself. Experience however shews that it has little effect on individuals, and perhaps still less on a collection of individuals, and least of all on a majority with the public authority in their hands. If the former are ready to forget that honesty is the best policy; the last do more. They often proceed on the converse of the maxim: that whatever is politic is honest. 2. respect for character. This motive is not found sufficient to restrain individuals from injustice, and loses its efficacy in proportion to the number which is to divide the praise or the blame. Besides as it has reference to public opinion, which is that of the majority, the Standard is fixed by those whose conduct is to be measured by it. 3. Religion. The inefficacy of this restraint on individuals is well known. The conduct of every popular Assembly, acting on oath, the strongest of religious ties, shews that individuals join without remorse in acts agst. which their consciences would revolt, if proposed to them separately in their closets. When Indeed Religion is kindled into enthusiasm, its force like that of other passions is increased by the sympathy of a multitude. But enthusiasm is only a temporary state of Religion, and whilst it lasts will hardly be seen with pleasure at the helm. Even in its coolest state, it has been much oftener a motive to oppression than a restraint from it. If then there must be different interests and parties in Society; and a majority when united by a common interest or passion can not be restrained from oppressing the minority, what remedy can be found in a republican Government, where the majority must ultimately decide, but that of giving such an extent to its sphere, that no common interest or passion will be likely to unite a majority of the whole number in an unjust pursuit. In a large Society, the people are broken into so many interests and parties, that a common sentiment is less likely to be felt, and the requisite concert less likely to be formed, by a majority of the whole. The same security seems requisite for the civil as for the religious rights of individuals. If the same sect form a majority and have the power, other sects will be sure to be depressed. Divide et impera, the reprobated axiom of tyranny, is under certain qualifications, the only policy, by which a republic can be administered on just principles. It must be observed however that this doctrine can only hold within a sphere of a mean extent. As in too small a sphere oppressive combinations may be too easily formed agst. the weaker party; so in too extensive a one, a defensive concert may be rendered too difficult against the oppression of those entrusted with the administration. The great desideratum in Government is, so to modify the sovereignty as that it may be sufficiently neutral between different parts of the Society to control one part from invading the rights of another, and at the same time sufficiently controlled itself, from setting up an interest adverse to that of the entire Society. In absolute monarchies, the Prince may be tolerably neutral towards different classes of his subjects, but may sacrifice the happiness of all to his personal ambition or avarice. In small republics, the sovereign will is controlled from such a sacrifice of the entire Society, but is not sufficiently neutral towards the parts composing it. In the extended Republic of the United States, The General Government would hold a pretty even balance between the parties of particular States, and be at the same time sufficiently restrained by its dependence on the community, from betraying its general interests.
Begging pardon for this immoderate digression I return to the third object above mentioned, the adjustment of the different interests of different parts of the Continent. Some contended for an unlimited power over trade including exports as well as imports, and over slaves as well as other imports; some for such a power, provided the concurrence of two thirds of both House were required; Some for such a qualification of the power, with an exemption of exports and slaves, others for an exemption of exports only. The result is seen in the Constitution. S. Carolina & Georgia were inflexible on the point of the slaves.
The remaining object created more embarrassment, and a greater alarm for the issue of the Convention than all the rest put together. The little States insisted on retaining their equality in both branches, unless a compleat abolition of the State Governments should take place; and made an equality in the Senate a sine qua non. The large States on the other hand urged that as the new Government was to be drawn principally from the people immediately and was to operate directly on them, not on the States; and consequently as the States wd. lose that importance which is now proportioned to the importance of their voluntary compliances with the requisitions of Congress, it was necessary that the representation in both Houses should be in proportion to their size. It ended in the compromise which you will see, but very much to the dissatisfaction of several members from the large States.
A description...
The Founders' Constitution
Volume 1, Chapter 17, Document 22
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch17s22.html
Republican Government
A description...CHAPTER 4A description...|A description...Document 19
James Madison, Federalist, no. 10, 56--65
22 Nov. 1787A description...
Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments, never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail therefore to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice and confusion introduced into the public councils, have in truth been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have every where perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American Constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side as was wished and expected. Complaints are every where heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty; that our governments are too unstable; that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties; and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party; but by the superior force of an interested and over-bearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor, have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice, with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.
By a faction I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controling its effects.
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it is worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction, what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
The second expedient is as impracticable, as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of Government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results: and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.
The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them every where brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning Government and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have in turn divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other, than to cooperate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions, and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions, has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold, and those who are without property, have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a monied interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern Legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of Government.
No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause; because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men, are unfit to be both judges and parties, at the same time; yet, what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens; and what are the different classes of legislators, but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side, and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are and must be themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufacturers? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes; and probably by neither, with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property, is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet, there is perhaps no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party, to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they over-burden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.
It is in vain to say, that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm: Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all, without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another, or the good of the whole.
The inference to which we are brought, is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed; and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote: It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government on the other hand enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest, both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good, and private rights, against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our enquiries are directed: Let me add that it is the great desideratum, by which alone this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.
By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time, must be prevented; or the majority, having such co-existent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together; that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.
From this view of the subject, it may be concluded, that a pure Democracy, by which I mean, a Society, consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of Government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of Government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A Republic, by which I mean a Government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure Democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure, and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
The two great points of difference between a Democracy and a Republic are, first, the delegation of the Government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest: secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice, will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good, than if pronounced by the people themselves convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may by intrigue, by corruption or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive Republics are most favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal: and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations.
In the first place it is to be remarked that however small the Republic may be, the Representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence the number of Representatives in the two cases, not being in proportion to that of the Constituents, and being proportionally greatest in the small Republic, it follows, that if the proportion of fit characters, be not less, in the large than in the small Republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.
In the next place, as each Representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small Republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practise with success the vicious arts, by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre on men who possess the most attractive merit, and the most diffusive and established characters.
It must be confessed, that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniencies will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representative too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The Federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular, to the state legislatures.
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of Republican, than of Democratic Government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former, than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked, that where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust, in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.
Hence it clearly appears, that the same advantage, which a Republic has over a Democracy, in controling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small Republic--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does this advantage consist in the substitution of Representatives, whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices, and to schemes of injustice? It will not be denied, that the Representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the encreased variety of parties, comprised within the Union, encrease this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States: a religious sect, may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy: but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it, must secure the national Councils against any danger from that source: a rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union, than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.
In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a Republican remedy for the diseases most incident to Republican Government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride, we feel in being Republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit, and supporting the character of Federalists.
A description...
The Founders' Constitution
Volume 1, Chapter 4, Document 19
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch4s19.html
The University of Chicago Press
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch4s19.html
Here is something you may like, it's the Constitution of the Confederate States: http://www.civilwarhome.com/csconstitution.htm - compare the differences between it and the US Constitution.
Here is a link to most of the Civil War Information available on the internet: http://www.civilwarhome.com/indexcivilwarinfo.htm
Guide to the History of the Bill of Rights
written by: Trent Lorcher • edited by: SForsyth • updated: 1/17/2012The history of the Bill of Rights contains two parts: (1) the short history of the Bill of Rights, from the time of the Constitutional convention in Philadelphia to the inclusion of the first ten amendments; and (2) the documents which influenced the founding fathers to create a Bill of Rights.Short History of the Bill of Rights
On September 12, 1787, shortly after the finishing touches had been put on the new United States Constitution, George Mason, a delegate from Virginia, pointed out a serious omission, the absence of a bill of rights. He felt a bill of rights would appease the people who feared a too powerful central government, and that one could be drafted in a few hours based on various state constitutions, the most notable being his own Virginia Declaration of Rights. His motion was not seconded and the Constitution went forth without a bill of rights. It didn't take long for delegates to realize they had made a political blunder by not including a Bill of Rights.
The Constitution was signed by delegates from 12 of the 13 colonies, Rhode Island refused to sign it without a Bill of Rights. When the Constitution went to individual states for ratification, most ratified it on certain conditions. These conditions were finally embodied in the Bill of Rights, written after the Constitution had been ratified. James Madison introduced the proposed Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789. Congress approved 12 amendments for ratification on September 25, 1789 and sent them to the states for ratification. Virginia ratified the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791 and 10 of the 12 proposed amendments officially became a part of the U.S. Constitution.
Historical Influences
The history of the Bill of Rights goes back hundreds of years. Following are a list of important documents, ideas, and philosophies that influenced the founding fathers to include a Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution.
Magna Carta (1215) - In 1215 English barons confronted a despotic King John and demanded a restoration of traditional rights. These traditional rights were written down and confirmed with the royal seal. Although the barons' motives were self serving and they intended only to benefit themselves, the rights stated in the Magna Carta eventually spread to all English freemen.
The English Bill of Rights (1689) - In 1688, during the Glorious Revolution, King James II abdicated his throne and fled England. He was succeeded by his daughter, Mary, and her husband, William of Orange. Before being allowed to ascend to the throne, British parliament forced them to accept a Declaration of Rights. These basic rights include provisions prohibiting the levying of taxes or passing laws without parliament's consent. It also promised fundamental liberties--freedom of speech, elections, and the prohibition of excessive bail and punishments for the accused.
John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government (1689) - Locke wrote his Second Treatise on Civil Government in defense of the Glorious Revolution. In his treatise, Locke states that individuals have a right to "life, liberty, and property" and that when a government fails to protect these rights, or worse, infringes upon these rights, then the people have the right to overthrow that government.
Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) - George Mason created the Virginia Declaration of Rights in May of 1776, influencing the writing of other state constitutions, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. He borrowed concepts from Locke regarding life, liberty, and property. During the Revolutionary war and the ensuing years, it was Mason's declaration that rallied colonists, not the Declaration of Independence, which was celebrated more as a document declaring independence than one that set forth ideals.
The Declaration of Independence (1776) - It can be argued that the Bill of Rights Constitutionalized the philosophical ideals presented in the Declaration of Independence: the importance of God, repeated numerous times in the Declaration, finds its way into the first amendment of the Constitution; the right to liberty exists in all 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights, including amendments 4-8, which deal with the rights of the accused; the concept of limited government, present it all 10 amendments, is explicitly stated in amendments nine and ten. A glaring omission from the Declaration, property rights, also finds its way into amendments 2-7.
This list pertaining to the history of the Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive one, but it provides a good foundation for your study of one of the world's most important documents.
The Future of the Bill of Rights
Now that you have the basic history of the Bill of Rights, it's time to look toward the future.
The founding fathers wrote the Constitution to govern human nature. They understood the natural inclination of rulers to want more power. As the federal government grows larger by the day, it's imperative that citizens of the United States demand their elected officials return to the Constitution for guidance and hold them accountable to it.
U.S. Constitution: Bill of Rights Summary
written by: Trent Lorcher • edited by: SForsyth • updated: 10/23/2012
The Bill of Rights was added to the United States Constitution on Dec 15, 1791. This summary contains the original language followed by an explanation in modern language. Learn why this old document is so important.
The Meaning of the Bill of Rights: The 1st Amendment
This is just a study aide. Please use it responsibly.
Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Summary and Analysis: The separation of Church and State is guaranteed by the first amendment. Government, specifically Congress, cannot dictate how citizens worship, nor can the federal government prevent someone from worshipping. The Constitution's framers understood the importance of religion and understood the importance of allowing citizens to worship as they choose. The 1st amendment also protects a citizens right to speak his conscience without fear of reprisal, and gives the press the same protection (newspapers at the time, and extending to other media such as radio, TV, and Internet as technology progressed). The 1st amendment protects the right of citizens to petition, or complain to the government, without fear of arrest or persecution.
It is critical to understand that the U.S.Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or Government does not grant these rights. These rights are granted by God--as set forth in The Declaration of Independence. In fact, governments were formed, according to the founding fathers, to protect these rights. The Declaration of Independence asserts that any government which attempts to take away these rights should be overthrown.
The 2nd Amendment
Amendment 2: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Summary and Analysis: Citizens have a right to own guns. Government cannot violate this right. The 2nd amendment, unlike the first, provides a justification for its existence. The 2nd amendment has come under fire (no pun intended) in recent years as gun control laws proliferate. Not including the U.S. military, no organization owns more hand guns than the United States government, something you may want to remember when government officials try to restrict your right to bear arms.
The 3rd Amendment
Amendment 3: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Summary and Analysis: The government cannot force you to let a soldier stay in your home in times of peace. If during war it becomes necessary, it will be done orderly as directed by law. The founding fathers understood the importance of property rights in guaranteeing individual liberty.
The 4th Amendment
Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Summary and Analysis: Nobody can enter your house without your permission unless they have a search warrant. In order to obtain a search warrant, one must have a really good reason. The warrant must be authorized, documented, and state specifically the place being searched and what is being looked for. The 4th amendment is another example of the importance of property rights to the founding fathers.
The 5th Amendment
Amendment 5: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Explanation: The 5th amendment deals with the rights of the accused. If arrested for a serious crime, the accuser must demonstrate good reason to pursuit a trial. One cannot be tried twice for the same crime, cannot be forced to testify against himself, and is entitled to certain procedures. The government cannot seize private property without paying fair price for it. The purpose of the 5th amendment is to limit government's ability to harass its citizens.
The 6th Amendment
Amendment 6: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Explanation: The purpose of the 6th amendment is to prevent the government from detaining citizens unfairly. Citizens have a right to a speedy and public trial, and have the right to be tried fairly and near the same location they were arrested. The accused must also be told what it is they're being tried for, know who is testifying against them, and the right to provide witnesses for himself and an attorney for himself.
The 7th Amendment
Amendment 7: In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Explanation: The 7th amendment deals with the rights of those being sued. If the amount of the lawsuit exceeds a certain amount (much higher than the $20 originally established), the defendant has the right to a trial by jury.
The 8th Amendment
Amendment 8: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Explanation: The 8th amendment protects citizens from unfair punishments. The punishment, according to the 8th amendment, must fit the crime. The federal government and most states have sentencing guidelines to prevent judges from imposing excessive bail, fines, or punishments.
The 9th Amendment
Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Explanation: Many framers of the U.S. Constitution did not feel a Bill of Rights was necessary. After all, they argued, these rights are not granted by the government. They also feared that rights not listed in the Bill of Rights would be, therefore, taken away. The 9th amendment calmed their fears by emphasizing that rights not necessarily listed by the Constitution cannot be taken away by the government. It is important to remember that the whole purpose of the United States Constitution is to limit government, something politicians throughout the years have needed to be reminded.
The 10th Amendment
Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Explanation: With the exception of the 2nd amendment, no amendment has been infringed upon by the federal government more than the 10th. The United States is a republic, not a democracy, which many poorly written history and government text books call it. As a republic, states are promised autonomy over matters not mentioned in the Constitution. The increasing size of the federal government and the use of powers not granted to the federal government have all but destroyed rights guaranteed by the 10th amendment, the most recent attempt being the effort to eliminate the system of electing a president after Al Gore's degeat in 2000.
The Purpose of the Bill of Rights
written by: Trent Lorcher • edited by: SForsyth • updated: 1/20/2012
Why was the Bill of Rights Written?
The response to this question contains a two part answer: (1) the Bill of Rights was written to get the Constitution ratified; (2) The Bill of Rights' purpose is the same as that of the Constitution, to limit government.
#1: Ratification of the Constitution
One of the major purposes behind the Bill of RIghts was to save the Constitution and the nation.
The Constitutional convention convened in 1787 in Philadelphia, its original intent being the rewriting of the Articles of Confederation. The 55 delegates soon realized that for the new nation to succeed, they would have to discard the Articles of Confederation and create a new government. After months of deliberation, the Constitution was finished, but would it be approved?
An ideological argument accompanied the completion of the document. Many delegates feared a too powerful central government and wished to provide a Bill of Rights to prevent governmental abuses. Others felt a Bill of Rights unnecessary, considering government had no authority to grant natural rights--life, liberty, and property, for example--and that by granting rights, governments, in the future, could eliminate rights and prohibit rights not expressly guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
#2: Limit Government
Some Congressional delegates feared a new constitution vesting power in a central government would lead to the same tyranny and oppression they had just overthrown. Twelve amendments, a Bill of Rights, were proposed to limit the power of government. Of the twelve, ten found their way as amendments to the United States Constitution.
Many of these Bill of Rights were created in direct response to British actions during the colonial period: the first amendment continued the tradition of religious dissent established by several of the continent's original settlers; colonists found it difficult to procure arms to defend themselves against the British militia, leading to the second amendment; the third amendment prohibits the forced quartering of troops in someone's home, a common occurence in colonial America; the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments were in response to unfair British practices toward those accused of crimes, including the scheduling of trials in distant locales after much time had passed.
The 9th and 10th amendments limited the federal government's power by granting powers not granted to the federal government to individual states (the tenth amendment) or individual citizens (the 9th amendment).
Today: A Call to Action
The founding fathers wrote the Constitution to govern human nature. They understood the natural inclination of rulers to want more power. As the federal government grows larger by the day, it's imperative that citizens of the United States demand their elected officials return to the Constitution for guidance.
Facts about The Bill of Rights with Analysis
written by: Trent Lorcher • edited by: SForsyth • updated: 1/20/2012
Basic Facts On the Bill of Rights:
Question: What are the Bill of Rights?
Answer: The Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution contains the first 10 amendments. It constitutionalizes ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence. For a summary of the ten amendments that make up the Bill of Rights, check out the first part of this study guide.
Question: When was the Bill of Rights written and ratified?
Answer: The Bill of Rights was written after the Constitution had been ratified (New Hampshire became the 9th state to ratify the Constitution on June 21, 1788). James Madison introduced the proposed Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789. Congress approved 12 amendments for ratification on September 25, 1789 and sent them to the states for ratification. Virginia ratified the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791 and 10 of the 12 proposed amendments officially became a part of the U.S. Constitution.
Question: Where was the Bill of Rights written?
Answer: The Constitutional Convention took place in Philadelphia at the Pennsylvania State House, which is where James Madison compiled the first draft of the Bill of Rights. It, however, borrowed ideas from George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights, the English Bill of Rights, and Enlightenment ideas, and underwent several revisions. In essence, the Bill of Rights was written in many locations.
Question: Who wrote the Bill of Rights?
Answer: James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights and George Mason is considered the "Father of the Bill of Rights."
James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights based on George Mason's ideas in the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was influenced primarily by the writings of John Locke. The irony of Madison authoring the Bill of Rights is that he originally opposed its inclusion, thinking such declarations ineffectual in preventing governmental abuses. With the modern political assault on the 2nd, 9th, and 10th amendments, James Madison's fears have been realized.
Madison felt the way to limit government was to include checks and balances in the Constitution itself and that the inclusion of a Bill of Rights would lead to the taking away of rights not explicitly stated in it. Madison understood, however, that the Constitution would not be ratified without a Bill of Rights. He included the 9th and 10th amendments to make clear that all rights not explicitly given to the federal government were reserved to the states and/or individuals.
Why Was It Created & Who Supported It?
Question: Who signed the Bill of Rights?
Answer: The Bill of Rights was approved by the original 13 colonies and Vermont. When Virginia ratified the Bill of Rights (the 11th state to do so), on December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights became an official part of the U.S. Constitution. For a comprehensive list of who signed the United States Constitution, follow the link.
Question: Why was the Bill of Rights created?
Answer: The Bill of Rights was created to ensure ratification of the United States Constitution (see above for explanation), to enumerate rights most dear to the founding fathers and the people they represented, and to limit government.
Further Study
The founding fathers wrote the Constitution to govern human nature. They understood the natural inclination of rulers to want more power. As the federal government grows larger by the day, it's imperative that citizens of the United States demand their elected officials return to the Constitution for guidance.
Knowing these facts on the Bill of Rights is not enough. Read the document, study it, and make your elected officials accountable to it.
The Importance of the Bill of Rights
written by: Trent Lorcher • edited by: SForsyth • updated: 1/17/2012
If you could sit down and write what the basic rights all human beings should have, what would you come up with? In essence, this is what the Bill of Rights contains.
The Power of Fear
Question: Why was the Bill of Rights created?
Answer: To assuage colonial fears.
On September 12, 1787, shortly after the finishing touches had been put on the new United States Constitution, George Mason, a delegate from Virginia, pointed out a serious omission, the absence of a bill of rights. He felt a bill of rights would appease the people who feared a too powerful central government, and that one could be drafted in a few hours based on various state constitutions, the most notable being his own Virginia Declaration of Rights. His motion was not seconded and the Constitution went forth without a bill of rights.
The Constitution was signed by delegates from 12 of the 13 colonies, Rhode Island refusing to sign it without a Bill of Rights. When the Constitution went to individual states for ratification, most ratified it on certain conditions. These conditions were finally embodied in the Bill of Rights written after the Constitution had been ratified. James Madison introduced the proposed Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789. Congress approved 12 amendments for ratification on September 25, 1789 and sent them to the states for ratification. Virginia ratified the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791 and 10 of the 12 proposed amendments officially became a part of the U.S. Constitution.
Why Is It Important Today?
Question: Why is the Bill of Rights significant?
Answer: Without it, the Constitution would probably not have been ratified.
Opposition to the Constitution was strong throughout the colonies for fear of granting too much power to the national government. The Bill of Rights assuaged many of those fears. In addition, the new Constitution worked. It had provided a way for amending itself, and the process succeeded without violence or upheaval.
Question: Why is the Bill of Rights important today?
Answer: It enumerates Americans' most cherished rights.
History has shown that governments, if given the chance, will not hesitate to take away citizens' rights, often citing they are doing it "for the common good." History has also shown the propensity of government to expand control if left unchecked. By enumerating certain rights, without excluding unlisted rights (see amendments 9 and 10), Mason, Madison, Jefferson, and others sought to limit government and protect natural rights that they believed were granted by God.
Right To Choose Your Religion
Question: Why was Religious Freedom Granted in the Bill of Rights?
Answer: This is a trick question.
According to the Declaration of Independence, governments do not grant religious freedom. God does. The Bill of Rights constitutionalizes the Declaration, which asserts that when governments seek to take away inalienable rights such as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," citizens have a right to overthrow that government. The first amendment to the Constitution does not grant freedom of religion, or speech, or press, or of assembly; it prohibits Congress from enacting laws to suppress these freedoms.
It is no coincidence that the first right protected in the first amendment is the freedom of religion. The founding fathers understood the importance of God in the development of a righteous and powerful nation. They also understood the dangers of forcing citizens to believe in a particular manner.
The Protection of Property Rights
The Importance of the Bill of Rights to citizens begins with the right to worship according to one's conscience and citizens' rights to speak, petition, and assemble freely. It continues by protecting property rights and the rights of the accused. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th amendments deal either directly or indirectly with individual property rights. Amendments 3-8 deal with the rights of the accused. The Bill of Rights ends by strictly limiting the power of the federal government in the 9th and 10th amendments. (For a complete list and summary of all ten amendments, go to the Bill of Rights Summary, linked here.)
The founding fathers wrote the Constitution to govern human nature. They understood the natural inclination of rulers to want more power. As the federal government grows larger by the day, it's imperative that citizens of the United States demand their elected officials return to the Constitution for guidance and hold them accountable to it.
http://www.brighthubeducation.com/history-homework-help/53470-the-bill-of-rights-history-and-influences/
Additional study links: [download pdf]
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Elementary-Catechism-of-the-Constitution.pdf
On September 12, 1787, shortly after the finishing touches had been put on the new United States Constitution, George Mason, a delegate from Virginia, pointed out a serious omission, the absence of a bill of rights. He felt a bill of rights would appease the people who feared a too powerful central government, and that one could be drafted in a few hours based on various state constitutions, the most notable being his own Virginia Declaration of Rights. His motion was not seconded and the Constitution went forth without a bill of rights. It didn't take long for delegates to realize they had made a political blunder by not including a Bill of Rights.
The Constitution was signed by delegates from 12 of the 13 colonies, Rhode Island refused to sign it without a Bill of Rights. When the Constitution went to individual states for ratification, most ratified it on certain conditions. These conditions were finally embodied in the Bill of Rights, written after the Constitution had been ratified. James Madison introduced the proposed Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789. Congress approved 12 amendments for ratification on September 25, 1789 and sent them to the states for ratification. Virginia ratified the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791 and 10 of the 12 proposed amendments officially became a part of the U.S. Constitution.
Historical Influences
The history of the Bill of Rights goes back hundreds of years. Following are a list of important documents, ideas, and philosophies that influenced the founding fathers to include a Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution.
Magna Carta (1215) - In 1215 English barons confronted a despotic King John and demanded a restoration of traditional rights. These traditional rights were written down and confirmed with the royal seal. Although the barons' motives were self serving and they intended only to benefit themselves, the rights stated in the Magna Carta eventually spread to all English freemen.
The English Bill of Rights (1689) - In 1688, during the Glorious Revolution, King James II abdicated his throne and fled England. He was succeeded by his daughter, Mary, and her husband, William of Orange. Before being allowed to ascend to the throne, British parliament forced them to accept a Declaration of Rights. These basic rights include provisions prohibiting the levying of taxes or passing laws without parliament's consent. It also promised fundamental liberties--freedom of speech, elections, and the prohibition of excessive bail and punishments for the accused.
John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government (1689) - Locke wrote his Second Treatise on Civil Government in defense of the Glorious Revolution. In his treatise, Locke states that individuals have a right to "life, liberty, and property" and that when a government fails to protect these rights, or worse, infringes upon these rights, then the people have the right to overthrow that government.
Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) - George Mason created the Virginia Declaration of Rights in May of 1776, influencing the writing of other state constitutions, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. He borrowed concepts from Locke regarding life, liberty, and property. During the Revolutionary war and the ensuing years, it was Mason's declaration that rallied colonists, not the Declaration of Independence, which was celebrated more as a document declaring independence than one that set forth ideals.
The Declaration of Independence (1776) - It can be argued that the Bill of Rights Constitutionalized the philosophical ideals presented in the Declaration of Independence: the importance of God, repeated numerous times in the Declaration, finds its way into the first amendment of the Constitution; the right to liberty exists in all 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights, including amendments 4-8, which deal with the rights of the accused; the concept of limited government, present it all 10 amendments, is explicitly stated in amendments nine and ten. A glaring omission from the Declaration, property rights, also finds its way into amendments 2-7.
This list pertaining to the history of the Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive one, but it provides a good foundation for your study of one of the world's most important documents.
The Future of the Bill of Rights
Now that you have the basic history of the Bill of Rights, it's time to look toward the future.
The founding fathers wrote the Constitution to govern human nature. They understood the natural inclination of rulers to want more power. As the federal government grows larger by the day, it's imperative that citizens of the United States demand their elected officials return to the Constitution for guidance and hold them accountable to it.
U.S. Constitution: Bill of Rights Summary
written by: Trent Lorcher • edited by: SForsyth • updated: 10/23/2012
The Bill of Rights was added to the United States Constitution on Dec 15, 1791. This summary contains the original language followed by an explanation in modern language. Learn why this old document is so important.
The Meaning of the Bill of Rights: The 1st Amendment
This is just a study aide. Please use it responsibly.
Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Summary and Analysis: The separation of Church and State is guaranteed by the first amendment. Government, specifically Congress, cannot dictate how citizens worship, nor can the federal government prevent someone from worshipping. The Constitution's framers understood the importance of religion and understood the importance of allowing citizens to worship as they choose. The 1st amendment also protects a citizens right to speak his conscience without fear of reprisal, and gives the press the same protection (newspapers at the time, and extending to other media such as radio, TV, and Internet as technology progressed). The 1st amendment protects the right of citizens to petition, or complain to the government, without fear of arrest or persecution.
It is critical to understand that the U.S.Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or Government does not grant these rights. These rights are granted by God--as set forth in The Declaration of Independence. In fact, governments were formed, according to the founding fathers, to protect these rights. The Declaration of Independence asserts that any government which attempts to take away these rights should be overthrown.
The 2nd Amendment
Amendment 2: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Summary and Analysis: Citizens have a right to own guns. Government cannot violate this right. The 2nd amendment, unlike the first, provides a justification for its existence. The 2nd amendment has come under fire (no pun intended) in recent years as gun control laws proliferate. Not including the U.S. military, no organization owns more hand guns than the United States government, something you may want to remember when government officials try to restrict your right to bear arms.
The 3rd Amendment
Amendment 3: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Summary and Analysis: The government cannot force you to let a soldier stay in your home in times of peace. If during war it becomes necessary, it will be done orderly as directed by law. The founding fathers understood the importance of property rights in guaranteeing individual liberty.
The 4th Amendment
Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Summary and Analysis: Nobody can enter your house without your permission unless they have a search warrant. In order to obtain a search warrant, one must have a really good reason. The warrant must be authorized, documented, and state specifically the place being searched and what is being looked for. The 4th amendment is another example of the importance of property rights to the founding fathers.
The 5th Amendment
Amendment 5: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Explanation: The 5th amendment deals with the rights of the accused. If arrested for a serious crime, the accuser must demonstrate good reason to pursuit a trial. One cannot be tried twice for the same crime, cannot be forced to testify against himself, and is entitled to certain procedures. The government cannot seize private property without paying fair price for it. The purpose of the 5th amendment is to limit government's ability to harass its citizens.
The 6th Amendment
Amendment 6: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Explanation: The purpose of the 6th amendment is to prevent the government from detaining citizens unfairly. Citizens have a right to a speedy and public trial, and have the right to be tried fairly and near the same location they were arrested. The accused must also be told what it is they're being tried for, know who is testifying against them, and the right to provide witnesses for himself and an attorney for himself.
The 7th Amendment
Amendment 7: In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Explanation: The 7th amendment deals with the rights of those being sued. If the amount of the lawsuit exceeds a certain amount (much higher than the $20 originally established), the defendant has the right to a trial by jury.
The 8th Amendment
Amendment 8: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Explanation: The 8th amendment protects citizens from unfair punishments. The punishment, according to the 8th amendment, must fit the crime. The federal government and most states have sentencing guidelines to prevent judges from imposing excessive bail, fines, or punishments.
The 9th Amendment
Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Explanation: Many framers of the U.S. Constitution did not feel a Bill of Rights was necessary. After all, they argued, these rights are not granted by the government. They also feared that rights not listed in the Bill of Rights would be, therefore, taken away. The 9th amendment calmed their fears by emphasizing that rights not necessarily listed by the Constitution cannot be taken away by the government. It is important to remember that the whole purpose of the United States Constitution is to limit government, something politicians throughout the years have needed to be reminded.
The 10th Amendment
Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Explanation: With the exception of the 2nd amendment, no amendment has been infringed upon by the federal government more than the 10th. The United States is a republic, not a democracy, which many poorly written history and government text books call it. As a republic, states are promised autonomy over matters not mentioned in the Constitution. The increasing size of the federal government and the use of powers not granted to the federal government have all but destroyed rights guaranteed by the 10th amendment, the most recent attempt being the effort to eliminate the system of electing a president after Al Gore's degeat in 2000.
The Purpose of the Bill of Rights
written by: Trent Lorcher • edited by: SForsyth • updated: 1/20/2012
Why was the Bill of Rights Written?
The response to this question contains a two part answer: (1) the Bill of Rights was written to get the Constitution ratified; (2) The Bill of Rights' purpose is the same as that of the Constitution, to limit government.
#1: Ratification of the Constitution
One of the major purposes behind the Bill of RIghts was to save the Constitution and the nation.
The Constitutional convention convened in 1787 in Philadelphia, its original intent being the rewriting of the Articles of Confederation. The 55 delegates soon realized that for the new nation to succeed, they would have to discard the Articles of Confederation and create a new government. After months of deliberation, the Constitution was finished, but would it be approved?
An ideological argument accompanied the completion of the document. Many delegates feared a too powerful central government and wished to provide a Bill of Rights to prevent governmental abuses. Others felt a Bill of Rights unnecessary, considering government had no authority to grant natural rights--life, liberty, and property, for example--and that by granting rights, governments, in the future, could eliminate rights and prohibit rights not expressly guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
#2: Limit Government
Some Congressional delegates feared a new constitution vesting power in a central government would lead to the same tyranny and oppression they had just overthrown. Twelve amendments, a Bill of Rights, were proposed to limit the power of government. Of the twelve, ten found their way as amendments to the United States Constitution.
Many of these Bill of Rights were created in direct response to British actions during the colonial period: the first amendment continued the tradition of religious dissent established by several of the continent's original settlers; colonists found it difficult to procure arms to defend themselves against the British militia, leading to the second amendment; the third amendment prohibits the forced quartering of troops in someone's home, a common occurence in colonial America; the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments were in response to unfair British practices toward those accused of crimes, including the scheduling of trials in distant locales after much time had passed.
The 9th and 10th amendments limited the federal government's power by granting powers not granted to the federal government to individual states (the tenth amendment) or individual citizens (the 9th amendment).
Today: A Call to Action
The founding fathers wrote the Constitution to govern human nature. They understood the natural inclination of rulers to want more power. As the federal government grows larger by the day, it's imperative that citizens of the United States demand their elected officials return to the Constitution for guidance.
Facts about The Bill of Rights with Analysis
written by: Trent Lorcher • edited by: SForsyth • updated: 1/20/2012
Basic Facts On the Bill of Rights:
Question: What are the Bill of Rights?
Answer: The Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution contains the first 10 amendments. It constitutionalizes ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence. For a summary of the ten amendments that make up the Bill of Rights, check out the first part of this study guide.
Question: When was the Bill of Rights written and ratified?
Answer: The Bill of Rights was written after the Constitution had been ratified (New Hampshire became the 9th state to ratify the Constitution on June 21, 1788). James Madison introduced the proposed Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789. Congress approved 12 amendments for ratification on September 25, 1789 and sent them to the states for ratification. Virginia ratified the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791 and 10 of the 12 proposed amendments officially became a part of the U.S. Constitution.
Question: Where was the Bill of Rights written?
Answer: The Constitutional Convention took place in Philadelphia at the Pennsylvania State House, which is where James Madison compiled the first draft of the Bill of Rights. It, however, borrowed ideas from George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights, the English Bill of Rights, and Enlightenment ideas, and underwent several revisions. In essence, the Bill of Rights was written in many locations.
Question: Who wrote the Bill of Rights?
Answer: James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights and George Mason is considered the "Father of the Bill of Rights."
James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights based on George Mason's ideas in the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was influenced primarily by the writings of John Locke. The irony of Madison authoring the Bill of Rights is that he originally opposed its inclusion, thinking such declarations ineffectual in preventing governmental abuses. With the modern political assault on the 2nd, 9th, and 10th amendments, James Madison's fears have been realized.
Madison felt the way to limit government was to include checks and balances in the Constitution itself and that the inclusion of a Bill of Rights would lead to the taking away of rights not explicitly stated in it. Madison understood, however, that the Constitution would not be ratified without a Bill of Rights. He included the 9th and 10th amendments to make clear that all rights not explicitly given to the federal government were reserved to the states and/or individuals.
Why Was It Created & Who Supported It?
Question: Who signed the Bill of Rights?
Answer: The Bill of Rights was approved by the original 13 colonies and Vermont. When Virginia ratified the Bill of Rights (the 11th state to do so), on December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights became an official part of the U.S. Constitution. For a comprehensive list of who signed the United States Constitution, follow the link.
Question: Why was the Bill of Rights created?
Answer: The Bill of Rights was created to ensure ratification of the United States Constitution (see above for explanation), to enumerate rights most dear to the founding fathers and the people they represented, and to limit government.
Further Study
The founding fathers wrote the Constitution to govern human nature. They understood the natural inclination of rulers to want more power. As the federal government grows larger by the day, it's imperative that citizens of the United States demand their elected officials return to the Constitution for guidance.
Knowing these facts on the Bill of Rights is not enough. Read the document, study it, and make your elected officials accountable to it.
The Importance of the Bill of Rights
written by: Trent Lorcher • edited by: SForsyth • updated: 1/17/2012
If you could sit down and write what the basic rights all human beings should have, what would you come up with? In essence, this is what the Bill of Rights contains.
The Power of Fear
Question: Why was the Bill of Rights created?
Answer: To assuage colonial fears.
On September 12, 1787, shortly after the finishing touches had been put on the new United States Constitution, George Mason, a delegate from Virginia, pointed out a serious omission, the absence of a bill of rights. He felt a bill of rights would appease the people who feared a too powerful central government, and that one could be drafted in a few hours based on various state constitutions, the most notable being his own Virginia Declaration of Rights. His motion was not seconded and the Constitution went forth without a bill of rights.
The Constitution was signed by delegates from 12 of the 13 colonies, Rhode Island refusing to sign it without a Bill of Rights. When the Constitution went to individual states for ratification, most ratified it on certain conditions. These conditions were finally embodied in the Bill of Rights written after the Constitution had been ratified. James Madison introduced the proposed Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789. Congress approved 12 amendments for ratification on September 25, 1789 and sent them to the states for ratification. Virginia ratified the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791 and 10 of the 12 proposed amendments officially became a part of the U.S. Constitution.
Why Is It Important Today?
Question: Why is the Bill of Rights significant?
Answer: Without it, the Constitution would probably not have been ratified.
Opposition to the Constitution was strong throughout the colonies for fear of granting too much power to the national government. The Bill of Rights assuaged many of those fears. In addition, the new Constitution worked. It had provided a way for amending itself, and the process succeeded without violence or upheaval.
Question: Why is the Bill of Rights important today?
Answer: It enumerates Americans' most cherished rights.
History has shown that governments, if given the chance, will not hesitate to take away citizens' rights, often citing they are doing it "for the common good." History has also shown the propensity of government to expand control if left unchecked. By enumerating certain rights, without excluding unlisted rights (see amendments 9 and 10), Mason, Madison, Jefferson, and others sought to limit government and protect natural rights that they believed were granted by God.
Right To Choose Your Religion
Question: Why was Religious Freedom Granted in the Bill of Rights?
Answer: This is a trick question.
According to the Declaration of Independence, governments do not grant religious freedom. God does. The Bill of Rights constitutionalizes the Declaration, which asserts that when governments seek to take away inalienable rights such as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," citizens have a right to overthrow that government. The first amendment to the Constitution does not grant freedom of religion, or speech, or press, or of assembly; it prohibits Congress from enacting laws to suppress these freedoms.
It is no coincidence that the first right protected in the first amendment is the freedom of religion. The founding fathers understood the importance of God in the development of a righteous and powerful nation. They also understood the dangers of forcing citizens to believe in a particular manner.
The Protection of Property Rights
The Importance of the Bill of Rights to citizens begins with the right to worship according to one's conscience and citizens' rights to speak, petition, and assemble freely. It continues by protecting property rights and the rights of the accused. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th amendments deal either directly or indirectly with individual property rights. Amendments 3-8 deal with the rights of the accused. The Bill of Rights ends by strictly limiting the power of the federal government in the 9th and 10th amendments. (For a complete list and summary of all ten amendments, go to the Bill of Rights Summary, linked here.)
The founding fathers wrote the Constitution to govern human nature. They understood the natural inclination of rulers to want more power. As the federal government grows larger by the day, it's imperative that citizens of the United States demand their elected officials return to the Constitution for guidance and hold them accountable to it.
http://www.brighthubeducation.com/history-homework-help/53470-the-bill-of-rights-history-and-influences/
Additional study links: [download pdf]
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Elementary-Catechism-of-the-Constitution.pdf
The documents to follow will be an examination of the Founding Documents that led to the drafting and ratification of the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights.
ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION AND CONFEDERATION
*The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774.*It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776.*It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778.
*And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was to form a more perfect Union.
On October 20, 1774, the Articles were introduced and thus created the “Continental Congress Association.” The Articles of Association were composed of 14 laws.
*Articles of Association 1774
The Articles of Association created the "Continental Congress Association", in 1774 for implementing a trade boycott with Great Britain. Congress, by imposing economic sanctions on Great Britain, sought to alter Britain's taxing and ruling policies towards the colonies without severing their colonial allegiance.
*Articles of Confederation
The US Constitution of 1777
A Brief History
The Articles of Confederation, passed by the US Continental Congress on November 15, 1777, was enacted on March 1, 1781 as the founding constitution of the United States of America. The "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" established the United States of America as a sovereign nation governed by the United States in Congress Assembled (USCA).
With the passage of Lee’s Resolution and the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Continental Congress was now faced with the challenge of transforming the voluminous United Colonies’ legislation into a U.S. Constitution capable of uniting and governing the 13 independent states. Even before the acceptance of those two momentous documents, the matter of drafting a constitution gained the serious attention of Congress on June 12th, 1776, when it resolved to appoint a committee of thirteen to prepare a draft constitution for the new republic:
Resolved, that the committee to prepare and digest the form of a confederation to be entered into between these colonies, consist of a member from each colony:
· for New Hampshire ... Mr. [Josiah] Bartlett
· Massachusetts ... Mr. S[amuel] Adams
· Rhode Island ... Mr. [Stephen] Hopkins
· Connecticut ... Mr. [Roger] Sherman
· New York ... Mr. R[obert R.] Livingston
· New Jersey …
· Pennsylvania ... Mr. [John] Dickinson
· Delaware ... Mr. [Thomas] McKean
· Maryland ... Mr. [Thomas] Stone
· Virginia ... Mr. [Thomas] Nelson
· North Carolina ... Mr. [Joseph] Hewes
· S. Carolina ... Mr. [Edward] Rutledge
· Georgia ... Mr. [Button] Gwinnett
PREAMBLE:
The Articles of Confederation
Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America, agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, in the words following, viz:
Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
Preamble
Article I - Style
Article II - States Rights
Article III - Mutual defense
Article IV - Laws of other states to be abided; extradition
Article V - The Legislature
Article VI - Rights denied the States
Article VII - Appointment of military officers
Article VIII - United States to pay for defense; taxes
Article IX - Rights granted the Federal Government
Article X - Committee of States
Article XI - Canada may join the United States
Article XII - Assumption of debt
Article XIII - Articles are Supreme Law, amendment
Conclusion
Signatories
History and All Articles can be studied on both sites.
http://www.articlesofconfederation.com
http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html
*And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was to form a more perfect Union.
On October 20, 1774, the Articles were introduced and thus created the “Continental Congress Association.” The Articles of Association were composed of 14 laws.
*Articles of Association 1774
The Articles of Association created the "Continental Congress Association", in 1774 for implementing a trade boycott with Great Britain. Congress, by imposing economic sanctions on Great Britain, sought to alter Britain's taxing and ruling policies towards the colonies without severing their colonial allegiance.
*Articles of Confederation
The US Constitution of 1777
A Brief History
The Articles of Confederation, passed by the US Continental Congress on November 15, 1777, was enacted on March 1, 1781 as the founding constitution of the United States of America. The "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" established the United States of America as a sovereign nation governed by the United States in Congress Assembled (USCA).
With the passage of Lee’s Resolution and the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Continental Congress was now faced with the challenge of transforming the voluminous United Colonies’ legislation into a U.S. Constitution capable of uniting and governing the 13 independent states. Even before the acceptance of those two momentous documents, the matter of drafting a constitution gained the serious attention of Congress on June 12th, 1776, when it resolved to appoint a committee of thirteen to prepare a draft constitution for the new republic:
Resolved, that the committee to prepare and digest the form of a confederation to be entered into between these colonies, consist of a member from each colony:
· for New Hampshire ... Mr. [Josiah] Bartlett
· Massachusetts ... Mr. S[amuel] Adams
· Rhode Island ... Mr. [Stephen] Hopkins
· Connecticut ... Mr. [Roger] Sherman
· New York ... Mr. R[obert R.] Livingston
· New Jersey …
· Pennsylvania ... Mr. [John] Dickinson
· Delaware ... Mr. [Thomas] McKean
· Maryland ... Mr. [Thomas] Stone
· Virginia ... Mr. [Thomas] Nelson
· North Carolina ... Mr. [Joseph] Hewes
· S. Carolina ... Mr. [Edward] Rutledge
· Georgia ... Mr. [Button] Gwinnett
PREAMBLE:
The Articles of Confederation
Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America, agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, in the words following, viz:
Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
Preamble
Article I - Style
Article II - States Rights
Article III - Mutual defense
Article IV - Laws of other states to be abided; extradition
Article V - The Legislature
Article VI - Rights denied the States
Article VII - Appointment of military officers
Article VIII - United States to pay for defense; taxes
Article IX - Rights granted the Federal Government
Article X - Committee of States
Article XI - Canada may join the United States
Article XII - Assumption of debt
Article XIII - Articles are Supreme Law, amendment
Conclusion
Signatories
History and All Articles can be studied on both sites.
http://www.articlesofconfederation.com
http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html
The Declaration of Independence
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
THE SIGNATORIES OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm
There are links at the above site for each signer and a short biography of the person when their name is clicked.
The Declaration of Independence: A History
Nations come into being in many ways. Military rebellion, civil strife, acts of heroism, acts of treachery, a thousand greater and lesser clashes between defenders of the old order and supporters of the new--all these occurrences and more have marked the emergences of new nations, large and small. The birth of our own nation included them all. That birth was unique, not only in the immensity of its later impact on the course of world history and the growth of democracy, but also because so many of the threads in our national history run back through time to come together in one place, in one time, and in one document: the Declaration of Independence.
Moving Toward Independence
The clearest call for independence up to the summer of 1776 came in Philadelphia on June 7. On that date in session in the Pennsylvania State House (later Independence Hall), the Continental Congress heard Richard Henry Lee of Virginia read his resolution beginning: "Resolved: That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."
The Lee Resolution was an expression of what was already beginning to happen throughout the colonies. When the Second Continental Congress, which was essentially the government of the United States from 1775 to 1788, first met in May 1775, King George III had not replied to the petition for redress of grievances that he had been sent by the First Continental Congress. The Congress gradually took on the responsibilities of a national government. In June 1775 the Congress established the Continental Army as well as a continental currency. By the end of July of that year, it created a post office for the "United Colonies."
In August 1775 a royal proclamation declared that the King's American subjects were "engaged in open and avowed rebellion." Later that year, Parliament passed the American Prohibitory Act, which made all American vessels and cargoes forfeit to the Crown. And in May 1776 the Congress learned that the King had negotiated treaties with German states to hire mercenaries to fight in America. The weight of these actions combined to convince many Americans that the mother country was treating the colonies as a foreign entity.
One by one, the Continental Congress continued to cut the colonies' ties to Britain. The Privateering Resolution, passed in March 1776, allowed the colonists "to fit out armed vessels to cruise [sic] on the enemies of these United Colonies." On April 6, 1776, American ports were opened to commerce with other nations, an action that severed the economic ties fostered by the Navigation Acts. A "Resolution for the Formation of Local Governments" was passed on May 10, 1776.
At the same time, more of the colonists themselves were becoming convinced of the inevitability of independence. Thomas Paine's Common Sense, published in January 1776, was sold by the thousands. By the middle of May 1776, eight colonies had decided that they would support independence. On May 15, 1776, the Virginia Convention passed a resolution that "the delegates appointed to represent this colony in General Congress be instructed to propose to that respectable body to declare the United Colonies free and independent states."
It was in keeping with these instructions that Richard Henry Lee, on June 7, 1776, presented his resolution. There were still some delegates, however, including those bound by earlier instructions, who wished to pursue the path of reconciliation with Britain. On June 11 consideration of the Lee Resolution was postponed by a vote of seven colonies to five, with New York abstaining. Congress then recessed for 3 weeks. The tone of the debate indicated that at the end of that time the Lee Resolution would be adopted. Before Congress recessed, therefore, a Committee of Five was appointed to draft a statement presenting to the world the colonies' case for independence.....
[THIS COMPREHENSIVE HISTORY CONTINUES ON THIS SITE. ALSO THIS SITE OFFERS THE OTHER VALUABLE LINKS OF STUDY BELOW:]
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_history.html
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_style.html
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/virginia_declaration_of_rights.html
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/dube/inde1.htm
Moving Toward Independence
The clearest call for independence up to the summer of 1776 came in Philadelphia on June 7. On that date in session in the Pennsylvania State House (later Independence Hall), the Continental Congress heard Richard Henry Lee of Virginia read his resolution beginning: "Resolved: That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."
The Lee Resolution was an expression of what was already beginning to happen throughout the colonies. When the Second Continental Congress, which was essentially the government of the United States from 1775 to 1788, first met in May 1775, King George III had not replied to the petition for redress of grievances that he had been sent by the First Continental Congress. The Congress gradually took on the responsibilities of a national government. In June 1775 the Congress established the Continental Army as well as a continental currency. By the end of July of that year, it created a post office for the "United Colonies."
In August 1775 a royal proclamation declared that the King's American subjects were "engaged in open and avowed rebellion." Later that year, Parliament passed the American Prohibitory Act, which made all American vessels and cargoes forfeit to the Crown. And in May 1776 the Congress learned that the King had negotiated treaties with German states to hire mercenaries to fight in America. The weight of these actions combined to convince many Americans that the mother country was treating the colonies as a foreign entity.
One by one, the Continental Congress continued to cut the colonies' ties to Britain. The Privateering Resolution, passed in March 1776, allowed the colonists "to fit out armed vessels to cruise [sic] on the enemies of these United Colonies." On April 6, 1776, American ports were opened to commerce with other nations, an action that severed the economic ties fostered by the Navigation Acts. A "Resolution for the Formation of Local Governments" was passed on May 10, 1776.
At the same time, more of the colonists themselves were becoming convinced of the inevitability of independence. Thomas Paine's Common Sense, published in January 1776, was sold by the thousands. By the middle of May 1776, eight colonies had decided that they would support independence. On May 15, 1776, the Virginia Convention passed a resolution that "the delegates appointed to represent this colony in General Congress be instructed to propose to that respectable body to declare the United Colonies free and independent states."
It was in keeping with these instructions that Richard Henry Lee, on June 7, 1776, presented his resolution. There were still some delegates, however, including those bound by earlier instructions, who wished to pursue the path of reconciliation with Britain. On June 11 consideration of the Lee Resolution was postponed by a vote of seven colonies to five, with New York abstaining. Congress then recessed for 3 weeks. The tone of the debate indicated that at the end of that time the Lee Resolution would be adopted. Before Congress recessed, therefore, a Committee of Five was appointed to draft a statement presenting to the world the colonies' case for independence.....
[THIS COMPREHENSIVE HISTORY CONTINUES ON THIS SITE. ALSO THIS SITE OFFERS THE OTHER VALUABLE LINKS OF STUDY BELOW:]
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_history.html
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_style.html
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/virginia_declaration_of_rights.html
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/dube/inde1.htm
AUDIO TRIBUTE TO THE SIGNERS OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.
|
|
Introduction to The Federalist
Origin of The FederalistThe eighty-five essays appeared in one or more of the following four New York newspapers: 1) The New York Journal, edited by Thomas Greenleaf, 2) Independent Journal, edited by John McLean, 3) New York Advertiser, edited by Samuel and John Loudon, and 4) Daily Advertiser, edited by Francis Childs. Initially, they were intended to be a twenty essay response to the Antifederalist attacks on the Constitution that were flooding the New York newspapers right after the Constitution had been signed in Philadelphia on September 17, 1787. The Cato letters started to appear on 27 September, George Mason‘s objections were in circulation and the Brutus Essays were launched on 18 October. The number of essays in The Federalist was extended in response to the relentless, and effective, Antifederalist criticism of the proposed Constitution.
McLean bundled the first 36 essays together——they appeared in the newspapers between October 27, 1787 and January 8, 1788——and published them as Volume 1 on March 22, 1788. Essays 37 through 77 of The Federalist appeared between January 11 and April 2, 1788. On May 28, McLean took Federalist 37-77 as well as the yet to be published Federalist 78-85 and issued them all as Volume 2 of The Federalist. Between June 14 and August 16, these eight remaining essays——Federalist 78-85——appeared in the Independent Journal and New York Packet.
The Status of The Federalist
One of the persistent questions concerning the status of The Federalist is this: is it a propaganda tract written to secure ratification of the Constitution and thus of no enduring relevance or is it the authoritative expositor of the meaning of the Constitution having a privileged position in constitutional interpretation? It is tempting to adopt the former position because 1) the essays originated in the rough and tumble of the ratification struggle. It is also tempting to 2) see The Federalist as incoherent; didn’t Hamilton and Madison disagree with each other within five years of co-authoring the essays? Surely the seeds of their disagreement are sown in the very essays! 3) The essays sometimes appeared at a rate of about three per week and, according to Madison, there were occasions when the last part of an essay was being written as the first part was being typed.
1) One should not confuse self-serving propaganda with advocating a political position in a persuasive manner. After all, rhetorical skills are a vital part of the democratic electoral process and something a free people have to handle. These are op-ed pieces of the highest quality addressing the most pressing issues of the day. 2) Moreover, because Hamilton and Madison parted ways doesn’t mean that they weren’t in fundamental agreement in 1787-1788 about the need for a more energetic form of government. And just because they were written with a certain haste, doesn’t mean that they were unreflective and not well written. Federalist 10, the most famous of all the essays, is actually the final draft of an essay that originated in Madison‘s Vices in 1787, matured at the Constitutional Convention in June 1787, and was refined in a letter to Jefferson in October 1787. All of Jay‘s essays focus on foreign policy, the heart of the Madisonian essays are Federalist 37-51 on the great difficulty of founding, and Hamilton tends to focus on the institutional features of federalism and the separation of powers.
I suggest, furthermore, that the moment these essays were available in book form, they acquired a status that went beyond the more narrowly conceived objective of trying to influence the ratification of the Constitution. The Federalist now acquired a “timeless” and higher purpose, a sort of icon status equal to the very Constitution that it was defending and interpreting. And we can see this switch in tone in Federalist 37 when Madison invites his readers to contemplate the great difficulty of founding. Federalist 38, echoing Federalist 1, points to the uniqueness of the America Founding: never before had a nation been founded by the reflection and choice of multiple founders who sat down and deliberated over creating the best form of government consistent with the genius of the American people. Thomas Jefferson referred to the Constitution as the work of “demigods,” and The Federalist “the best commentary on the principles of government, which ever was written.” There is a coherent teaching on the constitutional aspects of a new republicanism and a new federalism in The Federalist that makes the essays attractive to readers of every generation.
Authorship of The Federalist
A second question about The Federalist is how many essays did each person write? James Madison——at the time a resident of New York since he was a Virginia delegate to the Confederation Congress that met in New York——John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton——both of New York—wrote these essays under the pseudonym, “Publius.” So one answer to the question is that it doesn’t matter since everyone signed off under the same pseudonym, “Publius.” But given the icon status of The Federalist, there has been an enduring curiosity about the authorship of the essays. Although it is virtually agreed that Jay wrote only five essays, there have been several disputes over the decades concerning the distribution of the essays between Hamilton and Madison. Suffice it to note, that Madison‘s last contribution was Federalist 63, leaving Hamilton as the exclusive author of the nineteen Executive and Judiciary essays. Madison left New York in order to comply with the residence law in Virginia concerning eligibility for the Virginia ratifying convention. There is also widespread agreement that Madison wrote the first 13 essays on the great difficulty of founding. There is still dispute over the authorship of Federalist 50-58, but these have persuasively been resolved in favor of Madison.
Outline of The Federalist
A third question concerns how to “outline” the essays into its component parts. We get some natural help from the authors themselves. Federalist 1 outlines the six topics to be discussed in the essays without providing an exact table of contents. The authors didn’t know in October 1787 how many essays would be devoted to each topic. Nevertheless, if one sticks with the “formal division of the subject” outlined in the first essay, it is possible to work out the actual division of essays into the six topic areas or “points” after the fact so to speak.
Martin Diamond was one of the earliest scholars to break The Federalist into its component parts. He identified Union as the subject matter of the first 36 Federalist essays and Republicanism as the subject matter of the last 49 essays. There is certain neatness to this breakdown, and accuracy to the Union essays. The fist three topics outlined in Federalist 1 are 1) the utility of the union, 2) the insufficiency of the present confederation under the Articles of Confederation, and 3) the need for a government at least as energetic as the one proposed. The opening paragraph of Federalist 15 summarizes the previous 14 essays and says: “in pursuance of the plan which I have laid down for the pursuance of the subject, the point next in order to be examined is the ‘insufficiency of the present confederation.’” So we can say with confidence that Federalist 1-14 is devoted to the utility of the union. Similarly, Federalist 23 opens with the following observation: “the necessity of a Constitution, at least equally energetic as the one proposed…… is the point at the examination of the examination at which we are arrived.” Thus Federalist 15-22 covered the second point dealing with union or federalism. Finally, Federalist 37 makes it clear that coverage of the third point has come to an end and new beginning has arrived. And since McLean bundled the first 36 essays into Volume 1, we have confidence in declaring a conclusion to the coverage of the first three points all having to do with union and federalism.
The difficulty with the Diamond project is that it becomes messy with respect to topics 4, 5, and 6 listed in Federalist 1: 4) the Constitution conforms to the true principles of republicanism, 5) the analogy of the Constitution to state governments, and 6) the added benefits from adopting the Constitution. Let’s work our way backward. In Federalist 85, we learn that “according to the formal division of the subject of these papers announced in my first number, there would appear still to remain for discussion two points,” namely, the fifth and sixth points. That leaves, “republicanism,” the fourth point, as the topic for Federalist 37-84, or virtually the entire Part II of The Federalist.
I propose that we substitute the word Constitutionalism for Republicanism as the subject matter for essays 37-51, reserving the appellation Republicanism for essays 52-84. This substitution is similar to the “Merits of the Constitution” designation offered by Charles Kesler in his new introduction to the Rossiter edition; the advantage of this Constitutional approach is that it helps explain why issues other than Republicanism strictly speaking are covered in Federalist 37-46. Kesler carries the Constitutional designation through to the end; I suggest we return to Republicanism with Federalist 52.
Introduction to the Antifederalists
Who were the Antifederalists and what did they stand for?
"Brutus"
The series of anti-federalist writing which most nearly paralleled and confronted The Federalist was a series of sixteen essays published in the New York Journal from October, 1787, through April, 1788, during the same period The Federalist was appearing in New York newspapers, under the pseudonym "Brutus", in honor of the Roman republican who was one of those who assassinated Julius Caesar, to prevent him from overthrowing the Roman Republic. The essays were widely reprinted and commented on throughout the American states. The author is thought by most scholars to have been Robert Yates, a New York judge, delegate to the Federal Convention, and political ally of anti-federalist New York Governor George Clinton. All of the essays were addressed to "the Citizens of the State of New York".
LINK TO PAPERS.
*http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus00.htm
Letters from the Federal Farmer
A systematic criticism of the proposed Constitution and full elaboration of anti-federalist though was provided in a series of articles published in New York in the Poughkeepsie Country Journal from November, 1787, through January, 1788, usually titled Letters from the Federal Farmer. The first five of these articles were also republished as a pamphlet in New York and circulated widely. The full title of this pamphlet was Observations Leading to a Fair Examination of the System of Government Proposed by the Late Convention; and to Several Essential and Necessary Alterations to it, In a Number of Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican. In addition to this pamphlet, in 1788 the author published An Additional Number of Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican Leading to a Fair Examination of the System of Government Proposed by the Late Convention; To Several Essential and Necessary Alterations in It; And Calculated to Illustrate and Support the Principles And Positions Laid Down in the Preceding Letters, thirteen in all, that expanded on the principles set forth in the earlier articles. The author has long been thought to be Richard Henry Lee, a Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress then sitting in New York, but many scholars later came to think the author was more likely to be Melancton Smith of New York. It is also possible that the articles were written by both men in collaboration.
LINK TO PAPERS
*http://www.constitution.org/afp/fedfar00.htm
"Cato"
Another early series of articles criticizing the proposed Constitution were published in the New York Journal under the pseudonym "Cato", in honor of the Roman defender of republican virtue and liberty against the usurpations of Julius Caesar, familiar to eighteenth-century Americans both from Plutarch's classic biography and from Jospeh Addison's popular 1713 play, "Cato". Most scholars think the author was New York Governor George Clinton, but there is no evidence of that.
LINK TO PAPERS
*http://www.constitution.org/afp/cato_00.htm
Speeches of Patrick Henry
http://www.constitution.org/afp/phenry00.htm
Why the name Antifederalist?
The name, Antifederalists, captures both an attachment to certain political principles as well as standing in favor and against trends that were appearing in late 18th century America. It will help in our understanding of who the Antifederalists were to know that in 1787, the word “federal” had two meanings. One was universal, or based in principle, and the other was particular and specific to the American situation.
The first meaning of “federal” stood for a set of governmental principles that was understood over the centuries to be in opposition to national or consolidated principles. Thus the Articles of Confederation was understood to be a federal arrangement: Congress was limited to powers expressly granted, the states qua states were represented equally regardless of the size of their population, and the amending of the document required the unanimous consent of the state legislatures. A national or consolidated arrangement by contrast suggested a considerable relaxing of the constraints on what the union could and could not do along with a conscious diminution in the centrality of the states in the structure of the arrangement as well as the alteration of the binding document.
The second meaning of “federal” had a particular American character. In the 1780s, those folks who wanted a firmer and more connected union became known as federal men. People like George Washington., Gouverneur Morris, James Madison., Alexander Hamilton., and James Wilson. were known as federal men who wanted a firmer federal, or even national, union. And those people like Patrick Henry., Richard Henry Lee., George Clinton., Melancton Smith., and Roger Sherman., who opposed or who raised doubts about the merits of a firmer and more energetic union acquired the name of antifederal men who opposed an inclination to strengthen the ties of Union with a focus on centralized direction.
In the rough and tumble of American politics, the name by which one is known is often not of one’s own doing. The Antifederalists would have preferred to be known as democratic republicans or federal republicans, but they acquired the name antifederal, or Anti-federal, or Antifederal as a result of the particular events of American history. If we turn to principles to define what they stood for, the content of their position was what was known in history as an attachment to federal principles: a commitment to local government and limited general government, frequent elections and rotation in office, and to writing things down because our liberties are safer as a result.
Put differently, the actual name “Antifederalists” did not exist before 1782. It is a 1780s American contribution to the enduring American issue of what should government do, which level of government should do it, and which branch of which level should do it. This “problem in nomenclature” has led scholars over the ages to suggest, we think unfortunately, that the pro-constitutional nationalists like Madison. and Hamilton., actually consciously “stole” the name Federalist for propaganda purposes to improve their chances of persuading the electorate and the delegates to the ratifying conventions to adopt the Constitution. Rhetoric, both on behalf of, and in restraint of, the role of the federal government, is built into the very fabric of the American system. And the controversy over the name “Antifederalist” reflects that inherent quarrel.
Matching up the Antifederalist essays with The Federalist essays
There were no three Antifederalists who got together in New York, or Richmond, and said, “Let’s write 85 essays in which we argue that the Constitution should be either rejected or modified before adoption.” Thus, in contrast to the pro-Constitution advocates, there is no one book——like The Federalist (Papers)——to which the modern reader can turn to and say, “Here’s The Antifederalist (Papers).” Their work is vast and varied and, for the most part, uncoordinated.
There is thus a sense in which The Federalist makes our understanding of the American Founding relatively easy: here is the one place to go to get the authoritative account of the Constitution. One purpose of this website is to recover the arguments of the opposition. This recovery is based on a) a conversation that took place over several years and in which no blood was spilled, and b) the views of the Antifederalists, which are deeply embodied in the Constitution and the American tradition. The Antifederalists, as we argue in the section on the Antifederalist Legacy, are still very much alive and well in 21st century America.
An attempt to create an imaginary The Antifederalist Papers, to put along side The Federalist Papers for comparison purposes, is actually doing two contrary things: a) creating an impression that this specific Federalist paper matches up with that specific Antifederalist paper and b) capturing the worthwhile and accurate fact that a conversation of vital importance took place and both sides did address the concerns of the other side. The Timeline encourages the reader to see the following interplay: the pro-constitutional Caesar essays were responded to by the Antifederalist Brutus and Cato essays and these in turn were responded to with the launching of the essays by Publius that became The Federalist Papers in 1788. And this sort of interplay continues throughout the ratification process.
In certain places, as we show in the Brutus entries in the Essential Antifederalist section, one can certainly match up several Antifederalist essays with essential essays in The Federalist. The Antifederalists, as Herbert Storing has correctly suggested, criticized the Constitution and The Federalist criticized the Antifederalists. It makes sense, on the whole, however, to argue that the conversation took place at the founding at a thematic level rather than try to portray a conversation that took place at an individual specific essay-by-specific-essay level.
As the Timeline indicates, the Antifederalists were active in their opposition to the adoption of the Constitution even before the signing on September 17, 1787. And by November and December, they were actually winning the out-of-doors debate at least in terms of the sheer number of newspapers who carried their message in the key states of Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia. And if we take a look at the Six Stages of Ratification table, we can see the impact of their pamphlet war on the selection of the delegates in these three key states.
Three Kinds of Antifederalists
There are three kinds of Antifederalists, but each voice is an important one in the creation and adoption of the Constitution and the subsequent unfolding of American politics. For a more detailed analysis of the coherence and relevance of the Antifederalists, see the link entitled The Legacy of the Antifederalists.
The first kind is represented by politicians such as Roger Sherman. and Oliver Ellsworth. of Connecticut. They entered the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia with a suspicious disposition toward the Virginia Plan and its attempt to give sweeping powers to Congress and to reduce the role of the states in the new American system. This first group achieved considerable success in modifying this national plan back in the direction of federal principles. Thus, in the final document, the powers of Congress are listed, each state is represented equally in the Senate and composed of Senators elected by the state legislatures, the president is to be elected by a majority of the people plus a majority of the states, the Constitution is to be ratified by the people of nine states, and the Constitution is to amended by 2/3 of the House plus 2/3 of the Senate plus 3/4 of the state legislatures. Put differently, Sherman. and Ellsworth. secured the federal principles in the very Constitution itself and thus the Constitution is actually partly national and partly federal. In the end, Sherman. and Ellsworth. supported the adoption of the Constitution and thus secured the presence of the Antifederalist position in the American tradition.
The second kind of Antifederalist is one who was not privy to the debate in Philadelphia, and has some deep concerns about the POTENTIALITY of the Constitution to lead to the concentration of power in the new government. We are talking about people such as Melancton Smith., Abraham Yates. (Brutus), and George Clinton. in New York, Richard Henry Lee. (Federal Farmer) in Virginia, Samuel Bryant (Centinel) in Pennsylvania, and John Winthrop (Agrippa) in Massachusetts. They warned that without certain amendments, including a bill of rights that stated clearly what the new government could and could not do, the new Constitution had the POTENTIALITY to generate a consolidated government over a large territory in which one of the branches of government——the Presidency and the Judiciary were the leading candidates——would come to dominate. They warned that the partly national and partly federal Constitution would veer naturally in the direction of wholly national unless certain precautions were put in place to secure the partly-national and partly-federal arrangement. These Antifederalists are the ones we have included in our selection of the Essential Antifederalists on this website. Although we have to knit together their position from a number of sources, and although the Constitution was unconditionally ratified, their views entered the amended Constitution by way of James Madison. and the First Congress.
The third and final group of Antifederalists was those who wanted as little deviation from the Articles as possible and saw the partly-national and partly-federal compromise as totally unsustainable. The arrangement was doomed to produce a wholly national outcome unless radical amendments were secured that altered and abolished the very structure and powers that the Framers took four months to erect. Ratifying delegates like Patrick Henry. come to mind; he deliberately made a nuisance of himself at the Virginia Ratifying Convention disrupting the orderly process of debates at will. George Mason. and Elbridge Gerry. also come to mind. They started off as warm supporters of a stronger national government but within twelve months had become open opponents of even the friendly amendments proposed by the second type of Antifederalist. Within this third type of Antifederalist, we would also include Philadelphia delegates Luther Martin., John Lansing., Robert Yates., and John Mercer.. We have not included them in the Essential Antifederalist listings. Their legacy, as we have tried to capture in The Antifederalist Legacy, is probably to be found in the Calhoun movement in favor of secession from the American founding.
So I would argue, in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, that while The Federalist Papers are among the best essays ever written on representative government, they would not be as good as they are, or as many essays as there are, if it were not for the persistent critique of the Antifederalists who helped define the American conversation over what should government do, which level of government should do it, and which branch of that level of government should do it. Those questions are what the Essential Antifederalists bring to the conversation.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/fed-antifed/federalist/
Llinks for study:
EXCELLENT SITE FOR ALL 85 PAPERS AND THEIR SUMMARIES:
*http://www.teaparty911.com/info/federalist-papers-summaries/summary_10.htm
*http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/timeline-federalist/
*http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/history/a-summary-of-the-federalist-papers
*Timeline of the Ratification of the Constitution – Antifederalists
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/timeline-antifederalist/
CHRONOLOGY GRAPH
*http://www.constitution.org/afp/afpchron.htm
McLean bundled the first 36 essays together——they appeared in the newspapers between October 27, 1787 and January 8, 1788——and published them as Volume 1 on March 22, 1788. Essays 37 through 77 of The Federalist appeared between January 11 and April 2, 1788. On May 28, McLean took Federalist 37-77 as well as the yet to be published Federalist 78-85 and issued them all as Volume 2 of The Federalist. Between June 14 and August 16, these eight remaining essays——Federalist 78-85——appeared in the Independent Journal and New York Packet.
The Status of The Federalist
One of the persistent questions concerning the status of The Federalist is this: is it a propaganda tract written to secure ratification of the Constitution and thus of no enduring relevance or is it the authoritative expositor of the meaning of the Constitution having a privileged position in constitutional interpretation? It is tempting to adopt the former position because 1) the essays originated in the rough and tumble of the ratification struggle. It is also tempting to 2) see The Federalist as incoherent; didn’t Hamilton and Madison disagree with each other within five years of co-authoring the essays? Surely the seeds of their disagreement are sown in the very essays! 3) The essays sometimes appeared at a rate of about three per week and, according to Madison, there were occasions when the last part of an essay was being written as the first part was being typed.
1) One should not confuse self-serving propaganda with advocating a political position in a persuasive manner. After all, rhetorical skills are a vital part of the democratic electoral process and something a free people have to handle. These are op-ed pieces of the highest quality addressing the most pressing issues of the day. 2) Moreover, because Hamilton and Madison parted ways doesn’t mean that they weren’t in fundamental agreement in 1787-1788 about the need for a more energetic form of government. And just because they were written with a certain haste, doesn’t mean that they were unreflective and not well written. Federalist 10, the most famous of all the essays, is actually the final draft of an essay that originated in Madison‘s Vices in 1787, matured at the Constitutional Convention in June 1787, and was refined in a letter to Jefferson in October 1787. All of Jay‘s essays focus on foreign policy, the heart of the Madisonian essays are Federalist 37-51 on the great difficulty of founding, and Hamilton tends to focus on the institutional features of federalism and the separation of powers.
I suggest, furthermore, that the moment these essays were available in book form, they acquired a status that went beyond the more narrowly conceived objective of trying to influence the ratification of the Constitution. The Federalist now acquired a “timeless” and higher purpose, a sort of icon status equal to the very Constitution that it was defending and interpreting. And we can see this switch in tone in Federalist 37 when Madison invites his readers to contemplate the great difficulty of founding. Federalist 38, echoing Federalist 1, points to the uniqueness of the America Founding: never before had a nation been founded by the reflection and choice of multiple founders who sat down and deliberated over creating the best form of government consistent with the genius of the American people. Thomas Jefferson referred to the Constitution as the work of “demigods,” and The Federalist “the best commentary on the principles of government, which ever was written.” There is a coherent teaching on the constitutional aspects of a new republicanism and a new federalism in The Federalist that makes the essays attractive to readers of every generation.
Authorship of The Federalist
A second question about The Federalist is how many essays did each person write? James Madison——at the time a resident of New York since he was a Virginia delegate to the Confederation Congress that met in New York——John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton——both of New York—wrote these essays under the pseudonym, “Publius.” So one answer to the question is that it doesn’t matter since everyone signed off under the same pseudonym, “Publius.” But given the icon status of The Federalist, there has been an enduring curiosity about the authorship of the essays. Although it is virtually agreed that Jay wrote only five essays, there have been several disputes over the decades concerning the distribution of the essays between Hamilton and Madison. Suffice it to note, that Madison‘s last contribution was Federalist 63, leaving Hamilton as the exclusive author of the nineteen Executive and Judiciary essays. Madison left New York in order to comply with the residence law in Virginia concerning eligibility for the Virginia ratifying convention. There is also widespread agreement that Madison wrote the first 13 essays on the great difficulty of founding. There is still dispute over the authorship of Federalist 50-58, but these have persuasively been resolved in favor of Madison.
Outline of The Federalist
A third question concerns how to “outline” the essays into its component parts. We get some natural help from the authors themselves. Federalist 1 outlines the six topics to be discussed in the essays without providing an exact table of contents. The authors didn’t know in October 1787 how many essays would be devoted to each topic. Nevertheless, if one sticks with the “formal division of the subject” outlined in the first essay, it is possible to work out the actual division of essays into the six topic areas or “points” after the fact so to speak.
Martin Diamond was one of the earliest scholars to break The Federalist into its component parts. He identified Union as the subject matter of the first 36 Federalist essays and Republicanism as the subject matter of the last 49 essays. There is certain neatness to this breakdown, and accuracy to the Union essays. The fist three topics outlined in Federalist 1 are 1) the utility of the union, 2) the insufficiency of the present confederation under the Articles of Confederation, and 3) the need for a government at least as energetic as the one proposed. The opening paragraph of Federalist 15 summarizes the previous 14 essays and says: “in pursuance of the plan which I have laid down for the pursuance of the subject, the point next in order to be examined is the ‘insufficiency of the present confederation.’” So we can say with confidence that Federalist 1-14 is devoted to the utility of the union. Similarly, Federalist 23 opens with the following observation: “the necessity of a Constitution, at least equally energetic as the one proposed…… is the point at the examination of the examination at which we are arrived.” Thus Federalist 15-22 covered the second point dealing with union or federalism. Finally, Federalist 37 makes it clear that coverage of the third point has come to an end and new beginning has arrived. And since McLean bundled the first 36 essays into Volume 1, we have confidence in declaring a conclusion to the coverage of the first three points all having to do with union and federalism.
The difficulty with the Diamond project is that it becomes messy with respect to topics 4, 5, and 6 listed in Federalist 1: 4) the Constitution conforms to the true principles of republicanism, 5) the analogy of the Constitution to state governments, and 6) the added benefits from adopting the Constitution. Let’s work our way backward. In Federalist 85, we learn that “according to the formal division of the subject of these papers announced in my first number, there would appear still to remain for discussion two points,” namely, the fifth and sixth points. That leaves, “republicanism,” the fourth point, as the topic for Federalist 37-84, or virtually the entire Part II of The Federalist.
I propose that we substitute the word Constitutionalism for Republicanism as the subject matter for essays 37-51, reserving the appellation Republicanism for essays 52-84. This substitution is similar to the “Merits of the Constitution” designation offered by Charles Kesler in his new introduction to the Rossiter edition; the advantage of this Constitutional approach is that it helps explain why issues other than Republicanism strictly speaking are covered in Federalist 37-46. Kesler carries the Constitutional designation through to the end; I suggest we return to Republicanism with Federalist 52.
Introduction to the Antifederalists
Who were the Antifederalists and what did they stand for?
"Brutus"
The series of anti-federalist writing which most nearly paralleled and confronted The Federalist was a series of sixteen essays published in the New York Journal from October, 1787, through April, 1788, during the same period The Federalist was appearing in New York newspapers, under the pseudonym "Brutus", in honor of the Roman republican who was one of those who assassinated Julius Caesar, to prevent him from overthrowing the Roman Republic. The essays were widely reprinted and commented on throughout the American states. The author is thought by most scholars to have been Robert Yates, a New York judge, delegate to the Federal Convention, and political ally of anti-federalist New York Governor George Clinton. All of the essays were addressed to "the Citizens of the State of New York".
LINK TO PAPERS.
*http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus00.htm
Letters from the Federal Farmer
A systematic criticism of the proposed Constitution and full elaboration of anti-federalist though was provided in a series of articles published in New York in the Poughkeepsie Country Journal from November, 1787, through January, 1788, usually titled Letters from the Federal Farmer. The first five of these articles were also republished as a pamphlet in New York and circulated widely. The full title of this pamphlet was Observations Leading to a Fair Examination of the System of Government Proposed by the Late Convention; and to Several Essential and Necessary Alterations to it, In a Number of Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican. In addition to this pamphlet, in 1788 the author published An Additional Number of Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican Leading to a Fair Examination of the System of Government Proposed by the Late Convention; To Several Essential and Necessary Alterations in It; And Calculated to Illustrate and Support the Principles And Positions Laid Down in the Preceding Letters, thirteen in all, that expanded on the principles set forth in the earlier articles. The author has long been thought to be Richard Henry Lee, a Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress then sitting in New York, but many scholars later came to think the author was more likely to be Melancton Smith of New York. It is also possible that the articles were written by both men in collaboration.
LINK TO PAPERS
*http://www.constitution.org/afp/fedfar00.htm
"Cato"
Another early series of articles criticizing the proposed Constitution were published in the New York Journal under the pseudonym "Cato", in honor of the Roman defender of republican virtue and liberty against the usurpations of Julius Caesar, familiar to eighteenth-century Americans both from Plutarch's classic biography and from Jospeh Addison's popular 1713 play, "Cato". Most scholars think the author was New York Governor George Clinton, but there is no evidence of that.
LINK TO PAPERS
*http://www.constitution.org/afp/cato_00.htm
Speeches of Patrick Henry
http://www.constitution.org/afp/phenry00.htm
Why the name Antifederalist?
The name, Antifederalists, captures both an attachment to certain political principles as well as standing in favor and against trends that were appearing in late 18th century America. It will help in our understanding of who the Antifederalists were to know that in 1787, the word “federal” had two meanings. One was universal, or based in principle, and the other was particular and specific to the American situation.
The first meaning of “federal” stood for a set of governmental principles that was understood over the centuries to be in opposition to national or consolidated principles. Thus the Articles of Confederation was understood to be a federal arrangement: Congress was limited to powers expressly granted, the states qua states were represented equally regardless of the size of their population, and the amending of the document required the unanimous consent of the state legislatures. A national or consolidated arrangement by contrast suggested a considerable relaxing of the constraints on what the union could and could not do along with a conscious diminution in the centrality of the states in the structure of the arrangement as well as the alteration of the binding document.
The second meaning of “federal” had a particular American character. In the 1780s, those folks who wanted a firmer and more connected union became known as federal men. People like George Washington., Gouverneur Morris, James Madison., Alexander Hamilton., and James Wilson. were known as federal men who wanted a firmer federal, or even national, union. And those people like Patrick Henry., Richard Henry Lee., George Clinton., Melancton Smith., and Roger Sherman., who opposed or who raised doubts about the merits of a firmer and more energetic union acquired the name of antifederal men who opposed an inclination to strengthen the ties of Union with a focus on centralized direction.
In the rough and tumble of American politics, the name by which one is known is often not of one’s own doing. The Antifederalists would have preferred to be known as democratic republicans or federal republicans, but they acquired the name antifederal, or Anti-federal, or Antifederal as a result of the particular events of American history. If we turn to principles to define what they stood for, the content of their position was what was known in history as an attachment to federal principles: a commitment to local government and limited general government, frequent elections and rotation in office, and to writing things down because our liberties are safer as a result.
Put differently, the actual name “Antifederalists” did not exist before 1782. It is a 1780s American contribution to the enduring American issue of what should government do, which level of government should do it, and which branch of which level should do it. This “problem in nomenclature” has led scholars over the ages to suggest, we think unfortunately, that the pro-constitutional nationalists like Madison. and Hamilton., actually consciously “stole” the name Federalist for propaganda purposes to improve their chances of persuading the electorate and the delegates to the ratifying conventions to adopt the Constitution. Rhetoric, both on behalf of, and in restraint of, the role of the federal government, is built into the very fabric of the American system. And the controversy over the name “Antifederalist” reflects that inherent quarrel.
Matching up the Antifederalist essays with The Federalist essays
There were no three Antifederalists who got together in New York, or Richmond, and said, “Let’s write 85 essays in which we argue that the Constitution should be either rejected or modified before adoption.” Thus, in contrast to the pro-Constitution advocates, there is no one book——like The Federalist (Papers)——to which the modern reader can turn to and say, “Here’s The Antifederalist (Papers).” Their work is vast and varied and, for the most part, uncoordinated.
There is thus a sense in which The Federalist makes our understanding of the American Founding relatively easy: here is the one place to go to get the authoritative account of the Constitution. One purpose of this website is to recover the arguments of the opposition. This recovery is based on a) a conversation that took place over several years and in which no blood was spilled, and b) the views of the Antifederalists, which are deeply embodied in the Constitution and the American tradition. The Antifederalists, as we argue in the section on the Antifederalist Legacy, are still very much alive and well in 21st century America.
An attempt to create an imaginary The Antifederalist Papers, to put along side The Federalist Papers for comparison purposes, is actually doing two contrary things: a) creating an impression that this specific Federalist paper matches up with that specific Antifederalist paper and b) capturing the worthwhile and accurate fact that a conversation of vital importance took place and both sides did address the concerns of the other side. The Timeline encourages the reader to see the following interplay: the pro-constitutional Caesar essays were responded to by the Antifederalist Brutus and Cato essays and these in turn were responded to with the launching of the essays by Publius that became The Federalist Papers in 1788. And this sort of interplay continues throughout the ratification process.
In certain places, as we show in the Brutus entries in the Essential Antifederalist section, one can certainly match up several Antifederalist essays with essential essays in The Federalist. The Antifederalists, as Herbert Storing has correctly suggested, criticized the Constitution and The Federalist criticized the Antifederalists. It makes sense, on the whole, however, to argue that the conversation took place at the founding at a thematic level rather than try to portray a conversation that took place at an individual specific essay-by-specific-essay level.
As the Timeline indicates, the Antifederalists were active in their opposition to the adoption of the Constitution even before the signing on September 17, 1787. And by November and December, they were actually winning the out-of-doors debate at least in terms of the sheer number of newspapers who carried their message in the key states of Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia. And if we take a look at the Six Stages of Ratification table, we can see the impact of their pamphlet war on the selection of the delegates in these three key states.
Three Kinds of Antifederalists
There are three kinds of Antifederalists, but each voice is an important one in the creation and adoption of the Constitution and the subsequent unfolding of American politics. For a more detailed analysis of the coherence and relevance of the Antifederalists, see the link entitled The Legacy of the Antifederalists.
The first kind is represented by politicians such as Roger Sherman. and Oliver Ellsworth. of Connecticut. They entered the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia with a suspicious disposition toward the Virginia Plan and its attempt to give sweeping powers to Congress and to reduce the role of the states in the new American system. This first group achieved considerable success in modifying this national plan back in the direction of federal principles. Thus, in the final document, the powers of Congress are listed, each state is represented equally in the Senate and composed of Senators elected by the state legislatures, the president is to be elected by a majority of the people plus a majority of the states, the Constitution is to be ratified by the people of nine states, and the Constitution is to amended by 2/3 of the House plus 2/3 of the Senate plus 3/4 of the state legislatures. Put differently, Sherman. and Ellsworth. secured the federal principles in the very Constitution itself and thus the Constitution is actually partly national and partly federal. In the end, Sherman. and Ellsworth. supported the adoption of the Constitution and thus secured the presence of the Antifederalist position in the American tradition.
The second kind of Antifederalist is one who was not privy to the debate in Philadelphia, and has some deep concerns about the POTENTIALITY of the Constitution to lead to the concentration of power in the new government. We are talking about people such as Melancton Smith., Abraham Yates. (Brutus), and George Clinton. in New York, Richard Henry Lee. (Federal Farmer) in Virginia, Samuel Bryant (Centinel) in Pennsylvania, and John Winthrop (Agrippa) in Massachusetts. They warned that without certain amendments, including a bill of rights that stated clearly what the new government could and could not do, the new Constitution had the POTENTIALITY to generate a consolidated government over a large territory in which one of the branches of government——the Presidency and the Judiciary were the leading candidates——would come to dominate. They warned that the partly national and partly federal Constitution would veer naturally in the direction of wholly national unless certain precautions were put in place to secure the partly-national and partly-federal arrangement. These Antifederalists are the ones we have included in our selection of the Essential Antifederalists on this website. Although we have to knit together their position from a number of sources, and although the Constitution was unconditionally ratified, their views entered the amended Constitution by way of James Madison. and the First Congress.
The third and final group of Antifederalists was those who wanted as little deviation from the Articles as possible and saw the partly-national and partly-federal compromise as totally unsustainable. The arrangement was doomed to produce a wholly national outcome unless radical amendments were secured that altered and abolished the very structure and powers that the Framers took four months to erect. Ratifying delegates like Patrick Henry. come to mind; he deliberately made a nuisance of himself at the Virginia Ratifying Convention disrupting the orderly process of debates at will. George Mason. and Elbridge Gerry. also come to mind. They started off as warm supporters of a stronger national government but within twelve months had become open opponents of even the friendly amendments proposed by the second type of Antifederalist. Within this third type of Antifederalist, we would also include Philadelphia delegates Luther Martin., John Lansing., Robert Yates., and John Mercer.. We have not included them in the Essential Antifederalist listings. Their legacy, as we have tried to capture in The Antifederalist Legacy, is probably to be found in the Calhoun movement in favor of secession from the American founding.
So I would argue, in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, that while The Federalist Papers are among the best essays ever written on representative government, they would not be as good as they are, or as many essays as there are, if it were not for the persistent critique of the Antifederalists who helped define the American conversation over what should government do, which level of government should do it, and which branch of that level of government should do it. Those questions are what the Essential Antifederalists bring to the conversation.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/fed-antifed/federalist/
Llinks for study:
EXCELLENT SITE FOR ALL 85 PAPERS AND THEIR SUMMARIES:
*http://www.teaparty911.com/info/federalist-papers-summaries/summary_10.htm
*http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/timeline-federalist/
*http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/history/a-summary-of-the-federalist-papers
*Timeline of the Ratification of the Constitution – Antifederalists
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/timeline-antifederalist/
CHRONOLOGY GRAPH
*http://www.constitution.org/afp/afpchron.htm
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
THE ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION AND CONFEDERATION
THE FEDERALIST - ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPERS
THE CONSTITUTION and THE BILL OF RIGHTS
THE HOUSE THAT AMERICA BUILT, THE HOUSE THAT SHELTERS AMERICA.
Many persons want to combine all of the Founding Documents into one power that protects the rights of all citizens.
We began our study of the basic founding documents of our Nation, with the Declaration of Independence - the first draft - the Articles of Confederation - the debates and the writings of the Federalist Papers and anti-Federalists, concluding with the Constitution of the United States-complete with the first ten (10) amendments, called the Bill of Rights.
We must see them as separate documents that serve distinct purposes. Appreciate them separately for what they are, and relate them collectively for what their combination becomes.
We have reviewed each document/documents and what their purpose was - what their content intended to serve. Let us conclude:
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
The Declaration of Independence (DOI) expressed a long list of grievances against the King of England. The list stated the rejected acts that the people of the American colonies felt were legitimate and needed to be stated publicly; all led in their proper turn, to the rejection of the King.
Many mistakenly desire to have the Declaration of Independence be a be-stower of rights. It is a 'declaration' and serves as 'a statement' of unalienable rights from the Creator. It reads "certain unalienable rights", in the second paragraph. From this perspective it supports the Constitution as another source that does so state, it is however, not the same in the regard that it is a binding compact. It serves as the cornerstone to Gods' Law to complete our Constitution.
Reading the first two paragraphs of the Declaration Of Independence- word by word. The very first thing it mentions is "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them". Then, the second paragraph tells where that Law comes from and what are..."unalienable rights". If you appreciate it for nothing else, it is a pure and legal document that speaks to "Truths that are self evident". These words are a statement of fact, not theory.
The Declaration Of Independence was written to put the King on notice that we were now a free people and no longer subject to his laws. It declared that America and her People were now a Separate Independent Nation. It established that we would no longer recognize any higher power than that of our God to rule over us, and that it was That Power, and That Power alone, that bestowed upon free men their rights.
This statement of separation was also necessary and was required, so that our leaders could secure loans and help from England’s enemies. War with King George, after declaring this separation was a surety. America's leaders knew we did not have the assets, the arms necessary to fight a war, the monies to sustain armies and supplies, so we had to borrow.
The Declaration of Independence was not a law or a compact.
The Declaration of Independence did not grant or establish any rights in itself, it was excluded from the final Constitution. Many wish to not agree with this historical difference. They combine- design inclusion and co-join them as cooperative documents. In doing so, they enumerate 'rights' as the basis of American law. Therefore, if rights can be 'enumerated' they can be defined as not 'God Given'. A lovely term best describes this point, 'we cannot number the stars, they are infinite and belong to God's Heaven'. It is also important to remember, the Declaration Of Independence states the relationship of man with God and his recognition of God's Laws.
The term 'unalienable rights' belongs solely to the Declaration Of Independence. The opinion that the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers were also 'inspired by a Higher Authority' to author the Constitution, is a matter of debate; however, if you further study the words of those same men, you will divine that they credit their beliefs and service to that same Power in all of the public duties that they were engaged upon. Whether personally you accept that or not according to your beliefs, is for you to decide. Their words stand on record.
Keep in mind that Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, studied under one of the greatest legal minds of the time, George Wythe, and also, William Small. He had studied Locke, Plato, Cicero and all the others. It has ben said that Jefferson first heard the voice of rebellion from Patrick Henry's speech in 1765 in defiance of the Stamp Act before the Virginia General Assembly. In his memoirs Jefferson credits Henry with starting the Revolution in Virginia.
THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION
Then the time of war and debt did arrive. The tremendous need for building a defensive and offensive environment, in order that we could defeat England and protect ourselves. We needed a new agreement. [A Compact].
Our Nation's first governing structure was formed and known by the name, the Articles of Confederation, which did not last long. The Articles of Confederation, a document, passed by the US Continental Congress on November 15, 1777, was enacted on March 1, 1781 as the founding constitution of the United States of America. The "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" established the United States of America as a sovereign nation governed by the United States in Congress Assembled.
It was not strong enough to force States to pay their share of war costs. It just did not function effectively as a defensive government formation that, that would/could protect all of the then colonies that would become [States].
THE FEDERALIST AND ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPERS
This is important to understand. It will create the division of those Founders who would become to be known in history as the Federalists [those supporting strong national government] and the Anti-Federalist [those who believed in stronger colonial/state government]. The Articles of Confederation and the debates between the Federalist and the anti-Federalists should be viewed as the initial and subsequent drafts, leading to the final perfect document.
Their deliberations established the specifically stated powers of the federal government. They are the [enumerated] powers - they were specifically and intentionally stated as such, and deliberately limited to the bare minimum. Great debate and opinions were argued over these limits. Imagine the time. A war fought for independence - the rejection of a central government and a powerful king. A new and vulnerable nation needing to establish itself - to be something new-fearing the establishment of a government that might become what they have just fought to be free of. The necessity to establish a government that would protect, sustain.
THE CONSTITUTION
This new agreement/compact [what would become THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA]. This 'compact' was needed to give the Federal government enough powers to provide a real defense against all enemies from within or without. The Founders were sent to a Convention in Philadelphia to revise or replace the Articles of Confederation which they worked on for years.
There were many concerns that the new Government must have some powers, and grave concerns that any such government should not have great power. It needed to address a system of representative government, bound to the compact they would draft. A Republic.
The Founders and Framers had no desire to create a strong central government. They wanted it limited in the spirit of a truly free people, clear and concise for all to understand and not feel overwhelmed by, and very limited so that all people could live as freely as possible - but address the necessity of a united need.
It was therefore, also intentional, that they did not mention [enumerate] ALL OF THE RIGHTS that the people would have. ALL OTHER RIGHTS they reserved for the States and the people living in them.
A most important point to remember, the lack of specific wording in the new compact [THE CONSTITUTION] toward this new federal government's ability to have influence over any items or issues that would arise, should only apply/or address none other than those stated [as enumerated].
The Articles [7] of The Constitution, and the Sections [21] of the Articles of the Constitution define the rights of the people/and limits the powers of the central government for all legally and God ordained citizens.
The Founders-Framers-Ratifiers, created a three part government, and in doing so, also designed a Republic in the process. The legislative [elected representatives], the executive [ a chosen president not a king], and the judicial, which was originally designed to be very weak, in fact deliberately the weakest branch was to be the courts and their judges.
The judicial was to have no power over the Sword [executive] or the Purse [legislature]. The Senate would establish equal representation for every colony/state, no matter the size of influence or population because there would be two representatives [senators] from each colony/State. Their design = a government with a true balance of power.
The words of the Articles [7] and Sections [21] are very deliberate and specific in what is stated [enumerated]. The principles and driving opinions of the debates, while writing and ratifying the Constitution, prove they wanted all rights beyond what they did state [enumerate] to be retained by each State for the people of that State.
It was the great equalizer for all the people in their colony/state, because their seat at the national table would have the same influence, irrespective of population, and the [enumeration] of this method was also stated. These senators would be appointed by their respective State Legislatures, the 2 chosen from the already elected - presumably the 'best two' and they would then be their State's Representative at the Federal table of law making.
After this great Philadelphia convention, and the debates and the deliberations of the state representatives there, the Constitution became the law of the land replacing the Articles of Confederation.
The Constitution was written for a new Nation and for the People.
The preamble of the Constitution simply states:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
"We The People" as the preamble so begins, emphasizes the twin concepts of popular sovereignty and representative government.
It continues with 7 Articles - 21 Sections, and 10 Amendments [the Bill of Rights] in the original final drafted document.
17 more amendments were eventually added to the document as history continued. It is in these additional amendments 14-16 and 17 [specifically] that the intent of 'republican government' is forever altered, and the power to usurp and distort the balance of power that was so finely crafted, was forced upon We The People.
The DOI and the Constitution are not related IN LAW, however; as some may have disagreement on the definitive terms of the DOI as a "legal" standard, it served as 'standard legal bill of indictment' for the criminal activities of a king...such bills of indictment in our legal system today are an necessary part of a legal process. It can be likened to the very first "citizen grand jury", when applying this same perspective.
As one chapter does not make a book, so does the same degree of importance and thinking apply to the impact and importance of the relationship between the DOI, the Articles of Confederation, or the Federalist and anti-Federalist Papers. They are the chapters. THE CONSTITUTION, the Book complete with the chapter titles, the Bill of Rights.
ONLY THE CONSTITUTION, above all of the documents we have showcased, establishes the LIMITS. ONLY THE CONSTITUTION establishes the RULE - BY - LAW system. All other documents support, establish, introduce and debate the final perfect compact that they ratified as the compact that would govern the 'United States' that so joined to become America.
THE BILL OF RIGHTS (AMENDMENTS 1-10)
The Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10) came after (15 YEARS AFTER) the framing debates for the adoption of the Constitution, in fact, they are the 'compromise' that guaranteed that ratification.
THE CONSTITUTION IS A LIMITING DOCUMENT. IT DOES NOT GRANT RIGHTS - GOD HAS GIVEN US OUR RIGHT TO BE FREE. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ENUMERATES AND PLACES LIMITS ON THE RIGHTS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE THAT MAY NOT BE INFRINGED UPON.
The Bill of Rights lists specifically, 10 rights, that a central/federal government may never infringe upon. Study them. Understand that those 10 rights protect the American citizen from tyranny. Without them, the citizens of a Nation can be subjected to rule. Without them, Liberty will die.
The Bill of Rights state specific citizens' rights that are protected by the limits they place on the central branch of government and protect for the states and the citizen. All, according to God's Law. Not all are mentioned, but if you read John Locke....for example, the right to move from one place to another, requires intelligent application, not every single example of 'a right' would be able to be mentioned. God would expect us to use our heads in these matters and exercise the intelligence to discern and know what the differences between "rights" and privileges are.
Again it is important to point out that the Bill of Rights are LIMITS on the Federal Government - it establishes that the government is further limited in it's powers over the individual.
Congress shall make no law . . shall not be infringed. . . .No Soldier shall . . no Warrants shall issue . . No person shall be held to . . In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial . . no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined . . Excessive bail shall not be required . . [maybe the most important ignored today] The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. . . The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
ALL ARE LIMITS. Yes, they mention Rights SPECIFIC ONES, BUT NOT ALL. THEY DO NOT GRANT THEM. OUR RIGHTS ARE GRANTED BY OUR CREATOR. The Bill of Rights PROHIBITS the government from violating them, (INFRINGING UPON).
Today the Bill of Rights is under constant attack by 'the progressive' policies, interests, and political factions and persons supporting the revision of Our Constitution. Attacks on the 2nd amendment - The Right to keep and bear Arms with the gun violence in the news today re-news the 'progressive push' to take away all guns from law-abiding citizens. The 4th Amendment and our privacies in the news, most prominently with the revelations of the government surveillance of private citizens and their private information collection by the NSA. The medical information collected through Obamacare registration. These are the two of the most recent and egregious examples.
FINAL ANALOGY
The documents share the important journey from a group of English colonies to a Free and Constitutional Representative Republic. The first is the declaration of the intention to become a self-governing nation subject to no earthly king, and the second is the draft that was not strong enough to hold the new Nation together, the final is the perfect compact, complete with the 10 amendment compromise, that establishes exactly that.
Two thoughts as you further study. Questions; really consider:
Had the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers wanted the Declaration Of Independence to be included in The Constitution of the United States, would they not so have Stated?
The second: Would the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers require of themselves, the necessity of re-stating every principle tenant in every document they drafted? The Nation had just fought a war for independence on the force of these philosophies. The society of the day did not need to be reminded of the very breath of liberty that they had fought for, sacrificed for, died for, and had committed to lived.
The first two paragraphs of the Declaration Of Independence set the very foundation of God's Law and its application to a Nation of Laws. Without this document, declaring it first and establishing a legal base, firmly set upon the concept of "unalienable rights", the other two subsequent documents might be useless.
Without the acknowledgement of God as Our Creator in it, and the recognition that our rights are granted to us by no other than Him, this Country would have/could have been just another Monarchy, subject to a king/queen and their whims.
Perhaps the greater question should then be, why even mention God or Natures' Law in a document (The DOI) if the whole concept has no power or authority? That power and authority brought the indictment toward King George. Then after the war was won did they no longer believe in it, did it disappear?
Why involve God or even unalienable rights if it is not the basis for our legal system, why even have a Bill of Rights? The First document written with the approval of 55 men mentioning God's Law.
These are the questions that many people stumble over, our Founders spoke always of God's ordination in their actions and their work. This Country was founded on the principles of a Religious Nation. All of our own personal beliefs and faith aside, it does not matter what we accept personally in our own lives today - or if we accept/reject any part of religion for ourselves. They did accept it, they lived and conducted their own and the Nation's business according to the common beliefs that they held. They wrote the documents. These documents are the foundation of the laws, the compact they drafted, that we as a Nation would live and govern ourselves by.
The Articles Of Association and The Articles of Confederation were the first documents founding a 'Union' of the sovereign states. The Articles of Association in 1774, and in the faith of all the then, thirteen (13) States, they expressly plighted and engaged in the belief that the 'Union" should be perpetual, and commit to that principle by designing the Articles of Confederation in 1778.
The Federalist and the anti-Federalist Papers
Were the publicized letters, debates and what can be considered the first drafts, of the ideas and principles, the best of all of them, would become the Constitution. The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 articles or essays written by A. Hamilton, J. Madison, and J. Jay, and are a treatise on free government in peace and security.
They consist of two major perspectives. First they discuss the defects of the present (then) government, the Articles of Confederation; second they discuss the new constitution being debated: its different components, the legislature, executive, and judicial branches. Five basic themes can be discerned from the words, including federalism, checks and balances, separated powers, pluralism, and representation. Although they deal with different parts of the government, these themes are fairly consistent throughout the papers as they promote the ratification of what would become the United States Constitution.
The Constitution of the United States of America
There are 3 major observations that you must acknowledge when studying and understanding the Constitution.
1- All of the amendments to the Constitution after the 10th were not written by the Founders-Framers-and Ratifiers.
2- All of the amendments after the 10th were designed-inspired-driven by and promoted as political or social issues.
3- What personal beliefs we may have/or do not have - concerning religion and acceptance of a Higher Power, the Founders-Framers-and Ratifiers believed, proclaimed, credited and documented this 'divination' and 'ordained it' in their authorship of all of the Founding documents.
The Bill of Rights
Shortly after the finishing touches had been put on the new United States Constitution, George Mason, a delegate from Virginia, pointed out a serious omission, the absence of a bill of rights. Many people feared a too powerful central government, he observed that such a 'bill of rights' would appease their concerns. It was thought that this addition would/could take but a short time to achieve, but his motion was not seconded and The constitution went forth without a Bill of Rights. It did not take long for the delegates to realize they had made a political blunder by not including such.
The Bill of Rights was ratified Fifteen (15) years later, confirming our "unalienable rights" and Gods Law. Amendments 1-10 were written to get the Constitution finally ratified, and their purpose is the same as that of the Constitution, to limit government and to list specifically the rights that may not be infringed upon.
Considering The Composite and The Individual Documents
Understand each for their specific purpose and design. Remember a war for independence was fought between the authorship of the DOI and the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation were the first draft, but it did not contain the strength nor the perfection to hold them together, there were many debates and discussions to be had before the Philadelphia Convention to draft a Constitution. The Bill of Rights, is the compromise that comes 15 years later as a result of compromise that gives ratification of the Constitution success. Without those 10 amendments ratification would not have happened.
Remember the differences in the circumstances as they were written. As time has passed, it is natural to collectively associate them, but is not historically accurate or integrative to do so. They each deserve their proper respect and perspective in analysis. The declaration of the God given Right to be Free and an indictment of the crimes of a king, the first drafts and debates that would forge, and finally the compact of republic governance, complete with a specific list of rights that cannot be infringed upon, which protect all liberty and the freedoms of the citizens, living in their respective states. Together they forged a new and free Nation.
Collectively, all can be thought of as the completion of the process, containing the many parts and full of the meanings and the intentions of our Founding Fathers. But, in true examination, they must also be appreciated and understood separately for what each one intended and what was their specific purpose. All were written separately; study and know the how and the why that they came to be. If we do not do so, we truly cannot appreciate them for their own unique merit and content.
"We the People", the first three words of the Constitution of the United States, is a statement of legalese. Those three words ARE also everyone of us, they WERE everyone of them, they WILL BE every single American citizen yet to come to the Nation.
This three line phrase is what all of the Founding documents, separately and collectively, address. It is for, and in the name of 'WE THE PEOPLE' that they establish a Nation of Laws and what they serve to protect. This phrase is the first indicator of how "We the People" will be governed, and has made us so unique in the world. It defined our recognition and intent to embrace our God-Given Right to govern ourselves.
An illustrative example of understanding all of the founding documents is to think of them as the components of a completed house. The House of Rules and Law - that Guarantee a Free Nation. All of the separate documents are all separate parts of the 'house'. All serve distinct purposes. The Declaration of Independence makes us legitimate to ourselves and the world; it is the foundation of the house. The Articles of Confederation and the Federalist-anti-Federalist papers were the first walls set - later to become an improved remodel; the final draft model would become the 7 Articles - and 21 sections - that define and limit the powers of the central government, they are the walls of the house. The Bill of Rights -
Amendments 1-10, define rights as citizens and sovereign states, upon which the central government MAY NOT infringe; they are the protective roof of our house, the last to be added and make it complete; they join all of the walls together. Our finished product is our House.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA...
Is the final document, completed by the Bill of Rights. All documents that came before it, contain the ideas and the principles that the Founder-Framers and Ratifiers believed in, ordained and established as the perfect government, and designed them into the compact they would establish a Nation upon. Foundation, walls, and roof to shelter. It is the Constitution of the Republic of the United States that joined to become America. It belongs to We The People. IT IS THE HOUSE THAT AMERICA BUILT, THE HOUSE THAT SHELTERS AMERICA.
A small bit of fun Constitutional trivia:
Concerning the spelling of 'unalienable' in rights.
Thomas Jefferson preferred the spelling...'inalienable'. Benjamin Franklin made the final call,
'unalienable' is the proper spelling, as the Founders-Framers and Ratifiers intended.
Many persons want to combine all of the Founding Documents into one power that protects the rights of all citizens.
We began our study of the basic founding documents of our Nation, with the Declaration of Independence - the first draft - the Articles of Confederation - the debates and the writings of the Federalist Papers and anti-Federalists, concluding with the Constitution of the United States-complete with the first ten (10) amendments, called the Bill of Rights.
We must see them as separate documents that serve distinct purposes. Appreciate them separately for what they are, and relate them collectively for what their combination becomes.
We have reviewed each document/documents and what their purpose was - what their content intended to serve. Let us conclude:
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
The Declaration of Independence (DOI) expressed a long list of grievances against the King of England. The list stated the rejected acts that the people of the American colonies felt were legitimate and needed to be stated publicly; all led in their proper turn, to the rejection of the King.
Many mistakenly desire to have the Declaration of Independence be a be-stower of rights. It is a 'declaration' and serves as 'a statement' of unalienable rights from the Creator. It reads "certain unalienable rights", in the second paragraph. From this perspective it supports the Constitution as another source that does so state, it is however, not the same in the regard that it is a binding compact. It serves as the cornerstone to Gods' Law to complete our Constitution.
Reading the first two paragraphs of the Declaration Of Independence- word by word. The very first thing it mentions is "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them". Then, the second paragraph tells where that Law comes from and what are..."unalienable rights". If you appreciate it for nothing else, it is a pure and legal document that speaks to "Truths that are self evident". These words are a statement of fact, not theory.
The Declaration Of Independence was written to put the King on notice that we were now a free people and no longer subject to his laws. It declared that America and her People were now a Separate Independent Nation. It established that we would no longer recognize any higher power than that of our God to rule over us, and that it was That Power, and That Power alone, that bestowed upon free men their rights.
This statement of separation was also necessary and was required, so that our leaders could secure loans and help from England’s enemies. War with King George, after declaring this separation was a surety. America's leaders knew we did not have the assets, the arms necessary to fight a war, the monies to sustain armies and supplies, so we had to borrow.
The Declaration of Independence was not a law or a compact.
The Declaration of Independence did not grant or establish any rights in itself, it was excluded from the final Constitution. Many wish to not agree with this historical difference. They combine- design inclusion and co-join them as cooperative documents. In doing so, they enumerate 'rights' as the basis of American law. Therefore, if rights can be 'enumerated' they can be defined as not 'God Given'. A lovely term best describes this point, 'we cannot number the stars, they are infinite and belong to God's Heaven'. It is also important to remember, the Declaration Of Independence states the relationship of man with God and his recognition of God's Laws.
The term 'unalienable rights' belongs solely to the Declaration Of Independence. The opinion that the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers were also 'inspired by a Higher Authority' to author the Constitution, is a matter of debate; however, if you further study the words of those same men, you will divine that they credit their beliefs and service to that same Power in all of the public duties that they were engaged upon. Whether personally you accept that or not according to your beliefs, is for you to decide. Their words stand on record.
Keep in mind that Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, studied under one of the greatest legal minds of the time, George Wythe, and also, William Small. He had studied Locke, Plato, Cicero and all the others. It has ben said that Jefferson first heard the voice of rebellion from Patrick Henry's speech in 1765 in defiance of the Stamp Act before the Virginia General Assembly. In his memoirs Jefferson credits Henry with starting the Revolution in Virginia.
THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION
Then the time of war and debt did arrive. The tremendous need for building a defensive and offensive environment, in order that we could defeat England and protect ourselves. We needed a new agreement. [A Compact].
Our Nation's first governing structure was formed and known by the name, the Articles of Confederation, which did not last long. The Articles of Confederation, a document, passed by the US Continental Congress on November 15, 1777, was enacted on March 1, 1781 as the founding constitution of the United States of America. The "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" established the United States of America as a sovereign nation governed by the United States in Congress Assembled.
It was not strong enough to force States to pay their share of war costs. It just did not function effectively as a defensive government formation that, that would/could protect all of the then colonies that would become [States].
THE FEDERALIST AND ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPERS
This is important to understand. It will create the division of those Founders who would become to be known in history as the Federalists [those supporting strong national government] and the Anti-Federalist [those who believed in stronger colonial/state government]. The Articles of Confederation and the debates between the Federalist and the anti-Federalists should be viewed as the initial and subsequent drafts, leading to the final perfect document.
Their deliberations established the specifically stated powers of the federal government. They are the [enumerated] powers - they were specifically and intentionally stated as such, and deliberately limited to the bare minimum. Great debate and opinions were argued over these limits. Imagine the time. A war fought for independence - the rejection of a central government and a powerful king. A new and vulnerable nation needing to establish itself - to be something new-fearing the establishment of a government that might become what they have just fought to be free of. The necessity to establish a government that would protect, sustain.
THE CONSTITUTION
This new agreement/compact [what would become THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA]. This 'compact' was needed to give the Federal government enough powers to provide a real defense against all enemies from within or without. The Founders were sent to a Convention in Philadelphia to revise or replace the Articles of Confederation which they worked on for years.
There were many concerns that the new Government must have some powers, and grave concerns that any such government should not have great power. It needed to address a system of representative government, bound to the compact they would draft. A Republic.
The Founders and Framers had no desire to create a strong central government. They wanted it limited in the spirit of a truly free people, clear and concise for all to understand and not feel overwhelmed by, and very limited so that all people could live as freely as possible - but address the necessity of a united need.
It was therefore, also intentional, that they did not mention [enumerate] ALL OF THE RIGHTS that the people would have. ALL OTHER RIGHTS they reserved for the States and the people living in them.
A most important point to remember, the lack of specific wording in the new compact [THE CONSTITUTION] toward this new federal government's ability to have influence over any items or issues that would arise, should only apply/or address none other than those stated [as enumerated].
The Articles [7] of The Constitution, and the Sections [21] of the Articles of the Constitution define the rights of the people/and limits the powers of the central government for all legally and God ordained citizens.
The Founders-Framers-Ratifiers, created a three part government, and in doing so, also designed a Republic in the process. The legislative [elected representatives], the executive [ a chosen president not a king], and the judicial, which was originally designed to be very weak, in fact deliberately the weakest branch was to be the courts and their judges.
The judicial was to have no power over the Sword [executive] or the Purse [legislature]. The Senate would establish equal representation for every colony/state, no matter the size of influence or population because there would be two representatives [senators] from each colony/State. Their design = a government with a true balance of power.
The words of the Articles [7] and Sections [21] are very deliberate and specific in what is stated [enumerated]. The principles and driving opinions of the debates, while writing and ratifying the Constitution, prove they wanted all rights beyond what they did state [enumerate] to be retained by each State for the people of that State.
It was the great equalizer for all the people in their colony/state, because their seat at the national table would have the same influence, irrespective of population, and the [enumeration] of this method was also stated. These senators would be appointed by their respective State Legislatures, the 2 chosen from the already elected - presumably the 'best two' and they would then be their State's Representative at the Federal table of law making.
After this great Philadelphia convention, and the debates and the deliberations of the state representatives there, the Constitution became the law of the land replacing the Articles of Confederation.
The Constitution was written for a new Nation and for the People.
The preamble of the Constitution simply states:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
"We The People" as the preamble so begins, emphasizes the twin concepts of popular sovereignty and representative government.
It continues with 7 Articles - 21 Sections, and 10 Amendments [the Bill of Rights] in the original final drafted document.
17 more amendments were eventually added to the document as history continued. It is in these additional amendments 14-16 and 17 [specifically] that the intent of 'republican government' is forever altered, and the power to usurp and distort the balance of power that was so finely crafted, was forced upon We The People.
The DOI and the Constitution are not related IN LAW, however; as some may have disagreement on the definitive terms of the DOI as a "legal" standard, it served as 'standard legal bill of indictment' for the criminal activities of a king...such bills of indictment in our legal system today are an necessary part of a legal process. It can be likened to the very first "citizen grand jury", when applying this same perspective.
As one chapter does not make a book, so does the same degree of importance and thinking apply to the impact and importance of the relationship between the DOI, the Articles of Confederation, or the Federalist and anti-Federalist Papers. They are the chapters. THE CONSTITUTION, the Book complete with the chapter titles, the Bill of Rights.
ONLY THE CONSTITUTION, above all of the documents we have showcased, establishes the LIMITS. ONLY THE CONSTITUTION establishes the RULE - BY - LAW system. All other documents support, establish, introduce and debate the final perfect compact that they ratified as the compact that would govern the 'United States' that so joined to become America.
THE BILL OF RIGHTS (AMENDMENTS 1-10)
The Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10) came after (15 YEARS AFTER) the framing debates for the adoption of the Constitution, in fact, they are the 'compromise' that guaranteed that ratification.
THE CONSTITUTION IS A LIMITING DOCUMENT. IT DOES NOT GRANT RIGHTS - GOD HAS GIVEN US OUR RIGHT TO BE FREE. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ENUMERATES AND PLACES LIMITS ON THE RIGHTS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE THAT MAY NOT BE INFRINGED UPON.
The Bill of Rights lists specifically, 10 rights, that a central/federal government may never infringe upon. Study them. Understand that those 10 rights protect the American citizen from tyranny. Without them, the citizens of a Nation can be subjected to rule. Without them, Liberty will die.
The Bill of Rights state specific citizens' rights that are protected by the limits they place on the central branch of government and protect for the states and the citizen. All, according to God's Law. Not all are mentioned, but if you read John Locke....for example, the right to move from one place to another, requires intelligent application, not every single example of 'a right' would be able to be mentioned. God would expect us to use our heads in these matters and exercise the intelligence to discern and know what the differences between "rights" and privileges are.
Again it is important to point out that the Bill of Rights are LIMITS on the Federal Government - it establishes that the government is further limited in it's powers over the individual.
Congress shall make no law . . shall not be infringed. . . .No Soldier shall . . no Warrants shall issue . . No person shall be held to . . In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial . . no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined . . Excessive bail shall not be required . . [maybe the most important ignored today] The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. . . The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
ALL ARE LIMITS. Yes, they mention Rights SPECIFIC ONES, BUT NOT ALL. THEY DO NOT GRANT THEM. OUR RIGHTS ARE GRANTED BY OUR CREATOR. The Bill of Rights PROHIBITS the government from violating them, (INFRINGING UPON).
Today the Bill of Rights is under constant attack by 'the progressive' policies, interests, and political factions and persons supporting the revision of Our Constitution. Attacks on the 2nd amendment - The Right to keep and bear Arms with the gun violence in the news today re-news the 'progressive push' to take away all guns from law-abiding citizens. The 4th Amendment and our privacies in the news, most prominently with the revelations of the government surveillance of private citizens and their private information collection by the NSA. The medical information collected through Obamacare registration. These are the two of the most recent and egregious examples.
FINAL ANALOGY
The documents share the important journey from a group of English colonies to a Free and Constitutional Representative Republic. The first is the declaration of the intention to become a self-governing nation subject to no earthly king, and the second is the draft that was not strong enough to hold the new Nation together, the final is the perfect compact, complete with the 10 amendment compromise, that establishes exactly that.
Two thoughts as you further study. Questions; really consider:
Had the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers wanted the Declaration Of Independence to be included in The Constitution of the United States, would they not so have Stated?
The second: Would the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers require of themselves, the necessity of re-stating every principle tenant in every document they drafted? The Nation had just fought a war for independence on the force of these philosophies. The society of the day did not need to be reminded of the very breath of liberty that they had fought for, sacrificed for, died for, and had committed to lived.
The first two paragraphs of the Declaration Of Independence set the very foundation of God's Law and its application to a Nation of Laws. Without this document, declaring it first and establishing a legal base, firmly set upon the concept of "unalienable rights", the other two subsequent documents might be useless.
Without the acknowledgement of God as Our Creator in it, and the recognition that our rights are granted to us by no other than Him, this Country would have/could have been just another Monarchy, subject to a king/queen and their whims.
Perhaps the greater question should then be, why even mention God or Natures' Law in a document (The DOI) if the whole concept has no power or authority? That power and authority brought the indictment toward King George. Then after the war was won did they no longer believe in it, did it disappear?
Why involve God or even unalienable rights if it is not the basis for our legal system, why even have a Bill of Rights? The First document written with the approval of 55 men mentioning God's Law.
These are the questions that many people stumble over, our Founders spoke always of God's ordination in their actions and their work. This Country was founded on the principles of a Religious Nation. All of our own personal beliefs and faith aside, it does not matter what we accept personally in our own lives today - or if we accept/reject any part of religion for ourselves. They did accept it, they lived and conducted their own and the Nation's business according to the common beliefs that they held. They wrote the documents. These documents are the foundation of the laws, the compact they drafted, that we as a Nation would live and govern ourselves by.
The Articles Of Association and The Articles of Confederation were the first documents founding a 'Union' of the sovereign states. The Articles of Association in 1774, and in the faith of all the then, thirteen (13) States, they expressly plighted and engaged in the belief that the 'Union" should be perpetual, and commit to that principle by designing the Articles of Confederation in 1778.
The Federalist and the anti-Federalist Papers
Were the publicized letters, debates and what can be considered the first drafts, of the ideas and principles, the best of all of them, would become the Constitution. The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 articles or essays written by A. Hamilton, J. Madison, and J. Jay, and are a treatise on free government in peace and security.
They consist of two major perspectives. First they discuss the defects of the present (then) government, the Articles of Confederation; second they discuss the new constitution being debated: its different components, the legislature, executive, and judicial branches. Five basic themes can be discerned from the words, including federalism, checks and balances, separated powers, pluralism, and representation. Although they deal with different parts of the government, these themes are fairly consistent throughout the papers as they promote the ratification of what would become the United States Constitution.
The Constitution of the United States of America
There are 3 major observations that you must acknowledge when studying and understanding the Constitution.
1- All of the amendments to the Constitution after the 10th were not written by the Founders-Framers-and Ratifiers.
2- All of the amendments after the 10th were designed-inspired-driven by and promoted as political or social issues.
3- What personal beliefs we may have/or do not have - concerning religion and acceptance of a Higher Power, the Founders-Framers-and Ratifiers believed, proclaimed, credited and documented this 'divination' and 'ordained it' in their authorship of all of the Founding documents.
The Bill of Rights
Shortly after the finishing touches had been put on the new United States Constitution, George Mason, a delegate from Virginia, pointed out a serious omission, the absence of a bill of rights. Many people feared a too powerful central government, he observed that such a 'bill of rights' would appease their concerns. It was thought that this addition would/could take but a short time to achieve, but his motion was not seconded and The constitution went forth without a Bill of Rights. It did not take long for the delegates to realize they had made a political blunder by not including such.
The Bill of Rights was ratified Fifteen (15) years later, confirming our "unalienable rights" and Gods Law. Amendments 1-10 were written to get the Constitution finally ratified, and their purpose is the same as that of the Constitution, to limit government and to list specifically the rights that may not be infringed upon.
Considering The Composite and The Individual Documents
Understand each for their specific purpose and design. Remember a war for independence was fought between the authorship of the DOI and the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation were the first draft, but it did not contain the strength nor the perfection to hold them together, there were many debates and discussions to be had before the Philadelphia Convention to draft a Constitution. The Bill of Rights, is the compromise that comes 15 years later as a result of compromise that gives ratification of the Constitution success. Without those 10 amendments ratification would not have happened.
Remember the differences in the circumstances as they were written. As time has passed, it is natural to collectively associate them, but is not historically accurate or integrative to do so. They each deserve their proper respect and perspective in analysis. The declaration of the God given Right to be Free and an indictment of the crimes of a king, the first drafts and debates that would forge, and finally the compact of republic governance, complete with a specific list of rights that cannot be infringed upon, which protect all liberty and the freedoms of the citizens, living in their respective states. Together they forged a new and free Nation.
Collectively, all can be thought of as the completion of the process, containing the many parts and full of the meanings and the intentions of our Founding Fathers. But, in true examination, they must also be appreciated and understood separately for what each one intended and what was their specific purpose. All were written separately; study and know the how and the why that they came to be. If we do not do so, we truly cannot appreciate them for their own unique merit and content.
"We the People", the first three words of the Constitution of the United States, is a statement of legalese. Those three words ARE also everyone of us, they WERE everyone of them, they WILL BE every single American citizen yet to come to the Nation.
This three line phrase is what all of the Founding documents, separately and collectively, address. It is for, and in the name of 'WE THE PEOPLE' that they establish a Nation of Laws and what they serve to protect. This phrase is the first indicator of how "We the People" will be governed, and has made us so unique in the world. It defined our recognition and intent to embrace our God-Given Right to govern ourselves.
An illustrative example of understanding all of the founding documents is to think of them as the components of a completed house. The House of Rules and Law - that Guarantee a Free Nation. All of the separate documents are all separate parts of the 'house'. All serve distinct purposes. The Declaration of Independence makes us legitimate to ourselves and the world; it is the foundation of the house. The Articles of Confederation and the Federalist-anti-Federalist papers were the first walls set - later to become an improved remodel; the final draft model would become the 7 Articles - and 21 sections - that define and limit the powers of the central government, they are the walls of the house. The Bill of Rights -
Amendments 1-10, define rights as citizens and sovereign states, upon which the central government MAY NOT infringe; they are the protective roof of our house, the last to be added and make it complete; they join all of the walls together. Our finished product is our House.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA...
Is the final document, completed by the Bill of Rights. All documents that came before it, contain the ideas and the principles that the Founder-Framers and Ratifiers believed in, ordained and established as the perfect government, and designed them into the compact they would establish a Nation upon. Foundation, walls, and roof to shelter. It is the Constitution of the Republic of the United States that joined to become America. It belongs to We The People. IT IS THE HOUSE THAT AMERICA BUILT, THE HOUSE THAT SHELTERS AMERICA.
A small bit of fun Constitutional trivia:
Concerning the spelling of 'unalienable' in rights.
Thomas Jefferson preferred the spelling...'inalienable'. Benjamin Franklin made the final call,
'unalienable' is the proper spelling, as the Founders-Framers and Ratifiers intended.
AN INTRODUCTION TO MARBURY AND McCULLOCH
There appears to be some questions regarding the Necessary and Proper clause and the General Welfare clause; most of the Founders wrote that they applied only to those powers specifically granted to the Federal [central government] in Article I section 8. After much debate among the States the tenth amendment was adopted to clarify the only right given up by the States and the People were those specifically spelled out in Article I section 8 and "all" others [rights] were retained by the States and the People.
Now reading the court cases under this light they appear to have been usurpations created by using the British System of Case Law Precedent of Common Law. We do not need case law theory like England as we have a Constitution and they do not. So, using case law precedent to build a case on case would seem to be a usurpation as those prior cases would have modified the Constitution without and amendment. So, In my humble opinion there can be no such thing in America as "SETTLED LAW".
At the time, Jefferson disagreed with Marshall's reasoning in this case, saying that if this view of judicial power became accepted, it would be "placing us under the despotism of an oligarchy."[33] Jefferson expanded on this in a letter he wrote some 20 years later to Justice William Johnson, whom he had appointed to the court in 1804.[34]
Some legal scholars have questioned the legal reasoning of Marshall's opinion. They argue that Marshall selectively quoted the Judiciary Act of 1789, interpreting it to grant the Supreme Court the power to hear writs of mandamus on original jurisdiction.[35] These scholars argue that there is little connection between the notion of original jurisdiction and the Supreme Court, and note that the Act seems to affirm the Court's power to exercise only appellate jurisdiction.[36]Furthermore, it has been argued that the Supreme Court should have been able to issue the writ on original jurisdiction based on the fact that Article III of the Constitution granted it the right to review on original jurisdiction "all cases affecting … public ministers and consuls," and that James Madison, Secretary of State at the time and defendant of the suit, should have fallen into that category of a "public minister [or] consul."[37]
Questions have also frequently been raised about the logic of Marshall's argument for judicial review, for example by Alexander Bickel in his book The Least Dangerous Branch.[38] Bickel argues that Marshall's argument implies an unrealistically mechanical view of jurisprudence, one which suggests that the Court has an absolute duty to strike down every law it finds violative of the Constitution.[citation needed] Under Marshall's conception of the judicial process in Marbury, judges themselves have no independent agency and can never take into account the consequences of their actions when deciding cases.
Marbury can also be criticized on grounds that it was improper for the Court to consider any issues beyond jurisdiction. After concluding that the Court lacked jurisdiction in the case, the further review regarding the substantive issues presented was arguably improper.[39] Also, it has been argued that Justice Marshall should have recused himself on the grounds that he was still acting Secretary of State at the time the commissions were to be delivered and it was his brother, James Marshall, who was charged with delivering a number of the commissions.[40]
Because the Constitution lacks a clear statement authorizing the Federal courts to nullify the acts of coequal branches, critics contend that the argument for judicial review must rely on a significant gloss on the Constitution's terms. Despite such criticisms of Marbury v. Madison, judicial review has been accepted in the American legal community.
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. The state of Maryland had attempted to impede operation of a branch of the Second Bank of the United States by imposing a tax on all notes of banks not chartered in Maryland. Though the law, by its language, was generally applicable to all banks not chartered in Maryland, the Second Bank of the United States was the only out-of-state bank then existing in Maryland, and the law was recognized in the court's opinion as having specifically targeted the U.S. Bank. The Court invoked the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, which allowed the Federal government to pass laws not expressly provided for in the Constitution's list of express powers, provided those laws are in useful furtherance of the express powers of Congress under the Constitution.
This fundamental case established the following two principles:
The opinion was written by Chief Justice John Marshall.
Now reading the court cases under this light they appear to have been usurpations created by using the British System of Case Law Precedent of Common Law. We do not need case law theory like England as we have a Constitution and they do not. So, using case law precedent to build a case on case would seem to be a usurpation as those prior cases would have modified the Constitution without and amendment. So, In my humble opinion there can be no such thing in America as "SETTLED LAW".
At the time, Jefferson disagreed with Marshall's reasoning in this case, saying that if this view of judicial power became accepted, it would be "placing us under the despotism of an oligarchy."[33] Jefferson expanded on this in a letter he wrote some 20 years later to Justice William Johnson, whom he had appointed to the court in 1804.[34]
Some legal scholars have questioned the legal reasoning of Marshall's opinion. They argue that Marshall selectively quoted the Judiciary Act of 1789, interpreting it to grant the Supreme Court the power to hear writs of mandamus on original jurisdiction.[35] These scholars argue that there is little connection between the notion of original jurisdiction and the Supreme Court, and note that the Act seems to affirm the Court's power to exercise only appellate jurisdiction.[36]Furthermore, it has been argued that the Supreme Court should have been able to issue the writ on original jurisdiction based on the fact that Article III of the Constitution granted it the right to review on original jurisdiction "all cases affecting … public ministers and consuls," and that James Madison, Secretary of State at the time and defendant of the suit, should have fallen into that category of a "public minister [or] consul."[37]
Questions have also frequently been raised about the logic of Marshall's argument for judicial review, for example by Alexander Bickel in his book The Least Dangerous Branch.[38] Bickel argues that Marshall's argument implies an unrealistically mechanical view of jurisprudence, one which suggests that the Court has an absolute duty to strike down every law it finds violative of the Constitution.[citation needed] Under Marshall's conception of the judicial process in Marbury, judges themselves have no independent agency and can never take into account the consequences of their actions when deciding cases.
Marbury can also be criticized on grounds that it was improper for the Court to consider any issues beyond jurisdiction. After concluding that the Court lacked jurisdiction in the case, the further review regarding the substantive issues presented was arguably improper.[39] Also, it has been argued that Justice Marshall should have recused himself on the grounds that he was still acting Secretary of State at the time the commissions were to be delivered and it was his brother, James Marshall, who was charged with delivering a number of the commissions.[40]
Because the Constitution lacks a clear statement authorizing the Federal courts to nullify the acts of coequal branches, critics contend that the argument for judicial review must rely on a significant gloss on the Constitution's terms. Despite such criticisms of Marbury v. Madison, judicial review has been accepted in the American legal community.
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. The state of Maryland had attempted to impede operation of a branch of the Second Bank of the United States by imposing a tax on all notes of banks not chartered in Maryland. Though the law, by its language, was generally applicable to all banks not chartered in Maryland, the Second Bank of the United States was the only out-of-state bank then existing in Maryland, and the law was recognized in the court's opinion as having specifically targeted the U.S. Bank. The Court invoked the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, which allowed the Federal government to pass laws not expressly provided for in the Constitution's list of express powers, provided those laws are in useful furtherance of the express powers of Congress under the Constitution.
This fundamental case established the following two principles:
- The Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's express powers, in order to create a functional national government.
- State action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government.
The opinion was written by Chief Justice John Marshall.
FDR On The Court
https://soundcloud.com/hpol/fireside-chat-on
[Keep in mind while listening to the above The General Welfare Clause in the U. S. Constitution]
The link below contains all of the recordings from HPOL.org [History and Politics Out Loud]
History and Politics Out Load (HPOL) is a searchable archive of politically significant audio materials for scholars, teachers and students. HPOL is a component of "Historical Voices" funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities in partnership with Michigan State University.
Please visit www.hpol.org for more audio and transcript of the audio.
History and Politics Out Load (HPOL) is a searchable archive of politically significant audio materials for scholars, teachers and students. HPOL is a component of "Historical Voices" funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities in partnership with Michigan State University.
Please visit www.hpol.org for more audio and transcript of the audio.
An Important Discussion On the Above Topic Follows!
FOOD FOR THOUGHT - The "General Welfare" Clause
OK, HERE IS THIS WEEK’S SPECIAL FOOD FOR THOUGHT - WAS THE USURPATION OF THE CONSTITUTION BY FDR AND CONGRESS LEGAL OR WAS IT BLACK MAIL OF THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES? YOU MUST TELL ME.
Listen to George Washington - Check the Constitution
We Americans find ourselves faced with the disquieting specter of a five trillion dollar national debt, a sum truly inconceivable. Many economists and politicians tell us this debt portends a disastrous financial collapse in the future and we worry. Once debt free, we are now the largest debtor nation in the world and as we find ourselves on the precipice we are confounded as to how we got there.
For answers, however, we need look no further than the farewell address of our first President, George Washington, who, in reference to our constitution, warned;
"Let there be no change [in the Constitution] by usurpation. For though this, in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
Change in the constitution by usurpation? When did that happen? It happened in 1937!
Few Americans realize that up until 1937 the Congress of the United States conducted its business within the boundaries of seventeen enumerated powers granted under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution. [Appx. 1] These powers defined clearly the areas of national purposes over which Congress could enact legislation including the allocation of funds and levying of taxes.
Anything not set down in the enumerated powers was considered outside the purview of the national government and hence, a matter for the states. There were occasional challenges to the concept but it was not until Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal that it was attacked in deadly
earnestness.
Ill winds prevailed against the Constitution in the 1930'S. The country was in the depression and Franklin D. Roosevelt asked for extraordinary "powers similar to those necessary in time of war," to meet the emergency.
Poorly crafted legislation, some of it not printed in time for floor vote was rammed through a docile and Compliant 73rd Congress. Everything he asked for was given, with little or no debate.
The first of the New Deal statutes to reach the Supreme Court for review arrived in January 1935. In the sixteen months following, the court decided ten major cases or groups of cases involving New Deal statutes.
In eight instances out of ten the decisions went in favor of the United States Constitution and against the New Deal. Eight of the ten pieces of "must legislation" were found to be unconstitutional.
The President reacted as one would after having received a kick in a sensitive area. He went to the American people with a fireside chat and stated - "we have therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to…” (March 9,1937) [II [P.754]
The President declared war on the Supreme Court.
To appreciate the depth of FDR's resolve in such issues, one need only read his correspondence to representative Snyder of Pennsylvania asking Congress to pass the national bituminous coal conservation act regardless of any doubts, "however reasonable," that it might have about the bill's Constitutionality.
It appeared in this case at least, the President was urging Congress to disregard the Constitution. [2] [p.738]
"In November 1936 the Democratic Party won an overwhelming victory at the polls. The election confirmed the Roosevelt administration in power and inspired the President to attempt a reorganization of the Judiciary in order to win control of that last remaining outpost of conservative Constitutionalism, the United States Supreme Court." [2] [P.749]
Constitutional historians refer to what happened next as the "Revolution of 1937." The President proposed that for each sitting justice over the age of seventy there be appointed one new Justice to "help them with their case load."
In reality FDR wanted to pack the court with six additional justices willing to declare all of his "must legislation" Constitutional.
Chief Justice Hughes was traumatized. He looked for a way to disengage the President’s plan which appeared almost certain to pass both houses and be signed into law. What to do? What was about to happen would ultimately lead our country to the clear and present danger of economic insolvency. One observer noted "Hughes was profoundly convinced that what was at stake in the crises precipitated by the [President’s] court plan was nothing less than the fate of the Supreme Court's historic role as guardian of the Constitution."
He went on to state that what happened next was a "decision to retreat in the immediate skirmish in order to insure victory in the larger, struggle for judicial supremacy." [3] CP.111)
The Supreme Court at the time consisted of four conservatives, three liberals, one moderate, and one swing. The liberals were; Stone, Cardozo and Brandeis. The conservatives were: McReynolds, Sutherland, Butler, and Van Deventer. The moderate was Hughes. The swing was Roberts.
Hughes prevailed on Roberts to desert the Conservative camp, swing over with him and join the three liberals in declaring the social security cases [Steward Machine Co. v. Davis (301 us 548, May 24, 1937)] Constitutional.[4] [P.56]
This Roberts did, and by so doing, took the wind from the sails of the President's court packing plan. It went back to committee and died. One Administration official called the court's action, "the switch in time that saved nine."
This decision said in effect, that Congress would no longer be held to enumerated powers but instead could tax and spend for anything; so long as it was for "general welfare."
But the words "General Welfare" in the introduction to the enumerated powers of Article I Section 8 were never intended to be an object for extension of the power to tax and spend; and up until the cases noted above, no court ever so averred.[Appx. 1]
The Supreme Court surrendered to the New Deal on the most fundamental of constitutional issues. "It is scarcely conceivable that Chief Justice Hughes and Justice Roberts... were unaware of the political implications of their move. The President had lost a battle but won a war.
In a remarkable series of decisions ….the Court executed the most abrupt change of face in its entire history..."-[2] [p.753-754]
Justice Roberts, writing in 1951, said in effect: His exact words were:
“Looking back it is difficult to see how the Court could have resisted the popular urge... an insistence by the Court on holding Federal power to what seemed its appropriate orbit when the Constitution was adopted might have resulted in even more radical changes to our dual structure than those which have gradually accomplished through the extension of limited jurisdiction conferred on the federal government. [3] [p.I13]
His statement "limited jurisdiction" - "conferred on the federal government" is understandable only when one considers that very few "extensions" of "limited jurisdiction" had been executed by Congress from the time of the great retreat decisions,[1937] up to the year 1951. (The year Robert’s book was published.)
Nothing much happened immediately after these decisions because of WW II; then post war reconstruction with a strong conservative Republican leadership under Bob Taft and a coalition of conservative democrats; then Korea; then the Eisenhower years; then Kennedy [who basically was a fiscal conservative]; then Dallas; then Lyndon B. Johnson and the Great Society, [1965] the arrival of which signaled the commencement of the full implementation of "Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis"--1937.
Until this time, the American people's demands on government were modest and for the most part the government lived within its means. But LBJ and his cohorts, both Democrat and moderate Republican, said in effect, "damn the enumerated powers, full speed ahead."
Something for everyone: spend now, pay later.
As time went on elected representatives in Washington found it virtually impossible to say no to constituent demands. Many of the demands were for good things. [It seemed so, if someone else paid the bill.]
Most if not all of these things are best left to the states, regional authorities, voluntary agencies and, yes, families. [In terms of sheer economic efficiency, nothing in all of history ever equaled the family. Whatever happened to them?]
Fifty legislative debates on the merits and uses of taxpayers’ dollars for local purposes is very healthy. Our founding fathers believed in the idea and we practiced it, almost perfectly until 1965. This gave great power and strength to our country. People retained more than 80% of their wages, whereas today they are left with less than 50% and many of us find ourselves reduced to asking the general government for this or that. "Give me, give me, give me."
Consider the national debt. Approaching five trillion dollars. How did this happen? A "General Welfare Congress" [session after session] made this happen. With no limits on their taxing and spending power, they became like children in a candy store.
Study the national debt and mandatory program curves; they rise exponentially after the full implementation of the great society [APPX.2]. Both national parties must share blame for the enormous catastrophe befalling our country and its posterity.
It's really a "Catch 22". You want to serve your country. To serve your country you must be in power [in Congress]. To be in power you must be re-elected. To be re-elected you must out- promise your opponent. To out-promise your opponent you must promise to spend for the "General Welfare."
And it goes on and on and on, forever, until one of three things happen:
1. We adopt good moral sense and courage and say no to the inordinate demands of our constituents and the special interest groups*.
* This will never happen. Congress prefers to possess the power to buy the allegiance of their constituents by providing for their "general welfare." It is a payoff from organized government and "we the people" have been led to believe someone else will pay for it down the line. i.e., our children.
* Look at the behavior of the "new Congress". Farm district Representatives won't give back on subsidies. Inner city Representatives won’t give back on aid to teenage mothers. Defense industry Representatives won’t give back on defense spending. The cotton and tobacco
Representatives won’t give back on their subsidies. Good Americans all. Some are signers of the Contract for America. But they won't give back a dime. They love the power.
* We need a Constitutional Amendment clearly defining just what they can tax and spend for.
[Governments control people--constitutions control governments], and if we the people want them to keep all the power they now have, then so be it. We can join together, singing, "We don’t have to live in the future, our children do. We want ours and we want it now."
2. Our nation suffers an economic collapse and/or a total loss of freedom due to excessive taxation and national debt. This is why the balanced budget amendment is a danger. Congress will balance the budget on the backs of the American workers and entrepreneurs. Congress will not resist unlimited spending power. Why? Because it feels too good and they are spending other peoples’ money. Your money and my money.
It’s painless when it’s not your money. And the nation as we know it today will continue the ongoing surrender of individual and economic liberty to a form of government that can best be described as legislative despotism.
3. Our newly-elected Representatives propose a Constitutional Amendment to the Several States for their consideration, which shall state that:
1. The phrase "the Common Defense and the General Welfare" in Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution are not grants of power but merely introductions to the enumerated powers concerning the common defense and the general welfare.
2. That all powers seized and accrued to the federal government since the "revolution of 1937" be submitted to the several states as part of this amendment and they as a whole shall vote up and down as to whether or not these seized powers should be returned to their rightful owners, i.e. the states or the people, or be added to the enumerations presently extant in Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
3. And that all future additions to those enumerated powers for taxing and spending found in Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution be done as the founding fathers provided by Amendment to the Constitution.
In his farewell address, George Washington speaking on our dual federal system stated: "the spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers...in one, and thus to create?, . . . a real despotism”.
*He went on to warn: “Let there be no change in the constitution by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”
For "customary weapon" read - "Presently our ship of state is aground on the shoals of uncertain centralism. At this very moment a great storm - and high tide of optimism have begun to shake her free; but any freedom will be short-lived without an amendment enunciating clearly what the founding fathers intended.”
The General Welfare clause in Article I Section 8 is an introduction to the enumerated powers that follow and not itself a grant of power.
CLOSING
The limits on federal power to legislate for the "general welfare" remains, to this date, undefined and presumably, boundless. The question that begs an answer is, "If the framers of our Constitution, who labored so resolutely in Philadelphia that torridly hot summer in 1787 intended the powers of Congress to have no boundaries, why did they bother to enumerate seventeen?"
James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792, in a letter to Henry Lee: “If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution].” [6] [p.257]
DEDICATION
This effort is dedicated to the memory of my mother and father, and to all service men and women who gave their lives for the survival of our posterity.
John W. Bugler
Constitutional Awareness
bugler@bugler.org
REFERENCES
1. Pusey, Merlo, J., Charles Evans Hughes [Vol.2] [Columbia University Press New York, 1963
2. Kelly, A.H. and Harbison, W.A., The American Constitution - Its Origins and Development [W.W.Norton & Co. Inc. New York, 1948
3. Mason, Alpheus, The Supreme Court from Taft to Warren [Louisiana State University Press: Baton Rouge, 1958]
4. Krock, Arthur, The Consent of the Governed - And Other Deceits, [ Little, Brown and Company---Boston, Ma. 1971]
5. Hickey, W., The Constitution of the United States of America, with Papers of George Washington. [Philadelphia, 1853] [Farewell Address of George Washington, President, to the people of the United States, September 17, 1796 ]
6. Brant, Irving the Fourth President - A Life of James Madison [Eyre & Spottiswoode] (Publishers) Ltd. London, 1970
APPENDIX 1
Article I, Section 8.
The Congress shall have Power
To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and General Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas,
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, Dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
-And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, of in any department or Officer thereof.
**********************************
Listen to George Washington - Check the Constitution
We Americans find ourselves faced with the disquieting specter of a five trillion dollar national debt, a sum truly inconceivable. Many economists and politicians tell us this debt portends a disastrous financial collapse in the future and we worry. Once debt free, we are now the largest debtor nation in the world and as we find ourselves on the precipice we are confounded as to how we got there.
For answers, however, we need look no further than the farewell address of our first President, George Washington, who, in reference to our constitution, warned;
"Let there be no change [in the Constitution] by usurpation. For though this, in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
Change in the constitution by usurpation? When did that happen? It happened in 1937!
Few Americans realize that up until 1937 the Congress of the United States conducted its business within the boundaries of seventeen enumerated powers granted under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution. [Appx. 1] These powers defined clearly the areas of national purposes over which Congress could enact legislation including the allocation of funds and levying of taxes.
Anything not set down in the enumerated powers was considered outside the purview of the national government and hence, a matter for the states. There were occasional challenges to the concept but it was not until Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal that it was attacked in deadly
earnestness.
Ill winds prevailed against the Constitution in the 1930'S. The country was in the depression and Franklin D. Roosevelt asked for extraordinary "powers similar to those necessary in time of war," to meet the emergency.
Poorly crafted legislation, some of it not printed in time for floor vote was rammed through a docile and Compliant 73rd Congress. Everything he asked for was given, with little or no debate.
The first of the New Deal statutes to reach the Supreme Court for review arrived in January 1935. In the sixteen months following, the court decided ten major cases or groups of cases involving New Deal statutes.
In eight instances out of ten the decisions went in favor of the United States Constitution and against the New Deal. Eight of the ten pieces of "must legislation" were found to be unconstitutional.
The President reacted as one would after having received a kick in a sensitive area. He went to the American people with a fireside chat and stated - "we have therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to…” (March 9,1937) [II [P.754]
The President declared war on the Supreme Court.
To appreciate the depth of FDR's resolve in such issues, one need only read his correspondence to representative Snyder of Pennsylvania asking Congress to pass the national bituminous coal conservation act regardless of any doubts, "however reasonable," that it might have about the bill's Constitutionality.
It appeared in this case at least, the President was urging Congress to disregard the Constitution. [2] [p.738]
"In November 1936 the Democratic Party won an overwhelming victory at the polls. The election confirmed the Roosevelt administration in power and inspired the President to attempt a reorganization of the Judiciary in order to win control of that last remaining outpost of conservative Constitutionalism, the United States Supreme Court." [2] [P.749]
Constitutional historians refer to what happened next as the "Revolution of 1937." The President proposed that for each sitting justice over the age of seventy there be appointed one new Justice to "help them with their case load."
In reality FDR wanted to pack the court with six additional justices willing to declare all of his "must legislation" Constitutional.
Chief Justice Hughes was traumatized. He looked for a way to disengage the President’s plan which appeared almost certain to pass both houses and be signed into law. What to do? What was about to happen would ultimately lead our country to the clear and present danger of economic insolvency. One observer noted "Hughes was profoundly convinced that what was at stake in the crises precipitated by the [President’s] court plan was nothing less than the fate of the Supreme Court's historic role as guardian of the Constitution."
He went on to state that what happened next was a "decision to retreat in the immediate skirmish in order to insure victory in the larger, struggle for judicial supremacy." [3] CP.111)
The Supreme Court at the time consisted of four conservatives, three liberals, one moderate, and one swing. The liberals were; Stone, Cardozo and Brandeis. The conservatives were: McReynolds, Sutherland, Butler, and Van Deventer. The moderate was Hughes. The swing was Roberts.
Hughes prevailed on Roberts to desert the Conservative camp, swing over with him and join the three liberals in declaring the social security cases [Steward Machine Co. v. Davis (301 us 548, May 24, 1937)] Constitutional.[4] [P.56]
This Roberts did, and by so doing, took the wind from the sails of the President's court packing plan. It went back to committee and died. One Administration official called the court's action, "the switch in time that saved nine."
This decision said in effect, that Congress would no longer be held to enumerated powers but instead could tax and spend for anything; so long as it was for "general welfare."
But the words "General Welfare" in the introduction to the enumerated powers of Article I Section 8 were never intended to be an object for extension of the power to tax and spend; and up until the cases noted above, no court ever so averred.[Appx. 1]
The Supreme Court surrendered to the New Deal on the most fundamental of constitutional issues. "It is scarcely conceivable that Chief Justice Hughes and Justice Roberts... were unaware of the political implications of their move. The President had lost a battle but won a war.
In a remarkable series of decisions ….the Court executed the most abrupt change of face in its entire history..."-[2] [p.753-754]
Justice Roberts, writing in 1951, said in effect: His exact words were:
“Looking back it is difficult to see how the Court could have resisted the popular urge... an insistence by the Court on holding Federal power to what seemed its appropriate orbit when the Constitution was adopted might have resulted in even more radical changes to our dual structure than those which have gradually accomplished through the extension of limited jurisdiction conferred on the federal government. [3] [p.I13]
His statement "limited jurisdiction" - "conferred on the federal government" is understandable only when one considers that very few "extensions" of "limited jurisdiction" had been executed by Congress from the time of the great retreat decisions,[1937] up to the year 1951. (The year Robert’s book was published.)
Nothing much happened immediately after these decisions because of WW II; then post war reconstruction with a strong conservative Republican leadership under Bob Taft and a coalition of conservative democrats; then Korea; then the Eisenhower years; then Kennedy [who basically was a fiscal conservative]; then Dallas; then Lyndon B. Johnson and the Great Society, [1965] the arrival of which signaled the commencement of the full implementation of "Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis"--1937.
Until this time, the American people's demands on government were modest and for the most part the government lived within its means. But LBJ and his cohorts, both Democrat and moderate Republican, said in effect, "damn the enumerated powers, full speed ahead."
Something for everyone: spend now, pay later.
As time went on elected representatives in Washington found it virtually impossible to say no to constituent demands. Many of the demands were for good things. [It seemed so, if someone else paid the bill.]
Most if not all of these things are best left to the states, regional authorities, voluntary agencies and, yes, families. [In terms of sheer economic efficiency, nothing in all of history ever equaled the family. Whatever happened to them?]
Fifty legislative debates on the merits and uses of taxpayers’ dollars for local purposes is very healthy. Our founding fathers believed in the idea and we practiced it, almost perfectly until 1965. This gave great power and strength to our country. People retained more than 80% of their wages, whereas today they are left with less than 50% and many of us find ourselves reduced to asking the general government for this or that. "Give me, give me, give me."
Consider the national debt. Approaching five trillion dollars. How did this happen? A "General Welfare Congress" [session after session] made this happen. With no limits on their taxing and spending power, they became like children in a candy store.
Study the national debt and mandatory program curves; they rise exponentially after the full implementation of the great society [APPX.2]. Both national parties must share blame for the enormous catastrophe befalling our country and its posterity.
It's really a "Catch 22". You want to serve your country. To serve your country you must be in power [in Congress]. To be in power you must be re-elected. To be re-elected you must out- promise your opponent. To out-promise your opponent you must promise to spend for the "General Welfare."
And it goes on and on and on, forever, until one of three things happen:
1. We adopt good moral sense and courage and say no to the inordinate demands of our constituents and the special interest groups*.
* This will never happen. Congress prefers to possess the power to buy the allegiance of their constituents by providing for their "general welfare." It is a payoff from organized government and "we the people" have been led to believe someone else will pay for it down the line. i.e., our children.
* Look at the behavior of the "new Congress". Farm district Representatives won't give back on subsidies. Inner city Representatives won’t give back on aid to teenage mothers. Defense industry Representatives won’t give back on defense spending. The cotton and tobacco
Representatives won’t give back on their subsidies. Good Americans all. Some are signers of the Contract for America. But they won't give back a dime. They love the power.
* We need a Constitutional Amendment clearly defining just what they can tax and spend for.
[Governments control people--constitutions control governments], and if we the people want them to keep all the power they now have, then so be it. We can join together, singing, "We don’t have to live in the future, our children do. We want ours and we want it now."
2. Our nation suffers an economic collapse and/or a total loss of freedom due to excessive taxation and national debt. This is why the balanced budget amendment is a danger. Congress will balance the budget on the backs of the American workers and entrepreneurs. Congress will not resist unlimited spending power. Why? Because it feels too good and they are spending other peoples’ money. Your money and my money.
It’s painless when it’s not your money. And the nation as we know it today will continue the ongoing surrender of individual and economic liberty to a form of government that can best be described as legislative despotism.
3. Our newly-elected Representatives propose a Constitutional Amendment to the Several States for their consideration, which shall state that:
1. The phrase "the Common Defense and the General Welfare" in Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution are not grants of power but merely introductions to the enumerated powers concerning the common defense and the general welfare.
2. That all powers seized and accrued to the federal government since the "revolution of 1937" be submitted to the several states as part of this amendment and they as a whole shall vote up and down as to whether or not these seized powers should be returned to their rightful owners, i.e. the states or the people, or be added to the enumerations presently extant in Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
3. And that all future additions to those enumerated powers for taxing and spending found in Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution be done as the founding fathers provided by Amendment to the Constitution.
In his farewell address, George Washington speaking on our dual federal system stated: "the spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers...in one, and thus to create?, . . . a real despotism”.
*He went on to warn: “Let there be no change in the constitution by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”
For "customary weapon" read - "Presently our ship of state is aground on the shoals of uncertain centralism. At this very moment a great storm - and high tide of optimism have begun to shake her free; but any freedom will be short-lived without an amendment enunciating clearly what the founding fathers intended.”
The General Welfare clause in Article I Section 8 is an introduction to the enumerated powers that follow and not itself a grant of power.
CLOSING
The limits on federal power to legislate for the "general welfare" remains, to this date, undefined and presumably, boundless. The question that begs an answer is, "If the framers of our Constitution, who labored so resolutely in Philadelphia that torridly hot summer in 1787 intended the powers of Congress to have no boundaries, why did they bother to enumerate seventeen?"
James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792, in a letter to Henry Lee: “If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution].” [6] [p.257]
DEDICATION
This effort is dedicated to the memory of my mother and father, and to all service men and women who gave their lives for the survival of our posterity.
John W. Bugler
Constitutional Awareness
bugler@bugler.org
REFERENCES
1. Pusey, Merlo, J., Charles Evans Hughes [Vol.2] [Columbia University Press New York, 1963
2. Kelly, A.H. and Harbison, W.A., The American Constitution - Its Origins and Development [W.W.Norton & Co. Inc. New York, 1948
3. Mason, Alpheus, The Supreme Court from Taft to Warren [Louisiana State University Press: Baton Rouge, 1958]
4. Krock, Arthur, The Consent of the Governed - And Other Deceits, [ Little, Brown and Company---Boston, Ma. 1971]
5. Hickey, W., The Constitution of the United States of America, with Papers of George Washington. [Philadelphia, 1853] [Farewell Address of George Washington, President, to the people of the United States, September 17, 1796 ]
6. Brant, Irving the Fourth President - A Life of James Madison [Eyre & Spottiswoode] (Publishers) Ltd. London, 1970
APPENDIX 1
Article I, Section 8.
The Congress shall have Power
To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and General Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas,
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, Dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
-And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, of in any department or Officer thereof.
**********************************
|
|
The Constitution did not grant to the Supreme Court the authority to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. The Doctrine of Judicial Review was a power that the court granted to itself in 1801. Chief Justice John Marshall was a political ally of Alexander Hamilton and they both believed in the notion that the Constitution had implied powers.
The Constitution was written as a rule book that the government was expected to follow. The framers of the Constitution knew that only if the Constitution was strictly obeyed could it prevent the government from abusing the rights of the people.
The states delegated to the Constitution a short list of delegated powers and anything that was not delegated to the central government was prohibited. Hamilton wanted the Constitution to be interpreted loosely so that the government could assume powers that were not specifically enumerated. Those that favored a strong central government were constrained by the Constitution in order for the Federalists to achieve their objectives they needed to sell the idea that Congress could do whatever they deemed was necessary and proper.
The framers of the Constitution wanted changes in the Constitution to be the result of the ratification of Amendments. With a loosely interpreted Constitution, Congress can circumvent the amendment process.The states created to government of the United States and were supposed to be the master. The rightful authority to interpret the meaning of the Constitution rests with the states and the people. The framers never intended to grant their employees to have the authority to amend the Constitution by misinterpreting it. Putting the court in charge of interpreting the Constitution would be like hiring a fox to guard the hen house.
http://constitutionclub.ning.com/forum/topics/the-doctrine-of-judicial-review?xg_source=msg_mes_network
The Constitution was written as a rule book that the government was expected to follow. The framers of the Constitution knew that only if the Constitution was strictly obeyed could it prevent the government from abusing the rights of the people.
The states delegated to the Constitution a short list of delegated powers and anything that was not delegated to the central government was prohibited. Hamilton wanted the Constitution to be interpreted loosely so that the government could assume powers that were not specifically enumerated. Those that favored a strong central government were constrained by the Constitution in order for the Federalists to achieve their objectives they needed to sell the idea that Congress could do whatever they deemed was necessary and proper.
The framers of the Constitution wanted changes in the Constitution to be the result of the ratification of Amendments. With a loosely interpreted Constitution, Congress can circumvent the amendment process.The states created to government of the United States and were supposed to be the master. The rightful authority to interpret the meaning of the Constitution rests with the states and the people. The framers never intended to grant their employees to have the authority to amend the Constitution by misinterpreting it. Putting the court in charge of interpreting the Constitution would be like hiring a fox to guard the hen house.
http://constitutionclub.ning.com/forum/topics/the-doctrine-of-judicial-review?xg_source=msg_mes_network
The Struggle From the beginning of America Until Now
I know most of you will think this piece is just a superficial attempt to justify our cause. Those of you who do, I suggest that you get ye hence to a Library, and see if you can get into the research section that has history books and encyclopedia's printed before 1876, and two or three sources of them if possible, to cross check and verify the facts.
At the beginnings of our Country, all the Founding Fathers were eager to gain Independence from England, but at first there were two factions who wanted something different for the path the new Government would take. One Faction believed it should be a strong Central Government based on the Monarchies of the time, and even proposed to George Washington that he be installed as an American King. Of course Washington refused, and set us on the path to a Republic.
We started out with the Declaration of Independence (read it in toto here http://www.constitution.org/usdeclar.htm), seriously read the whole document. It set the Tone and Tenor for America to become what it was envisioned to be, a self government by the people. Those same Founders who fought for Independence, were split on the actual form the new Government would take, and came up with the Articles of the Confederation of the perpetual union of the United States of America to begin the experiment.
Let's take a look at the term 'United States'. At this point in time, the average American probably thinks of States in terms of New York, California, Texas, and the other 47 as political subdivisions of the United States as a whole. When the Revolution was successful, the individual States then became independent Countries or 'Nation States' unto themselves, just like the Countries of Europe were 'Nation States'. They voluntarily banded together into what could be compared today to the European Union, and formed the United States under the Articles of The Confederation of the Perpetual Union of the United States of America,(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation_and_Perpetual_Union) and
(http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Articles+of+Confederation+and+Perpetual+Union) to read the entire document so you can compare it with the Constitution. This was another first for America and the self government experiment.
In effect the articles of the Confederation was our first codification of union before the Constitution, and originally drafted in 1776, it contained the provisions for a strong central government. It was ratified in a much weaker form in 1781, because the Anti-Federalists (Jefferson was one,and we would call them Conservatives today) were staunch supporters of States Rights, and were determined to preserve their 'States Rights' and keep a full measure of independence and Sovereignty. In short the ratified version became basically akin to a loose Confederation with very little in the way of Central powers to enforce any Federal laws or Regulations. This upset the Federalists (today we would call them Progressive) and the fight for control was on.
The lack of power in a central government was reflected in the continuous problems with Interstate Commerce and Tax Collection. It even caused problems in providing for the common defense. Things went on this way until Shay's Rebellion proved the Federal Government could not intervene internally because there was no provision for them to legally do so in the Articles. That sparked the actions leading up to amending the Articles of the Confederation which would become the framing of the Constitution. The crux of that was the the original idea that the States were independent Sovereign entities and just loosely aligned was not addressed. That in turn led to one of the bloodiest periods in American History when the Ideology of the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists clashed in our Civil War.
The Civil War settled the argument in favor of the Federalists, and we have been moving more and more towards a massive all controlling central government since. We are now being faced with a rogue administration that wants to scrap 237 years of American Tradition to create a new national identity of Forced Conformance based on Socialism, to what is called the New World Order.
What the sycophants, followers, and greedy grabbers fail to understand is; There is nothing new about the new world order. It is basically a rule by man, that takes everything for themselves and the select few, while dictating how the rest will stoop to serve the anointed ones in power. They will rule with an iron fist and enforce that rule with draconian punishments and even executions to keep the masses in line.
Don't believe me, look to history: Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Idi Amin's Uganda, Red China, Ho Chi Minh's Vietnam, Pol Pot in Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge, and every Banana Republic ruled by a Dictator. If you have your eyes open and are not brain dead, you will see the end results of allowing dictators to ascend to total power, and how they abuse that power once no one can challenge them.
The very first thing they do is to infiltrate the education system and subtly change it over time to their preferred views. Concurrently with this they start to sway the youth and tell them they can do anything they want to and not be slaves to their parents way of doing things. Doing this they break down the morals and values through ridicule and the lure of 'Hedonistic lures of luxuries,free sex, instant gratification, luxuries without work', paid for by "The Government" all without consequences to their actions.
Unfortunately for America, that crap has been working it's evil influence on us for the last 66 years, and is showing itself to be our downfall, unless we stop it. The 60+ crowd will not be able to stop it no matter what they do. What is needed is for the youth to be taught how the freebie system only has a short shelf life, and will turn on them sooner than they think it will. Same goes for the Welfare crowd who seemingly always have their collective hands out for more free stuff at others expense.
Programs need to be directed towards the youth of our Country that will grab them and make them think. They have to be fun and compelling like the video games that occupy so much of the youth's time. Maybe someone could come up with a video game that takes the player from before the Revolution up to today with the player making all the choices in building their version of America as they envision it, but with the game based in the reality of what would most likely happen for every action taken.
Something to think about,
The Tradesman
************************************
At the beginnings of our Country, all the Founding Fathers were eager to gain Independence from England, but at first there were two factions who wanted something different for the path the new Government would take. One Faction believed it should be a strong Central Government based on the Monarchies of the time, and even proposed to George Washington that he be installed as an American King. Of course Washington refused, and set us on the path to a Republic.
We started out with the Declaration of Independence (read it in toto here http://www.constitution.org/usdeclar.htm), seriously read the whole document. It set the Tone and Tenor for America to become what it was envisioned to be, a self government by the people. Those same Founders who fought for Independence, were split on the actual form the new Government would take, and came up with the Articles of the Confederation of the perpetual union of the United States of America to begin the experiment.
Let's take a look at the term 'United States'. At this point in time, the average American probably thinks of States in terms of New York, California, Texas, and the other 47 as political subdivisions of the United States as a whole. When the Revolution was successful, the individual States then became independent Countries or 'Nation States' unto themselves, just like the Countries of Europe were 'Nation States'. They voluntarily banded together into what could be compared today to the European Union, and formed the United States under the Articles of The Confederation of the Perpetual Union of the United States of America,(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation_and_Perpetual_Union) and
(http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Articles+of+Confederation+and+Perpetual+Union) to read the entire document so you can compare it with the Constitution. This was another first for America and the self government experiment.
In effect the articles of the Confederation was our first codification of union before the Constitution, and originally drafted in 1776, it contained the provisions for a strong central government. It was ratified in a much weaker form in 1781, because the Anti-Federalists (Jefferson was one,and we would call them Conservatives today) were staunch supporters of States Rights, and were determined to preserve their 'States Rights' and keep a full measure of independence and Sovereignty. In short the ratified version became basically akin to a loose Confederation with very little in the way of Central powers to enforce any Federal laws or Regulations. This upset the Federalists (today we would call them Progressive) and the fight for control was on.
The lack of power in a central government was reflected in the continuous problems with Interstate Commerce and Tax Collection. It even caused problems in providing for the common defense. Things went on this way until Shay's Rebellion proved the Federal Government could not intervene internally because there was no provision for them to legally do so in the Articles. That sparked the actions leading up to amending the Articles of the Confederation which would become the framing of the Constitution. The crux of that was the the original idea that the States were independent Sovereign entities and just loosely aligned was not addressed. That in turn led to one of the bloodiest periods in American History when the Ideology of the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists clashed in our Civil War.
The Civil War settled the argument in favor of the Federalists, and we have been moving more and more towards a massive all controlling central government since. We are now being faced with a rogue administration that wants to scrap 237 years of American Tradition to create a new national identity of Forced Conformance based on Socialism, to what is called the New World Order.
What the sycophants, followers, and greedy grabbers fail to understand is; There is nothing new about the new world order. It is basically a rule by man, that takes everything for themselves and the select few, while dictating how the rest will stoop to serve the anointed ones in power. They will rule with an iron fist and enforce that rule with draconian punishments and even executions to keep the masses in line.
Don't believe me, look to history: Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Idi Amin's Uganda, Red China, Ho Chi Minh's Vietnam, Pol Pot in Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge, and every Banana Republic ruled by a Dictator. If you have your eyes open and are not brain dead, you will see the end results of allowing dictators to ascend to total power, and how they abuse that power once no one can challenge them.
The very first thing they do is to infiltrate the education system and subtly change it over time to their preferred views. Concurrently with this they start to sway the youth and tell them they can do anything they want to and not be slaves to their parents way of doing things. Doing this they break down the morals and values through ridicule and the lure of 'Hedonistic lures of luxuries,free sex, instant gratification, luxuries without work', paid for by "The Government" all without consequences to their actions.
Unfortunately for America, that crap has been working it's evil influence on us for the last 66 years, and is showing itself to be our downfall, unless we stop it. The 60+ crowd will not be able to stop it no matter what they do. What is needed is for the youth to be taught how the freebie system only has a short shelf life, and will turn on them sooner than they think it will. Same goes for the Welfare crowd who seemingly always have their collective hands out for more free stuff at others expense.
Programs need to be directed towards the youth of our Country that will grab them and make them think. They have to be fun and compelling like the video games that occupy so much of the youth's time. Maybe someone could come up with a video game that takes the player from before the Revolution up to today with the player making all the choices in building their version of America as they envision it, but with the game based in the reality of what would most likely happen for every action taken.
Something to think about,
The Tradesman
************************************
A Beautiful Commentary.
Why “progressives” disregard the Declaration Of Independence. It verifies for many Patriots, our struggle is indeed, also involved in a spiritual warfare front. Politics as it is practiced, is just the noisiest and a most visible tactic, in the much greater war. J.T.
Why “progressives” disregard the Declaration Of Independence. It verifies for many Patriots, our struggle is indeed, also involved in a spiritual warfare front. Politics as it is practiced, is just the noisiest and a most visible tactic, in the much greater war. J.T.
A Principle of the Traditional American Philosophy
1. The Spiritual is Supreme
". . . all men are created . . . endowed by their Creator . . ." (Declaration of Independence)
The Principle
1. The fundamental principle underlying the traditional American philosophy is that the Spiritual is supreme--that Man is of Divine origin and his spiritual, or religious, nature is of supreme value and importance compared with things material.
Religious Nature
2. This governmental philosophy is, therefore, essentially religious in nature. It is uniquely American; no other people in all history have ever made this principle the basis of their governmental philosophy. The spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God is a concept which is basic to this American philosophy. It expresses the spiritual relationship of God to Man and, in the light thereof, of Man to Man. To forget these truths is a most heinous offense against the spirit of traditional America because the greatest sin is the lost consciousness of sin.
The fundamentally religious basis of this philosophy is the foundation of its moral code, which contemplates The Individual's moral duty as being created by God's Law: the Natural Law. The Individual's duty requires obedience to this Higher Law; while knowledge of this duty comes from conscience, which the religious-minded and morally-aware Individual feels duty-bound to heed. This philosophy asserts that there are moral absolutes: truths, such as those mentioned above, which are binding upon all Individuals at all times under all circumstances. This indicates some of the spiritual and moral values which are inherent in its concept of Individual Liberty-Responsibility.
An Indivisible Whole
3. The American philosophy, based upon this principle, is an indivisible whole and must be accepted or rejected as such. It cannot be treated piece-meal. Its fundamentals and its implicit meanings and obligations must be accepted together with its benefits.
The Individual's Self-respect
4. The concept of Man's spiritual nature, and the resulting concept of the supreme dignity and value of each Individual, provide the fundamental basis for each Individual's self-respect and the consequent mutual respect among Individual's. This self-respect as well as this mutual respect are the outgrowth of, and evidenced by, The Individual's maintenance of his God-given, unalienable rights. They are maintained by requiring that government and other Individuals respect them, as well as by his dedication to his own unceasing growth toward realization of his highest potential--spiritually, morally, intellectually, in every aspect of life. This is in order that he may merit maximum respect by self and by others.
Some Things Excluded
5. This concept of Man's spiritual nature excludes any idea of intrusion by government into this Man-to-Man spiritual relationship. It excludes the anti-moral precept that the end justifies the means and the related idea that the means can be separated from the end when judging them morally. This concept therefore excludes necessarily any idea of attempting to do good by force--for instance, through coercion of Man by Government, whether or not claimed to be for his own good or for the so-called common good or general welfare.
It excludes disbelief in--even doubt as to the existence of--God as the Creator of Man: and therefore excludes all ideas, theories and schools of thought--however ethical and lofty in intentions--which reject affirmative and positive belief in God as Man's Creator.
The Truly American Concept
6. Only those ideas, programs and practices, regarding things governmental, which are consistent with the concept that "The Spiritual is supreme" can justly be claimed to be truly American traditionally. Anything and everything governmental, which is in conflict with this concept, is non-American--judged by traditional belief.
This applies particularly to that which is agnostic, or atheistic--neutral about, or hostile to, positive and affirmative belief in this concept based upon belief in God as Man's Creator. There is not room for doubt, much less disbelief, in this regard from the standpoint of the traditional American philosophy. Its indivisible nature makes this inescapably true. This pertains, of course, to the realm of ideas and not to any person; it is the conflicting idea which is classified as non-American, according to this philosophy.
America a Haven For All Religions
7. The traditional American philosophy teaches that belief in God is the fundamental link which unites the adherents of all religions in a spiritual brotherhood. This philosophy allows for no differentiation between them in this unifying conviction: ". . . all men are created . . . endowed by their Creator . . ." This philosophy is all inclusive as to believers in God. Although America was originally colonized predominantly by adherents of the Christian religion, and principally by Protestants, the Founding Fathers steadfastly conformed to this all-embracing character of the approach of the American philosophy to religion. This was expressly and affirmatively indicated in the proclamation of 1776 of the fundamental American philosophy, of its basic principles, in the Declaration of Independence. This was further indicated, negatively, in 1787-1788 by the Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution--as a "blueprint" for the structure of the then proposed Federal government, with strictly limited powers--by not permitting it to possess any power with regard to religion. This implied prohibition against the Federal government was reinforced by the addition of the First Amendment expressly prohibiting it, through the Congress, from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."--the words "an establishment of religion" being intended to mean, specifically and only, a church or religious organizationwhich is established, supported and preferred by the government, like the Church of England establishments then existing in some of the States.
The Conclusion
8. Belief in Man's Divine origin is the foundation of the fundamental American principle which controls his relationship to government: that Man--The Individual--is of supreme dignity and value because of his spiritual nature.
Quotes from The American Ideal of 1776 supporting this Principle.
". . . all men are created . . . endowed by their Creator . . ." (Declaration of Independence)
The Principle
1. The fundamental principle underlying the traditional American philosophy is that the Spiritual is supreme--that Man is of Divine origin and his spiritual, or religious, nature is of supreme value and importance compared with things material.
Religious Nature
2. This governmental philosophy is, therefore, essentially religious in nature. It is uniquely American; no other people in all history have ever made this principle the basis of their governmental philosophy. The spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God is a concept which is basic to this American philosophy. It expresses the spiritual relationship of God to Man and, in the light thereof, of Man to Man. To forget these truths is a most heinous offense against the spirit of traditional America because the greatest sin is the lost consciousness of sin.
The fundamentally religious basis of this philosophy is the foundation of its moral code, which contemplates The Individual's moral duty as being created by God's Law: the Natural Law. The Individual's duty requires obedience to this Higher Law; while knowledge of this duty comes from conscience, which the religious-minded and morally-aware Individual feels duty-bound to heed. This philosophy asserts that there are moral absolutes: truths, such as those mentioned above, which are binding upon all Individuals at all times under all circumstances. This indicates some of the spiritual and moral values which are inherent in its concept of Individual Liberty-Responsibility.
An Indivisible Whole
3. The American philosophy, based upon this principle, is an indivisible whole and must be accepted or rejected as such. It cannot be treated piece-meal. Its fundamentals and its implicit meanings and obligations must be accepted together with its benefits.
The Individual's Self-respect
4. The concept of Man's spiritual nature, and the resulting concept of the supreme dignity and value of each Individual, provide the fundamental basis for each Individual's self-respect and the consequent mutual respect among Individual's. This self-respect as well as this mutual respect are the outgrowth of, and evidenced by, The Individual's maintenance of his God-given, unalienable rights. They are maintained by requiring that government and other Individuals respect them, as well as by his dedication to his own unceasing growth toward realization of his highest potential--spiritually, morally, intellectually, in every aspect of life. This is in order that he may merit maximum respect by self and by others.
Some Things Excluded
5. This concept of Man's spiritual nature excludes any idea of intrusion by government into this Man-to-Man spiritual relationship. It excludes the anti-moral precept that the end justifies the means and the related idea that the means can be separated from the end when judging them morally. This concept therefore excludes necessarily any idea of attempting to do good by force--for instance, through coercion of Man by Government, whether or not claimed to be for his own good or for the so-called common good or general welfare.
It excludes disbelief in--even doubt as to the existence of--God as the Creator of Man: and therefore excludes all ideas, theories and schools of thought--however ethical and lofty in intentions--which reject affirmative and positive belief in God as Man's Creator.
The Truly American Concept
6. Only those ideas, programs and practices, regarding things governmental, which are consistent with the concept that "The Spiritual is supreme" can justly be claimed to be truly American traditionally. Anything and everything governmental, which is in conflict with this concept, is non-American--judged by traditional belief.
This applies particularly to that which is agnostic, or atheistic--neutral about, or hostile to, positive and affirmative belief in this concept based upon belief in God as Man's Creator. There is not room for doubt, much less disbelief, in this regard from the standpoint of the traditional American philosophy. Its indivisible nature makes this inescapably true. This pertains, of course, to the realm of ideas and not to any person; it is the conflicting idea which is classified as non-American, according to this philosophy.
America a Haven For All Religions
7. The traditional American philosophy teaches that belief in God is the fundamental link which unites the adherents of all religions in a spiritual brotherhood. This philosophy allows for no differentiation between them in this unifying conviction: ". . . all men are created . . . endowed by their Creator . . ." This philosophy is all inclusive as to believers in God. Although America was originally colonized predominantly by adherents of the Christian religion, and principally by Protestants, the Founding Fathers steadfastly conformed to this all-embracing character of the approach of the American philosophy to religion. This was expressly and affirmatively indicated in the proclamation of 1776 of the fundamental American philosophy, of its basic principles, in the Declaration of Independence. This was further indicated, negatively, in 1787-1788 by the Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution--as a "blueprint" for the structure of the then proposed Federal government, with strictly limited powers--by not permitting it to possess any power with regard to religion. This implied prohibition against the Federal government was reinforced by the addition of the First Amendment expressly prohibiting it, through the Congress, from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."--the words "an establishment of religion" being intended to mean, specifically and only, a church or religious organizationwhich is established, supported and preferred by the government, like the Church of England establishments then existing in some of the States.
The Conclusion
8. Belief in Man's Divine origin is the foundation of the fundamental American principle which controls his relationship to government: that Man--The Individual--is of supreme dignity and value because of his spiritual nature.
Quotes from The American Ideal of 1776 supporting this Principle.
THEY LIE TO US DON'T THEY AND THEN THEY TAKE OUR HARD EARNED WEALTH IN VIOLATION OF THE 5TH AMENDMENT?
I submit the following piece about Progressive taxes to prove the point that property taxes being based on the "CURRENT" market value not what you paid for the house is taxing unrealized capital gain income. Very progressive but hit the poor harder even in a rental situation. Think about the government lets you sell your home under certain IRS rules and you can avoid capital gains taxes on the gain, but you have been taxed on the gain already through property taxes progressiveness.
Here is the abstract:
The realization requirement, under which taxes are only imposed when an asset is sold and not when it merely appreciates, is the income tax’s original sin. It is long-standing, yet widely considered the main source of tax complexity, inequity, and economic distortion. Despite its problems, realization is considered a basic and indispensable element of modern income tax regimes. It is explained early in most federal income tax courses as necessitated by problems of asset valuation and taxpayer liquidity. To the dismay of certain professors, this explanation usually generates little class discussion. More worrisome, it is also widely accepted outside the classroom—prompting few political objections or normative academic inquiries.
The goal of this presentation is to provide a normative framework to allow policymakers to better understand the role of the realization requirement. It makes two related arguments. First, with respect to certain emotionally non-fungible (personal) assets, realization is normatively justified because the market price is not a good indication of their value to their owners. Second, contrary to the traditional view of realization as a regressive element, taxing only these personal assets upon realization would promote income tax base progressivity. The key point is that personal assets represent a larger portion of the wealth of low- and, even more so, medium-income taxpayers than of the wealthy.
Our approach provides a heretofore absent basis for developing a more effective and coherent policy with respect to realization. This analysis contributes to the broader tax reform debate and opens a novel theoretical inquiry with respect to the distributive impact of different types of errors.
THEY LIE TO US DON'T THEY, AND THEN THEY TAKE OUR HARD EARNED WEALTH IN VIOLATION OF THE 5TH AMENDMENT?
Resources:
Benshalom Presents Realization and Progressivity Today at Toronto
Benshalom Ilan Benshalom (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Faculty of Law) presents Realization and Progressivity of the Ideal Tax Base: A Normative Defense for the Achilles Heel of the Income Tax (with Kendra Stead (J.D. 2010, Northwestern)) at the University of Toronto today as part of the James Hausman Tax Law and Policy Workshop Series.
Mangus Colorado
Here is the abstract:
The realization requirement, under which taxes are only imposed when an asset is sold and not when it merely appreciates, is the income tax’s original sin. It is long-standing, yet widely considered the main source of tax complexity, inequity, and economic distortion. Despite its problems, realization is considered a basic and indispensable element of modern income tax regimes. It is explained early in most federal income tax courses as necessitated by problems of asset valuation and taxpayer liquidity. To the dismay of certain professors, this explanation usually generates little class discussion. More worrisome, it is also widely accepted outside the classroom—prompting few political objections or normative academic inquiries.
The goal of this presentation is to provide a normative framework to allow policymakers to better understand the role of the realization requirement. It makes two related arguments. First, with respect to certain emotionally non-fungible (personal) assets, realization is normatively justified because the market price is not a good indication of their value to their owners. Second, contrary to the traditional view of realization as a regressive element, taxing only these personal assets upon realization would promote income tax base progressivity. The key point is that personal assets represent a larger portion of the wealth of low- and, even more so, medium-income taxpayers than of the wealthy.
Our approach provides a heretofore absent basis for developing a more effective and coherent policy with respect to realization. This analysis contributes to the broader tax reform debate and opens a novel theoretical inquiry with respect to the distributive impact of different types of errors.
THEY LIE TO US DON'T THEY, AND THEN THEY TAKE OUR HARD EARNED WEALTH IN VIOLATION OF THE 5TH AMENDMENT?
Resources:
Benshalom Presents Realization and Progressivity Today at Toronto
Benshalom Ilan Benshalom (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Faculty of Law) presents Realization and Progressivity of the Ideal Tax Base: A Normative Defense for the Achilles Heel of the Income Tax (with Kendra Stead (J.D. 2010, Northwestern)) at the University of Toronto today as part of the James Hausman Tax Law and Policy Workshop Series.
Mangus Colorado
How Taxation WITH Representation Has Become Tyranny
Taxation as a Governmental Tool in Every Generation - At some point taxation of the public becomes indefensible thievery by Government. I believe it has reached that point at its present levels in Federal and State taxation. The average person has to maintain a sustainable budget throughout their lifetime to survive. If their income remains stagnant or goes down, they have to cut back to make ends meet. Our Congress, and by that I mean all parties in that Congress seems to think they are above that necessity. If the current Administration and Congress gets its way with the budget, they will totally bankrupt our Nation.
We are now a debtor Nation. The people of this Nation did not approve or want to become a Debtor Nation. The Debtor Status was gradually and forcefully imposed on us over the last 50 years by unbridled spending. Most of the programs were supposedly to help us prosper. Take the Great Society programs initiated by Lyndon Johnson. His Administration was spending on a War, the Space Program, and Social Justice Programs. At first they seemed to do what they were proposed to do, unfortunately they locked a generation in massive debt. The War was lost because of political ineptitude. The Space Program actually started to give back to society until it too was politicized and broken. The Great Society envisioned by Lyndon Johnson trapped a generation of the poor in a system they could not break out of. It did nothing to better their self-sufficiency or educations to break away to the better jobs they could have gotten if it was run properly. Instead it was a political voter pool that had to keep voting the way they were or starve.
The Nixon Administration opened up China. It made concessions that benefited only China and hurt US interests. Most of our trade negotiations during the periods of 1965 through today have hurt American Business and cost us uncounted numbers of jobs. The Reagan Administration tore down most of the necessary regulations on business, creating a financial bubble we would have to pay for.
The G.W. Bush administration fought the first Gulf War and did nothing to stop the loss of jobs overseas. The Clinton Administration finalized the North American Free Trade Act and that helped to move massive amounts of jobs out. It also touted False Surplus, which finally showed up because of the end of the Cold War Spending and the attendant downsizing of the Armed Forces because of those reasons.
The G.W. Bush administration was faced with a sneak attack and responded by declaring war on Terrorism. The mistake that Administration made was the Classic mistake of poor to nonexistent intelligence and opening a war on two fronts. It also created the Patriot Act, and the Office of Homeland Security costing us even more tax dollars.
Along comes the Obama Administration and it wants to expand spending while the economy is fractured and shrinking. The Proposals of this Administration far surpass anything that has been done to date. With the Health Care package costing $1 Trillion and the Proposed Cap & Trade Bill costing an as yet unknown amount in dollars and jobs. The Congress must be made to see reason and be forced to balance the budget before any new programs are imposed.
The Tradesman
We are now a debtor Nation. The people of this Nation did not approve or want to become a Debtor Nation. The Debtor Status was gradually and forcefully imposed on us over the last 50 years by unbridled spending. Most of the programs were supposedly to help us prosper. Take the Great Society programs initiated by Lyndon Johnson. His Administration was spending on a War, the Space Program, and Social Justice Programs. At first they seemed to do what they were proposed to do, unfortunately they locked a generation in massive debt. The War was lost because of political ineptitude. The Space Program actually started to give back to society until it too was politicized and broken. The Great Society envisioned by Lyndon Johnson trapped a generation of the poor in a system they could not break out of. It did nothing to better their self-sufficiency or educations to break away to the better jobs they could have gotten if it was run properly. Instead it was a political voter pool that had to keep voting the way they were or starve.
The Nixon Administration opened up China. It made concessions that benefited only China and hurt US interests. Most of our trade negotiations during the periods of 1965 through today have hurt American Business and cost us uncounted numbers of jobs. The Reagan Administration tore down most of the necessary regulations on business, creating a financial bubble we would have to pay for.
The G.W. Bush administration fought the first Gulf War and did nothing to stop the loss of jobs overseas. The Clinton Administration finalized the North American Free Trade Act and that helped to move massive amounts of jobs out. It also touted False Surplus, which finally showed up because of the end of the Cold War Spending and the attendant downsizing of the Armed Forces because of those reasons.
The G.W. Bush administration was faced with a sneak attack and responded by declaring war on Terrorism. The mistake that Administration made was the Classic mistake of poor to nonexistent intelligence and opening a war on two fronts. It also created the Patriot Act, and the Office of Homeland Security costing us even more tax dollars.
Along comes the Obama Administration and it wants to expand spending while the economy is fractured and shrinking. The Proposals of this Administration far surpass anything that has been done to date. With the Health Care package costing $1 Trillion and the Proposed Cap & Trade Bill costing an as yet unknown amount in dollars and jobs. The Congress must be made to see reason and be forced to balance the budget before any new programs are imposed.
The Tradesman