Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since no one seems prepared to discuss the reasons for calling a Constitutional Convention in the first place, let me dismiss one recurring argument, the convention was convened to limit government.
We know this, that Alexander Hamilton and James Madison were the primary sponsors of what Hamilton referred to as "a Convention of Deputies from the different States, for the special and sole purpose of entering into this investigation, and digesting a plan for supplying such defects as may be discovered to exist."
And what was the first plan presented by one of the prime movers, James Madison, the Virginia Plan.
Resolutions proposed by Mr. Randolph in Convention May 29, 1787
1. Resolved that the Articles of Confederation ought to be so corrected and enlarged as to accomplish the objects proposed by their institution; namely, "common defense, security of liberty and general welfare."
2. Resolved therefore that the rights of suffrage in the National Legislature ought to be proportioned to the Quotas of contribution, or to the number of free inhabitants, as the one or the other rule may seem best in different cases. [1]
3. Resolved that the National Legislature ought to consist of two branches. [2]
4. Resolved that the members of the first branch of the National Legislature ought to be elected by the people of the several States every — for the term of —; to be of the age of — years at least, to receive liberal stipends by with they may be compensated for the devotion of their time to public service; to be ineligible to any office established by a particular State, or under the authority of the United States, except those peculiarly belonging to the functions of the first branch, during the term of service, and for the space of — after its expiration; to be incapable of reelection for the space of — after the expiration of their term of service, and to be subject to recall. [3]
5. Resolved that the members of the second branch of the National Legislature ought to be elected by those of the first, out of a proper number of persons nominated by the individual Legislatures, to be of the age of — years at least; to hold their offices for a term sufficient to ensure their independency; to receive liberal stipends, by which they may be compensated for the devotion of their time to public service; and to be ineligible to any office established by a particular State, or under the authority of the United States, except those peculiarly belonging to the functions of the second branch, during the term of service, and for the space of — after the expiration thereof. [4]
6. Resolved that each branch ought to possess the right of originating Acts; that the National Legislature ought to be empowered to enjoy the Legislative Rights vested in Congress by the Confederation and moreover to legislate in all cases to which the separate States are incompetent, or in which the harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual Legislation; to negative all laws passed by the several States, contravening in the opinion of the National Legislature the articles of Union; and to call forth the force of the Union against any member of the Union failing to fulfill its duty under the articles thereof. [5]
7. Resolved that a National Executive be instituted; to be chosen by the National Legislature for the term of — years, to receive punctually at stated times, a fixed compensation for the services rendered, in which no increase or diminution shall be made so as to affect the Magistracy, existing at the time of increase or diminution, and to be ineligible a second time; and that besides a general authority to execute the National laws, it ought to enjoy the Executive rights vested in Congress by the Confederation. [6]
8. Resolved that the Executive and a convenient number of the National Judiciary, ought to compose a Council of revision with authority to examine every act of the National Legislature before it shall operate, and every act of a particular Legislature before a Negative thereon shall be final; and that the dissent of the said Council shall amount to a rejection, unless the Act of the National Legislature be again passed, or that of a particular Legislature be again negatived by — of the members of each branch. [7]
9. Resolved that a National Judiciary be established to consist of one or more supreme tribunals, and of inferior tribunals to be chosen by the National Legislature, to hold their offices during good behavior; and to receive punctually at stated times fixed compensation for their services, in which no increase or diminution shall be made so as to affect the persons actually in office at the time of such increase or diminution. That the jurisdiction of the inferior tribunals shall be to hear and determine in the first instance, and of the supreme tribunal to hear and determine in the dernier resort, all piracies and felonies on the high seas, captures from an enemy; cases in which foreigners or citizens of other States applying to such jurisdictions may be interested, or which respect the collection of the National revenue; impeachments of any National officers, and questions which may involve the national peace and harmony. [8]
10. Resolved that provision ought to be made for the admission of States lawfully arising within the limits of the United States, whether from a voluntary junction of Government and Territory or otherwise, with the consent of a number of voices in the National legislature less than the whole. [9]
11. Resolved that a Republican Government and the territory of each State, except in the instance of a voluntary junction of Government and territory, ought to be guarantied by the United States to each State. [10]
12. Resolved that provision ought to be made for the continuance of Congress and their authorities and privileges, until a given day after the reform of the articles of Union shall be adopted, and for the completion of all their engagements.
13. Resolved that provision ought to be made for the amendment of the Articles of Union whensoever it shall seem necessary, and that the assent of the National Legislature ought not to be required thereto. [11]
14. Resolved that the Legislative Executive and Judiciary powers within the several States ought to be bound by oath to support the articles of Union. [12]
15. Resolved that the amendments which shall be offered to the Confederation, by the Convention ought at a proper time, or times, after the approbation of Congress to be submitted to an assembly or assemblies of Representatives, recommended by the several Legislatures to be expressly chosen by the people, to consider and decide thereon.
Now I admit that my eyes have grown defective with age, so perhaps someone more capable can discern the portions of this proposal that was concerned with the sovereignty of states or the protection of individual rights in stead of the formation of a stronger central government?
There you go again, trying to confuse conservatives with the facts.
Just to get a feel of what folks think in general about the Constitution.
To the two (so far) that said it is irrelevant today, have you ever read the Constitution? Can you point to something specific in it that you don't think is relevant?
The Constitution was written to be timeless. Nothing in it can become out dated, unless (as Progressives want to do) there is an attempt to "fundamentally change" America (hmmmmm, now where have I heard that phrase?)
The truth is, contrary to suggestions otherwise, the Constitution leaves little to one's imagination insofar as principle intentions and philosophical foundations are concerned, nor leaves any door open to wildly divergent personal interpretations of such.
First, let me compliment you on your well written post, however (you had to know it was coming) as rhetorically rich as it was, it was rather anemic when it came to substance. For example; to argue that the Constitution left little room for "wildly divergent" interpretations will come as news to anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the ideological struggles waged by those aligned with Alexander Hamilton's interpretation of the Constitution and and those aligned with Madison's views on the subject.
First, let me compliment you on your well written post, however (you had to know it was coming) as rhetorically rich as it was, it was rather anemic when it came to substance. For example; to argue that the Constitution left little room for "wildly divergent" interpretations will come as news to anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the ideological struggles waged by those aligned with Alexander Hamilton's interpretation of the Constitution and and those aligned with Madison's views on the subject.
Separation of powers is a device that was invented to keep the gamers and intriguers too busy and absorbed to tyrannize individuals.
It was designed to be too interesting to itself be gamed.
After years and years of successful encroachment, the game is no longer played, but rather it is gamed. The president can order you to purchase mercury bulbs from the company that contributed to his campaign, and use said bulb in your own home.
The courts are a joke. The congress is a joke. And, the president is a joke.
Why is it that every time a thread on the Constitution comes up folks are all filled with all sort so of definitive statements and high flying rhetoric until I start asking pointed questions and all then all of the conversation turns to vile and vinegar before slipping once again into oblivion?
I always feel like the nerdy kid who breaks up the jock party.
Why is it that every time a thread on the Constitution comes up folks are all filled with all sort so of definitive statements and high flying rhetoric until I start asking pointed questions and all then all of the conversation turns to vile and vinegar before slipping once again into oblivion?
I always feel like the nerdy kid who breaks up the jock party.
Good question. Look at the reply I got from someone making a personal comment. There are people that for some reason cannot or do not want to keep a civil conversation and resort to personal comments. The thread is very informative so far though. I like the discussion.
However, since you ask the question, maybe you can do some self evaluation on your discussion tactics if you see that what happens to you tends to be something that keeps happening to YOU. Take care.
To the two (so far) that said it is irrelevant today, have you ever read the Constitution? Can you point to something specific in it that you don't think is relevant?
The Constitution was written to be timeless. Nothing in it can become out dated, unless (as Progressives want to do) there is an attempt to "fundamentally change" America (hmmmmm, now where have I heard that phrase?)
I do agree that it was written in a way that it covers basic principles without being to specific with some exceptions.
Yes, the Constitution is relevant today because the principles the Declartion of Indepence are reflected in the Constitution. Take care.
maybe you can do some self evaluation on your discussion tactics if you see that what happens to you tends to be something that keeps happening to YOU. Take care.
Oh, I know why this keep happening.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
