Constitution Convention Timeline

This is a chronological day by day account of the Constitution timeline of related links of articles written here. Dates of debate may be linked to the full notes taken by Delegates that date.

Day	Date	Subject	Notes of the day
-	N/A	What are the Articles of Confederation	January 8, 2011
-	N/A	Why the Articles of Confederation failed	January 14, 2011
-	September 1786	Prelude, the Annapolis Convention of 1786	January 24, 2011
-	February 21, 1787	The Convention is Called	January 25, 2011
-	May 14, 1787	The Delegates begin to arrive	January 27, 2011
1	May 25, 1787	Choosing a Convention President and setting the Rules	January 28, 2011
2	May 28, 1787	Setting the Rules of Debate	January 29, 2011
3	May 29, 1787	The Virginia Plan and Pinckney Plan	January 30, 2011
4	May 30, 1787	Three Branches and Supreme Power	January 31, 2011
5	May 31, 1787	The People will vote, and selecting the Senate	February 1, 2011
6	June 1, 1787	The Executive	February 6, 2011
7	June 2, 1787	Selecting and term of the Executive	February 12, 2011

Convention of 1787: May 30, 1787 Day 4; Three Branches, and Supreme Power

With the Virginia Plan and the Pinckney Plan having been proposed the day before on May 29, 1787, May 30th would mark when real work of the Convention begins. Though two proposals had been submitted the day prior, it would be the Virginia Plan that would end up setting most of the debate for the foreseeable future. The Convention would go into a Committee of the Whole to begin the day, and elected Nathaniel Gorham (Massachusetts)as the Chair. The Committee of the Whole is a committee of the entire Convention with fewer rules, and a smaller quorum,, this allows for open debate and proposing and voting on amendments to proposals,  before the Convention proper votes of the final version of the proposal, and is method of conducting business still seen today in the House of Representatives³.

James Madison (Virginia) notes Roger Sherman of Connecticut takes his seat.

Three Branches of Government, and Confederacy vs. Supreme Power

The 15 propositions proposed by Edmund Randolph the day prior have been referred to the Committee to be taken up. Randolph moved and Gouverneur Morris  (Pennsylvania) seconded, that the first Resolution of the Virginia Plan “Resolved that the Articles of Confederation ought to be so corrected & enlarged, as to accomplish the objects proposed by their institution; namely, common defence, security of liberty & general welfare”, should be postponed to consider the following three proposals.

1. That a Union of the States merely federal will not accomplish the objects proposed by the articles of Confederation, namely common defence, security of liberty, and general welfare.
2. That no treaty or treaties among the whole or part of the States, as individual Sovereignties, would be sufficient.
3. That a national Government ought to be established consisting of a supreme Legislative, Executive & Judiciary.

Constitution Convention Notes: May 30, 1787

This is the Notes of the Convention of 1787 (The Federal Convention) for May 30, 1787. The notes included are those that specifically address this day, and do not include notes of others who may address the topics of the day. You can download and read those, and the entire collection of Notes recorded at the Constitution Convention in the Links and Downloads section. These contain the entire series of Notes on the Convention from James Madison, Rufus Kings, James McHenry, William Pierce, William Patterson, Alexander Hamilton and Robert Yates, in addition with the Journal from the Convention can be read by following this link, Federal Journal of the Convention of 1787.

Convention of 1787: May 29, 1787 Day 3: The Virginia Plan and Pinckney Plan

May 29, 1787 was the first day of formal debates in the Convention, and would see two plans presented that would set the tone for much of the Convention, the Virginia Plan introduced by Edmund Randolph (Virginia) and Charles Pinckney (South Carolina) also introduced his Pinckney Plan.

Before either man would rise to present their plans to the Convention, James Madison noted the arrival of two more Delegates to the Convention, and final rules were established proposed the day prior on May 28, 1787.

Delaware – John Dickinson

Massachusetts – Elbridge Gerry

The following additional rules were proposed by the Committee of Rules, and subsequently agreed to.

“That no member be absent from the House, so as to interrupt the representation of the state, without leave.

“That committees do not sit whilst the House shall be, or ought to be, sitting.

“That no copy be taken of any entry on the Journal, during the sitting of the House, without leave of the House.

“That members only be permitted to inspect the Journal.

“That nothing spoken in the House be printed, or otherwise published, or communicated, without leave.

“That a motion to reconsider a matter which has been determined by a majority may be made, with leave unanimously given, on the same day on which the vote passed; but otherwise, not without one day’s previous notice; in which last case, if the House agree to the reconsideration, some future day shall be assigned for that purpose.”

Pinckney Plan, a Draft of a Constitution.

On May 29, 1787 after Edmund Randolph presented the Virginia Plan, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina also presented a draft plan for a Constitution.

For some time the validity of the Pinckney Plan was questioned, since it bore considerable resemblance to the “Committee of Detail Plan. In 1818, John Quincy Adams was preparing the journal of the convention for publication and discovered that the Pinckney plan was missing, he wrote to Pinckney for a copy, and Pinckney sent him what he asserted was either a copy of his original draft or a copy of a draft which differed from the original in no essentials. But as this was found to bear a close resemblance to the draft reported by the committee of detail, Madison and others, who had been members of the convention, as well as historians, treated it as spurious, and for years Pinckney received little credit for his work in the convention. Later historians, however, notably J. Franklin Jameson and Andrew C. McLaughlin, have accredited to him the suggestion of a number of provisions of the constitution as a result of their efforts to reconstruct his original plan chiefly from his speeches, or alleged speeches, and from certain papers of James Wilson, a member of the committee of detail, one of which papers is believed to be an outline of the Pinckney plan.

This is the plan submitted to John Quincy Adams in 1818. James Madison only notes in his notes that a plan from Charles Pinckney was in fact submitted, but the plan itself was not written down .

The Virginia Plan

This includes three parts of the Virginia Plan presented by Edmund Randolph on to the Constitution Convention on May 29, 1787.

The First he address the purpose of Government, than states Five specific issues with the Articles of Confederation, this is then followed by his basic plan of Government. James Madison also had a significant part in the writing of the Virginia Plan. These portions are taken directly as written from James Madison Notes.

Purpose of Government

1. The character of such a government ought to secure, first, against foreign invasion; secondly, against dissensions between members of the Union, or seditions in particular states; thirdly, to procure to the several states various blessings, of which an isolated situation was incapable; fourthly, it should be able to defend itself against encroachment; and, fifthly, to be paramount to the state constitutions.

2. In speaking of the defects of the Confederation, he professed a high respect for its authors, and considered them as having done all that patriots could do, in the then infancy of the science of constitutions and of confederacies; when the inefficiency of requisitions was unknown—no commercial discord had arisen among any states—no rebellion had appeared, as in Massachusetts—foreign debts had not become urgent—the havoc of paper money had not been foreseen—treaties had not been violated; and perhaps nothing better could be obtained, from the jealousy of the states with regard to their sovereignty.

Convention of 1787: May 28, 1787 Day 2; Setting the Rules of Debate.

Day 2; Monday May 28, 1787 would be largely uneventful as additional delegates would arrive, most of the rules of the Convention being agreed to, some more rules are proposed, and the Convention receives word from Rhode Island that they would not being sending any delegates to the Convention.

James Madison¹ notes the arrival of Nine more delegates, bringing the total now to 10 States being represented by a total of 38 delegates.

• Massachusetts- Nathaniel Gorham and Caleb Strong
• Connecticut- Oliver Ellsworth
• Delaware- Gunning Bedford
• Maryland- James McHenry
• Pennsylvania- Benjamin Franklin, George Clymer, Thomas Mifflin, and Jared Ingersoll

George Wythe (Virginia) introduced the proposed rules from the committee. Rufus King (Massachusetts) opposed the rule authoring any member to call for the yea and nay votes. He feels that the acts of the Convention were not to bind the constituents, and it was unnecessary and improper to keep evidence of the votes, as opinions would frequently change. George Mason (Virginia) agreed and seconded the motion. This rule was rejected nem. con. (no one contradicting, unanimous)².

The following rules were than agreed to by the Convention.

Convention of 1787: May 25, 1787 Day 1; Choosing a Convention President and setting the Rules

Even though the Convention was called to begin on the second Monday in May, May 14, 1787 it was not until Friday May 25th Delegates from at least seven States had arrived, sufficient for a quorum and to begin business. As noted by James Madison, the following eight States were represented with these delegates this day¹.

• Massachusetts—Rufus King;
• New York—Robert Yates and Alexander Hamilton;
• New Jersey—David Brearly, William Churchill Houston, and William Patterson;
• Pennsylvania—Robert Morris, Thomas Fitzsimons, James Wilson, and Gouverneur Morris;
• Delaware—George Reed, Richard Basset, and Jacob Broom;
• Virginia—George Washington, Edmund Randolph, John Blair, James Madison, George Mason, George Wythe, and James McClurg;
• North Carolina—Alexander Martin, William Richardson Davie, Richard Dobbs Spaight, and Hugh Williamson;
• South Carolina—John Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, and Pierce Butler;

This day would be light in business, in all providing for the needed preparations for the Convention to move forward. The election of Officers and positions, and to develop a set of rules to govern the Convention.

Convention of 1787: May 14, 1787; The Delegates begin to arrive.

On Monday May 14, 1787 the second Monday of May,the date appointed day by Congress¹(The Convention is called, February 21, 1787) that was recommended by the Annapolis Convention arrives, and the Federal Convention of 1787 begins, somewhat. On the day appointed, the delegates from only two States had arrived, Pennsylvania and Virginia. The members did meet in the State House this day, but little was done, and nothing of note. Both George Washington and James Madison wrote about this day, James Madison in his Notes:

Was the day fixed for the meeting of the deputies, in Convention, for revising the federal system of government. On that day a small number only had assembled. Seven states were not convened till, (sic)

And George Washington in his Diary³:

This being the day appointed for the Convention to meet, such Members as were in town assembled at the State Ho[use]; but only two States being represented--viz.--Virginia & Pensylvania--agreed to attend at the same place at 11 'Oclock to morrow. (sic)

After their brief meeting, they adjourned until sufficient members had arrived to convene, though they would meet daily at the State House. George Washington kept track of those who arrived in his diary through the days.

Glossary of Terms and Phrases

Note: This is will be updated over time, and is not all inclusive or complete

Who are the Founding Fathers? Edmund Randolph

Not many may know Edmund Randolph by name, but most know him by what he did on May 29, 1787. Shortly after the Convention began, and on the first full day of debates in the Convention Edmund Randolph proposed a basic plan of Government, called the Virginia Plan.

Edmund Randolph was born at Tazewell Hall in Williamsburg, Virginia on August 10, 1753 to John and Ariana Randolph. His grandfather Sir John Randolph, his father John Randolph, and his uncle Peyton Randolph were king's attorneys for Virginia. He also had two Sisters Susannah and Ariana. He married Elizabeth Nichols in 1776, and they subsequently had five children, son Peyton, daughter Susan, son John Jennings, daughter Edmonia, daughter Lucy.

Edmund Randolph graduated at the College of William and Mary, after which he studied law with his father, feeling bound by his oath to the King and went to England in 1775. From August through October 1775 Edmund was aide-de-camp to General George Washington, but on the sudden death of his uncle Peyton he returned to Williamsburg. He was selected to be a member of the Virginia Convention in 1776, and was included on its committee to draft a new constitution and bill of rights for Virginia. He also served as the Attorney General of Virginia from 1776-1786, and the mayor of Williamsburg from 1776-1777. In 1779 he was selected to serve in the Congress and shortly afterwards resigned his position. He was again selected  as a delegate for second time in 1780 and served from 1780-1782 during which the Articles of Confederation came into force in March 1781. In 1782 he resigned his seat,  and after his father's death in 1783 succeeded to the property of his uncle Peyton, property that had been burdened with claims against his father. Afterwards he had his own law practice, including much legal business for General Washington.

 

In 1786 follow Virginian James Madison organized a convention in Annapolis, the Annapolis Convention, to address issues that arose from the Mt Vernon compact. This Convention would recommend another Convention in May 1787, which Congress later on did call for. The Constitution Convention of 1787 began on May 14th of that year, but it was not until May 29th that a quorum had been reached, and the rules agreed to. On May 29th Edmund Randolph rose a presented the Virginia Plan (at end of article) to the Convention. Much of this plan was also written with James Madison, but it was Edmund who presented it, and this plan would set the course of debate for much of the Convention. Edmund Randolph addressed 5 defects to the Articles of Confederation, and proposed 15 distinct Resolutions in the Virginia Plan, including a Bicameral Legislature, a Executive Branch, a Judicial Branch, and additional powers to the Congress. Edmund Randolph advocated a strong central government, moved for the prohibition of the importation of slaves, and an Executive Branch consisting of multiple Executives. Randolph suggested that there be three executives from different parts of the country. In the end he refused to sign the Constitution feeling that too power over commerce was granted to a mere majority in Congress, and because no provision was made by the Convention for a second convention if required or desired, after the present instrument had been referred to the States, and taking into consideration the States recommendations and desires. 

Following the October 1787 he published an attack on the Constitution citing the issues he had with it during the Convention. However in the Virginia convention he urged its ratification, and argued it was too late to attempt to amend it without endangering the Union, arguing against a strong opponent in Patrick Henry. Edmund Randolph believed that Virginia's assent would be that of the necessary ninth state, to cause the Constitution to go into effect. Randolph succeeded in getting Virginia to ratify the Constitution, but not before New Hampshire became the Ninth State to ratify the Constitution on June 21, 1788 four days before Virginia became the 10th on June 25, 1788, and a day before New York as the Eleventh State. However, Randolph did urge Virginia to propose amendments to the Constitution, which Virginia did with six other States, directly leading to the Bill of Rights.

In 1788 he refused re-election as Governor, and entered the House of Delegates to work on the revision and codification of the state laws published in 1794. In September 1789 he was appointed by President Washington first Attorney General of the United States. He worked for a revision of Ellsworth's judiciary act of 1789, and especially to relieve justices of the supreme court of the duties of circuit judges, and advocated a Federal code. In 1791 he was opposed to Alexander Hamilton’s proposed National Bank as being unconstitutional, joining Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and other fellow Virginian James Madison. In 1792-1793 in response to a request of the house of representatives he wrote an extended report (1790) on the judiciary system. Among the many important cases arising under the first administration of the constitution was Chisholm vs. Georgia, involving the right of an alien to sue a state. To the dismay of his southern friends, Randolph proved that right to the satisfaction of the court. His speech was widely circulated as a pamphlet, and was reprinted by legislative order in Massachusetts, while the alarm of debtors to England led to the 11th amendment

After Thomas Jefferson resigned as Secretary of State, Edmund Randolph became the Second Secretary of State on January 2, 1794. Early in 1795 Randolph issued, under the name of "Germanicus," an effective pamphlet against the " Democratic societies," which were charged with fomenting the whiskey rebellion at Pittsburgh, and exciting an American Jacobinism.  He was the only cabinet member who opposed the ratification of the Jay treaty and before it was ratified the delicate task of keeping up friendly diplomatic relations with France fell to him. Dispatches of the French minister, Joseph Fauchet,  were intercepted by a British man-of-war and sent to the British minister to the United States. The dispatches accused Randolph of asking for “several thousand dollars” from France to influence American affairs against Great Britain. After the intercepted letter was shown him. but withheld from the doomed secretary, Washington treated Randolph with exceptional affection, visiting his house, and twice giving him the place of honor at his table. It is maintained by Randolph’s biographer (M. D. Conway) that this conduct, and his failure to send for the other dispatches alluded to, indicate Washington’s entire disbelief of the assertions of Fauchet, whose intrigues he well knew (dispatch to Monroe, 29 July, 1795). Although this charge was demonstrably false, Randolph when confronted with it immediately resigned. It is difficult to see how Washington could have saved his friend, even if ready to share his fate. Randolph, having indignantly resigned his office, pursued Fauchet (now recalled) to Newport, and obtained from him a full retraction and exculpation.  Fauchet published A Vindication of Mr. Randolph's Resignation (1795) and Political Truth, or Animadversions on the Past and Present State of Public Affairs (1796). He was held personally responsible for the loss of a large sum of money during his administration of the state department, and after years of litigation was judged by an arbitrator to be indebted to the government for more than $49,000, “moneys placed in his hands to defray the expenses of foreign intercourse.” Under the system of that period the secretary of state personally disbursed the funds provided for all foreign service, and if any money were lost through the accidents of war, or the failure of banks, he was held responsible. He paid the debt at great sacrifice to himself.

He removed to Richmond in 1803, and during his last years was a leader of the Virginia bar. In 1807 he was one of Aaron Burr's counsel during his trial of his duel with and death of Alexander Hamilton. He died at Carter Hall, Millwood, Clarke county, Virginia, on the 12th of September 1813.

Born: August 10, 1753
Birthplace: Williamsburg, VA
Died: September 12, 1813
Location of death: Millwood, VA
Remains: Buried, Old Chapel Cemetery, Millwood, VA

Race or Ethnicity: White
Political summary:

Mayor of Williamsburg, VA (1776-77)

Virginia Attorney General (1776-1786)

Delegate to the Continental Congress (1779 and 1780-82)

Governor of Virginia (1787-88)

US Attorney General (Sept, 1789 to 1794)

US Secretary of State (Jan. 2, 1794 to 1795)

Society of the Cincinnati

Defects of the Articles of Confederation (as Found in James Madison’s Notes, sic)

First, that the Confederation produced no security against foreign invasion; Congress not being permitted to prevent a war, nor to support it by their own authority. Of this he cited many examples; most of which tended to show that they could not cause infractions of treaties, or of the law of nations, to be punished; that particular states might, by their conduct, provoke war without control; and that, neither militia nor drafts being fit for defence on such occasions, enlistments only could be successful, and these could not be executed without money.

Secondly, that the federal government could not check the quarrel between states, nor a rebellion in any, not having constitutional power, nor means, to interpose according to the exigency.

Thirdly, that there were many advantages which the United States might acquire, which were not attainable under the Confederation; such as a productive impost, counteraction of the commercial regulations of other nations, pushing of commerce ad libitum, &c., &c.

Fourthly, that the federal government could not defend itself against encroachments from the states.

Fifthly, that it was not even paramount to the state constitutions, ratified as it was in many of the states.

The Virginia Plan (As Found in James Madison’s Notes, sic)

“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 defence, 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.

“3. Resolved, that the national legislature ought to consist of two branches.

“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 which they may be compensated for the devotion of their time to the 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.

“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 insure their independency; to receive liberal stipends, by which they may be compensated for the devotion of their time to the 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.

“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, or any treaty subsisting under the authority of the Union; and to call forth the force of the Union against any member of the Union failing to fulfil its duty under the articles thereof.

“7. Resolved, that a national executive be instituted; to be chosen by the national legislature for the term of—; 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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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 guaranteed by the United States to each state.

“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.

“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.

“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.”

 

Written partially with the assistance of the following sites

http://www.nndb.com/people/099/000049949/

http://www.famousamericans.net/presidentjamesmadison.com/edmundrandolph.org/

http://www.ushistory.org/germantown/people/randolph.htmhttp://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/delegates/randolph.html

 

Ping my podcast

Who are the Founding Fathers? Edmund Randolph

Not many may know Edmund Randolph by name, but most know him by what he did on May 29, 1787. Shortly after the Convention began, and on the first full day of debates in the Convention Edmund Randolph proposed a basic plan of Government, called the Virginia Plan.

Edmund Randolph was born at Tazewell Hall in Williamsburg, Virginia on August 10, 1753 to John and Ariana Randolph. His grandfather Sir John Randolph, his father John Randolph, and his uncle Peyton Randolph were king's attorneys for Virginia. He also had two Sisters Susannah and Ariana. He married Elizabeth Nichols in 1776, and they subsequently had five children, son Peyton, daughter Susan, son John Jennings, daughter Edmonia, daughter Lucy.

Edmund Randolph graduated at the College of William and Mary, after which he studied law with his father, feeling bound by his oath to the King and went to England in 1775. From August through October 1775 Edmund was aide-de-camp to General George Washington, but on the sudden death of his uncle Peyton he returned to Williamsburg. He was selected to be a member of the Virginia Convention in 1776, and was included on its committee to draft a new constitution and bill of rights for Virginia. He also served as the Attorney General of Virginia from 1776-1786, and the mayor of Williamsburg from 1776-1777. In 1779 he was selected to serve in the Congress and shortly afterwards resigned his position. He was again selected  as a delegate for second time in 1780 and served from 1780-1782 during which the Articles of Confederation came into force in March 1781. In 1782 he resigned his seat,  and after his father's death in 1783 succeeded to the property of his uncle Peyton, property that had been burdened with claims against his father. Afterwards he had his own law practice, including much legal business for General Washington.

The Convention of 1787: The Convention is called, February 21, 1787

On February 21, 1787 the Congress Assembled passed the following resolution,

Whereas there is provision in the Articles of Confederation & perpetual Union for making alterations therein by the Assent of a Congress of the United States and of the legislatures of the several States; And whereas experience hath evinced that there are defects in the present Confederation, as a mean to remedy which several of the States and particularly the State of New York by express instructions to their delegates in Congress have suggested a convention for the purposes expressed in the following resolution and such Convention appearing to be the most probable mean of establishing in these states a firm national government

Resolved that in the opinion of Congress it is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several states be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the states render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government & the preservation of the Union

Nullification or Justified Defiance? (Quick Thoughts)

Being an Originalist I am flatly opposed to the traditional concept of Nullification, that being a State ignoring or dismissing a Federal Law, Statute or other act or power, because that state does not like that law, act or power. The most significant issue with nullification is, the Constitution and Federal Law of the United States is superior to that of the States. The Supreme Court has ruled that the States cannot nullify Federal Law, since it is given supremacy over State law by the Constitution.

Article VI of the Constitution States;

“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”

Idaho is preparing to pass a law which will prohibit the enforcement of the Health Care Reform act of 2010¹. What makes this interesting compared to traditional nullification is it is not because the State does not like the law (though it probably does not like it), but because the State of Idaho contends the Law in illegal or Unconstitutional. The State is contending it cannot be made to enforce an illegal law, which brings up the question, is this nullification or justified defiance and checking an abuse of power?

This will certainly quickly head to the court system, but what any decision by the courts will hinge on is this part of Article VI, “which shall be made in Pursuance thereof (of the Constitution)”. If a law is not made in pursuance to the Constitution, it cannot be enforced so it cannot be supreme. This will also a explore the order of power, since it was the States who granted the power the Federal Government has, are they also not ones to be judges an abuse of the power given? The States can challenge in federal Court, but that is both expensive for each issue, and can take years to resolve making it prohibitive for many things. Could this be an appropriate method to check federal power when laws are passed without regard to its constitutionality and just passes what it wants relying only a court to say, “your out of the box”. This concept of Idaho from first take does not prohibit a challenge and ruling against the State either, nor does it permit a State to disregard a valid law.

This is a topic that can be explored in great depth in many other aspects, but this is just a quick first impression of the most significant constitutional and power structure parts of it.

1: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/20/AR2011012005860.html

The Convention of 1787: Prelude, The Annapolis Convention of 1786

 

The Constitution Convention of 1787 was not the first attempt to revise and amend the failing Articles of Confederation. In September 1786 Delegates from Five States, New Jersey, New York, Delaware and Virginia met to discuss the Articles of Confederation. This Convention, would end up recommending what would become the Constitution Convention of 1787.

But to get to even this point certain situations occurred throughout the United States that made this Annapolis Convention necessary to recommend changes to the Articles of Confederation.  Due to concerns with the western frontier George Washington, a leading Nationalist, urged the development of rivers and roads to keep the settlements in the frontier tied with the  rest of the Union. In 1784 he solicited the assistance of fellow Virginian James Madison , to take a step in this direction by arranging a meeting between Maryland and Virginia to discuss development of the Potomac River, a waterway leading to the western frontier. Since both States where on the Potomac River, and Maryland owning almost of the water itself, Virginia had no ability to navigate the river without violating Maryland's territory and navigation rights. In March 1785 James Madison arranged another meeting between Maryland and Virginia in Alexandria, Virginia, and on March 28, 1785 the Mt Vernon Compact was signed. This agreement between Virginia and Maryland allowed for the free navigation of the Potomac River for both States for the entire extent of the river, allowing trade and commerce with frontier settlements near the origin of the Potomac. Since under the Articles of Confederation¹ each State was basically an independent Nation and Congress did not have the authority to regulate commerce, trade or even waterways like this, it required a treaty basically to reach this agreement, since the sovereign territory of a State, Maryland, was at the heart of the problem. Shortly after the Compact was reached, and both sides felt satisfied with it, it was discovered this Agreement between Virginia and Maryland was in Violation of the Articles of Confederation Article VI:

Censorship or regulating Speech is never the answer. (Quick Thoughts)

I wrote a while back about Political Venom, how the political scene is so polarized honest debate has been left behind, and the common tactics is insults to the opposing view instead of a debate on the merits of an issue.

Now there is a move to re-institute the Fairness Doctrine among other calls in some form to regulate speech some consider as “hate” or incite full”. This is NOT THE ANSWER to the problem. I am not sure what is the answer, other than stopping the insults and lets talk about the issue, but limiting speech is limiting ideas and debate where it exists.

The only way any sort of regulation can be achieved with force is by the Government, the First Amendment was designed specifically to prevent this, to NOT LET GOVERNMENT decide what can and cannot be said. If government is given the power to censor or limit speech it finds offensive, obscene, hateful, incite full or by other prescribed method, government has been given a mechanism to limit or prevent speech which may not be in its interest and prevent it in one of those names. This gives a means to prevent or limit the strongest dissent of government, which in contrary to the Constitution, American spirit and the American Founding, which were all based on the Strongest dissent of Government.

Limiting or censoring speech can only have one certain consequence, the exchange of ideas and debate will be limited, and limited debate cannot lead to the possibility of the best answers to the questions the Nation faces.

Compare and Contrast; The Articles of Confederation vs. The Constitution

The Articles of Confederation contained many flaws, some serious that if not corrected may have been fatal to the United States (Why the Articles of Confederation Failed). Upon the drafting of a new Constitution in 1787, the drafters took many of these lessons and short comings to heart, and corrected them in the new Constitution. Originally when the first Convention was called for in Annapolis in 1786, the intention was to simply alter and amend the Articles of Confederation. The poor showing in Annapolis in September 1786, with only New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Virginia sending representatives, led this convention to only recommend another convention in Ma, 1787. This Convention that was recommended  for May 1787, to take place in Philadelphia, this became the Convention that drafted a new Constitution.

Just as had been tasked for the Annapolis Convention in 1786, the Convention in Philadelphia was similarly tasked by the Congress assembled to make recommendations to Alter and Amend the Articles of Confederation. This convention quickly realized that just altering or amending the Articles of Confederation would not suffice, and a whole new Constitution was written. The Articles of Confederation served as the base idea for the Convention, and many parts or influences of the Articles can be seen in the Constitution, but it is the differences that set the Constitution apart.

Who are the Founding Fathers? Robert Yates

A member of the New York Delegation to the Constitution convention of 1787, Robert Yates left the Convention early, never to return and sign the Constitution. Rather he would become one of the main opponents to the Constitution under the pseudonym Brutus of the Anti-federalists, whom collectively succeeded in having a Bill of Rights ratified. The son of Joseph and Maria Yates, Robert Yates was born in Schenectady, NY, on January 27, 1738. He received a classical education in New York City and later studied law with William Livingston and also became a surveyor. In 1760 Robert yates was admitted to the New York bar, and moved to Albany where in 1765 he married Jannetje Van Ness and eventually having six children.

Early on in the the struggle for American liberties he as a leader of the Albany's Patriots. Even though he did not sign the Albany Sons of Liberty constitution of 1766, he did become prominent in the Albany opposition to the Stamp Act. Between 1771 and 1775 Yates was a member of the Albany board of aldermen. Pre-Revolution he considered himself a Whig, whose vigilance against corruption and emphasis on the protection of liberty appealed to many in the all  Thirteen Colonies. By 1774, he had joined the Albany Committee of Correspondence and stood among its first members when the committee's activities became public in 1775. During this time he remained a member of the Albany common council, even though it purpose was being replaced by the extra-legal Committee of Correspondence, Safety, and Protection.

Why the Articles of Confederation failed.

The first attempt for the United States at a Constitution was the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation first came up for discussion on June 12, 1776¹. Knowing the inevitability that Independence would soon be a reality, a committee was formed to discuss and draft a Constitution for all the United States. It would not be until November 15, 1777² that they would be approved by the Congress, and not until March 1, 1781³ that they were finally ratified by all 13 States. Just a few days over eight years later, the Articles of Confederation would be part of history, being replaced by the Constitution on March 4, 1789⁴.

So why did the Articles of Confederation fail? Why did this first attempt at government not succeed? What in the Articles was wrong, or insufficient, or cumbersome that needed to be corrected? There were many reason the Articles of Confederation failed, many things happened in the United States and the government that exposed significant flaws. Perhaps you are one of the many that have heard it was because the Articles were not strong enough, that is part of the reason, but not the only reason. What the Articles of Confederation where is discussed here (The Articles of Confederation explained; What are they?).

The major problems of the Articles of confederation that will be addressed here are:

• Each State had One Vote in Congress.
• Nine States required to pass most Legislation
• Congress could not regulate Trade
• The United States could not raise its own revenue 
• The Congress could not enforce its laws
• The Government of the United States was a Single body
• The Congress could not suppress insurrection or rebellion, or protect the Nation from foreign threat.
• Amendments required a Unanimous Vote

The Articles of Confederation explained; What are they?

On July 2, 1776 the Second Continental Congress first voted to declare independence from the United Kingdom¹. Two days later, the final draft of the Declaration of Independence was accepted², and the United States of America was born. It was not until March 4, 1789³ that the current Constitution of the United States took effect, so what governed the United States from 1776-1789? For the most part, but for a very short time in 1776-1777⁴, it was the first Constitution of the United States, the Articles of Confederation Though shorter than the present Constitution (~3,400 words to ~4,500 words), the Articles of Confederation bridged the time from Independence and War to our current Federal Republic.

 

Even before the Congress voted to declare Independence from Great Britain in 1776, the fact it would happen was not much in doubt, it was only a matter of when. With a committee having been formed to draft up a Declaration of Independence on June 11, 1776⁵, the inevitability of self-government required action. The following day on June 12 a committee was also formed to, "prepare and digest the form of a confederation to be entered into between these colonies"⁶. This Committee consisted of (sic)

 

The Articles of Confederation

 (Download)

General Welfare (complete)

 

Perhaps no single Clause is more contentious than the General Welfare clause, found in Article I Section 8 Clause 1 of the Constitution,

• 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

In particular the part of “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare” being the one that is most often cited as granting the Federal Government a broad and sweeping amount of power. Many things Congress does, or wishes to do are justified as being for the “General Welfare” of the United States, that many may contend it does not permit.

General Welfare (Part 11) Final Thoughts

When I started to write about general welfare, I at first thought it might be a two, three maybe four part article, but it eventually morphed into TEN and now eleven parts, and I still did not cover all that I wanted to. I was however was able to cover the various arguments and circumstances surrounding the term “general welfare” in many respects. Throughout the discussion we have covered some of its first origins and uses, how it came to be part of the Constitution, and the debates about it after the Convention finished, and leading up to when the Supreme Court started to hear arguments over it [which is another entire discussion in itself]. The focus here has not been what Supreme Court has thought of the term in Article I Section 8 Clause 1, but how others thought of it before and shortly after it even became law. Why was it used, and what was its pedigree to those who decided to put it in the Constitution, and how it was viewed by those who ratified it.