Archive for the ‘Constitutional Convention’ Category

Real World Graduation, Question 84: Cabinet Nominations

RealWorldGraduation_Question_84_Cabinet_Nominations   <– PDF

Article 2, Section 2 of the U. S. Constitution states, regarding the office of the President:

“He shall have power, by and with the 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 appointments of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in courts of law, or in heads of departments.”

The President’s Cabinet members fall under the category of “officers of the United States”, and require confirmation by the Senate.  A member of the U. S. Senate once voted against the creation of a federal Department of Education (although it passed).  But now, many years later, he has been nominated by the President to be the Secretary (head) of the Department of Education.  On what grounds should the Senate confirm or not confirm him?

a) His original opposition to the creation of any federal Department proves that he cannot be trusted to lead any department. Therefore the Senate should not confirm him.

b) The Senate should not confirm him. The fact that he voted against the creation of the Department proves he is opposed to education, so schools will get worse under his “leadership”.

c) The Senate should not confirm him. If he voted against the creation of the Department, then it is likely that he has contempt for teachers, teachers unions, Department of Education workers, and children in general.  Such a person would not command respect within the department.

d) The Senate should confirm him only in the interest of getting him out of the Senate. True, his original vote proves he is unqualified, but he will do less harm overall as a member of the bureaucracy than as a member of the Senate.

e) The Senate should confirm him only if he promises not to change current policy and promises to recuse himself from budget debates; that way, his biases against education will have no practical effect.

(The answer is on p. 2 of the PDF.)

Tags: ,
Posted in Congress, Constitutional Convention, critical thinking, Real World Graduation, U. S. Constitution | No Comments »

Real World Graduation: Question 4

RealWorldGraduation_Question_4   <– PDF

Article I, Section 2 of the U. S. Constitution originally contained the following provision:

“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.”

In this passage, “representatives” refers to the number of seats in House of Representatives in Congress, “Numbers” refers to population, “several States” refers to any State that ratifies the Constitution, “those bound to service” refers to indentured servants (those who had committed to a term of voluntary servitude in compensation for repayment of the voyage to America fronted by others), “Indians not taxed” refers to Indians on reservations, “other persons” refers to slaves, and “free persons” refers to anyone not in the “other person” group, i.e. not slaves.

This passage can therefore be clarified as follows: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the States according to their respective population, which shall be determined as the sum of the number of a) all free persons, b) indentured servants, and c) three-fifths of slaves; specifically excluding Indians on reservations.” In other words, representation in Congress was apportioned to the full population of all people in the state not on reservations, except for slaves, whose apportionment was at a fraction of only 60%.  This is known as the “three-fifths” rule.  This three-fifths provision was superseded by the 14th Amendment, which was ratified 9 Jul 1868.

Why did the Founding Fathers insert the three-fifths clause regarding slaves?

  1. a) Most of the Founding Fathers were slave owners who had contempt for black people, and reduced the value of black people to 60% of a white person because it was a long-held tradition.
  2. b) Most of the Founding Fathers were slave owners who had contempt for black people, and reduced the value of a black person to 60% of a white person in an attempt to deprive the slaves of their fair share of welfare payments.
  3. c) Even the Founding Fathers who did not own slaves were racist, and reduced the apportionment of slaves to 60% of a white person to suppress the political influence of the black slaves in the Southern states.
  4. d) The members of the Democratic Party insisted on this provision before they would allow a ratification vote in the Southern states.
  5. e) Each of the Founding Fathers had different motives, but these motives were generally a combination of a), b), and c).

(The answer shown on p. 2 of the PDF.)

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Articles of Confederation, Constitutional Convention, critical thinking, Early American history, Real World Graduation, U. S. Constitution | No Comments »

The Defects of the Articles of Confederation, Part 13

Defects_of_the_Articles_of_Confederation_13   <== PDF version

It was only a week after the Declaration of Independence that a committee in the Continental Congress reported out an initial plan for organizing a confederation of the states to be united in the effort against Great Britain.  Although reported out of this committee on 12 Jul 1776, it could have no practical effect until the members of Congress agreed to all of its terms and proposed it to the states.  This was a sensible approach, given that the Articles represented a purely federal system, that is, a compact between states in their sovereign capacity.  Congress debated these for nearly 18 months; on 15 Nov 1777, having reached agreement on the terms thereof, a letter dated 17 Nov 1777 was sent to every state, asking those states to ratify the Articles.  The legislatures of eight states passed legislation in the next 6 months by which their delegates to Congress were authorized to approve the Articles.  The delegates from those states (New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and South Carolina) formally ratified the Articles on 9 Jul 1778.  The provision is contained in Article XIII:

Article XIII.  Every State shall abide by the determinations of theUnited States, in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this Confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

            And whereas it hath pleased the great Governor of the world to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, Know ye, that we, the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do, by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained.  And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States, in Congress assembled, on all questions which by the said Confederation are submitted to them; and that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual.  Done at Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, the ninth day of July, in the year of our Lord 1778, and in the third year of the Independence of America.

But the Articles did not contain a provision by which it would go into effect for those states that ratified it; the intent was that all 13 states were to be united in the war effort.  Therefore, the Articles did not formally go into effect until 2 Mar 1781, the day after Maryland’s legislature ratified the Articles.  This unanimous requirement for both ratification and amendment proved to be a serious defect, as already cited in parts 9 and 12 of this series.

The framers of the Constitution were only too familiar with this difficulty, and made provision in the new Constitution by which it would go into effect if a certain number (two-thirds) of the then-existing states were to agree to it:

 [Article 7]:  The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same.

This may seem contrary to the Preamble in the Constitution, which 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.

How can it be said that the people established it, if in fact it required ratification by the states?  The answer lies in the fact that each state that ratified it did so at a ratifying convention called for that purpose in each state, and each delegate sent to it was tasked with representing the people of the state.  The U. S.Constitution is the founding document of a compound democratic republic established by republican means, that is, when the people are represented by those they trust, and accept the results of a  vote of the specified majority.  In this way, although the representatives cast their votes directly, those votes matter only because the full weight of the people’s confidence is behind them.

James Madison, writing in The Federalist #40, discussed the objections of some who were opposed to the Constitution on the grounds that agreement of all thirteen states should be required before it should go into effect. Madison simply noted that the critics had avoided the fact that unanimity on ratification would be a form of minority rule:

It is worthy of remark that this objection, though the most plausible, has been the least urged in the publications which have swarmed against the convention.  The forbearance can only have proceeded from an irresistible conviction of the absurdity of subjecting the fate of twelve States to the perverseness or corruption of a thirteenth; from the example of inflexible opposition given by a majority of one sixtieth of the people of America to a measure approved and called for by the voice of twelve States, comprising fifty-nine sixtieths of the people — an example still fresh in the memory and indignation of every citizen who has felt for the wounded honor and prosperity of his country.  As this objection, therefore, has been in a manner waived by those who have criticized the powers of the convention, I dismiss it without further observation.

The “example of inflexible opposition” referred to here was the refusal by the state of New Yorkto allow Congress (under the Articles) to impose an import duty in order to obtain a direct revenue source.

Madison addressed the method of ratification as called out in Article 7 directly in The Federalist No. 43:

This article speaks for itself.  The express authority of the people alone could give due validity to the Constitution.  To have required the unanimous ratification of the thirteen States would have subjected the essential interests of the whole to the caprice or corruption of a single member.  It would have marked a want of foresight in the convention which our own experience would have rendered inexcusable.

The provision in the Constitution was an improvement over the Articles in two ways: a) nine states could activate it without being held hostage to a minority of states; and b) it was ratified by conventions that represented the people, not just the state governments.


Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Articles of Confederation, Congress, Constitutional Convention, Early American history, Federalist Papers, James Madison, U. S. Constitution | No Comments »

The Defects of the Articles of Confederation, Part 12

Defects_of_the_Articles_of_Confederation_12   <== PDF version

Change is the one unchanging constant of human history.  By way of application, it must be admitted that any rules for governance among people must contain a provision by which those rules may be altered in an orderly fashion in order to accommodate changing conditions.  The Articles of Confederation contained such a provision as follows:

Article XIII.  Every State shall abide by the determinations of the United States, in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this Confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

The concurrence of every state legislature was required to make any change in the Articles.  Part 9 of this series discussed the main problem with the revenue provisions of the Articles, namely that Congress was entirely dependent on the states through the requisition system.  But the Articles could not be amended, because one state (New York) refused to permit Congress a power to establish an independent revenue source to meet the needs at the national level.  The conflict over Congress’ revenue started on 3 Feb 1781, when Congress, realizing that the requisition system was not working, recommended that the Articles be amended to allow Congress to impose an import duty.  With such a power, Congress could raise revenue necessary to perform its minimum duties, such as paying the army. Rhode Island was the first to reject the concept on 1 Nov 1782, arguing among other things, that the revenue collectors would not be answerable to Rhode Island. Virginia was initially in favor of the import duty, but revoked its agreement on 11 Jun 1783.  But in that same month, Delaware and New Jersey agreed to it; South Carolina followed suit on 13 Aug 1783 but with difficult caveats; Massachusetts concurred on 16 Oct 1783; Virginia reversing itself once again in favor on 29 Dec 1783; North Carolina agreed on 2 Jun 1784; and New Hampshire agreed on 23 Jun 1785.  All the other states except New York did likewise by May 1786.

But the government of the state of New York, interested only in its own revenues, refused to allow Congress to impose any import duties.  On 16 Aug 1786, Governor Clinton of New York notified Congress that he would not call the state legislature into session to consider the proposal; although Congress was desperate for money, he did not consider the situation important enough.  On 15 Feb 1787, New York gave its final refusal to consider the matter.  This proved fatal to the Confederation, as Congress realized it now had no hope of a stable revenue stream.  It caused Congress endorse the idea of a convention of the states to modify the Articles, which became the convention that wrote the Constitution.

The Constitution permits amendments in a manner superior to the Articles of Confederation:

[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.

Under this provision, amendments to the Constitution may be initiated in two ways: a) if two-thirds of both Houses of Congress pass an amendment; or b) if two-thirds of the states call for a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments.  In each case, concurrence of three-fourths of the states, either by their legislatures or by ratifying conventions, is required before such proposed amendments take effect.

James Madison defended this provision in The Federalist #43:

That useful alterations will be suggested by experience, could not but be foreseen. It was requisite, therefore, that a mode for introducing them should be provided. The mode preferred by the convention seems to be stamped with every mark of propriety. It guards equally against that extreme facility, which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that extreme difficulty, which might perpetuate its discovered faults. It, moreover, equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other.

Alexander Hamilton answered critics of the provision, and gave his opinion on the nature of amendments were they to occur, in The Federalist #85:

In opposition to the probability of subsequent amendments, it has been urged that the persons delegated to the administration of the national government will always be disinclined to yield up any portion of the authority of which they were once possessed.  For my own part I acknowledge a thorough conviction that any amendments which may, upon mature consideration, be thought useful, will be applicable to the organization of the government, not to the mass of its powers; and on this account alone, I think there is no weight in the observation just stated.  I also think there is little weight in it on another account.  The intrinsic difficulty of governing thirteen States at any rate, independent of calculations upon an ordinary degree of public spirit and integrity, will, in my opinion constantly impose on the national rulers the necessity of a spirit of accommodation to the reasonable expectations of their constituents.  But there is yet a further consideration, which proves beyond the possibility of a doubt, that the observation is futile.  It is this that the national rulers, whenever nine States concur, will have no option upon the subject.  By the fifth article of the plan, the Congress will be obliged “on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States [which at present amount to nine], to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof.”  The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress “shall call a convention.”  Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body.  And of consequence, all the declamation about the disinclination to a change vanishes in air.  Nor however difficult it may be supposed to unite two thirds or three fourths of the State legislatures, in amendments which may affect local interests, can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people.  We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.

Hamilton was almost right when he wrote that subsequent amendments would mostly change the organization of the government, not its powers.  In fact, the first ten Amendments confirmed the existing rights of the people and the states relative to the federal government, thus expressly limiting the federal government’s power if there was any room for doubt among rational people.  There are only two cases where the federal government expanded its powers by amending the Constitution. The first was the patently moronic Prohibition (Amendment 18, subsequently repealed by Amendment 21), which led to the rise to a permanent criminal class with the means and willingness to corrupt the government.  Although alcohol prohibition was repealed, it was replaced with other equally detrimental prohibitions that have kept the criminal elite employed for decades.  The second case of an expansion of power is Amendment 16, which gave Congress a power to tax incomes.

In general, this method of amendment has the virtue of making amendments fairly difficult, thus enhancing the stability of the Constitution.  At the same time it permits necessary amendments, but only if a great majority of the people, acting through their state legislators or conventions, agree to it.  It has proven over time to be a most beneficial system, since very few of the numerous and ridiculous proposed amendments ever come to the states for consideration — they die in Congress as they deserve.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Alexander Hamilton, Articles of Confederation, Constitutional Convention, Early American history, Federalist Papers, James Madison, U. S. Constitution | No Comments »