Archive for the ‘Constitutional Convention’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Regarding the “Three-Fifths Rule”

by Edward Posted: Monday, 6/20/2011

Regarding The “Three Fifths Rule” <== PDF version

Dear readers:

Due to its extreme length (61 pages), this posting is available only in .pdf format.  It is a complete recounting of the debates in Congress in 1776 and in 1783 as well as the debates in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 regarding how to establish representation in Congress.  As a result of several compromises, and under the assumption that representation should be tied to taxation, a rule in which slaves were counted as three-fifths of a free man was adopted.  As these debates show, the argument was always over revenue and the equitable distribution of representation and how it related to wealth, not to a moral estimate of the worth of black people vs. white people, as some activists would have us believe.

I have included the complete notes from Thomas Jefferson in the original 1776 debates, and all of James Madison’s notes, both from the debates in Congress in 1783 and in the Constitutional Convention of 1787.  This paper will arm you with the facts about the three-fifths provision.

Thanks,

EDD

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

Why the House Originates Revenue Bills

by Edward Posted: Wednesday, 6/1/2011

Why_the_House_Originates_Revenue_Bills <== PDF version

Article 1, Section 7 of the U. S. Constitution states:

“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.”

It is instructive to recount the debate in the Constitutional Convention during which this provision was decided.  In early July of 1787, the delegates to the Convention were debating many aspects of how the proposed new government would function.  On 5 Jul 1787, a committee led by Mr. Gerry reported out its recommendations, one of which stated in part, “that all bills for raising or appropriating money … shall originate in the first branch of the legislature.”  The debate on this provision occurred the next day.  It turned out that the sentiments expressed by George Mason and Benjamin Franklin convinced the delegates to adopt this provision.  Here are the excerpts from James Madison’s notes regarding the arguments made by Mason and Franklin [1].  Keep in mind that the “first branch” referred to is the House of Representatives, the members of which are directly elected by the people, and the “second branch” is the Senate, the members of which were originally chosen by the state legislatures.  Hence the House represented the people; the Senate represented the states.

“Mr. Mason.  The consideration which weighed with the committee was, that the first branch would be the immediate representatives of the people; the second would not.  Should the latter have the power of giving away the people’s money, they might soon forget the source from whence they received it.  We might soon have an aristocracy.  He had been much concerned at the principles which had been advanced by some gentlemen, but had the satisfaction to find they did not generally prevail.  He was a friend to proportional representation in both branches; but supposed that some points must be yielded for the sake of accommodation.

Dr. Franklin did not mean to go into a justification of the report; but as it had been asked what would be the use of restraining the second branch from meddling with money bills, he could not but remark, that it was always of importance that the people should know who had disposed of their money, and how it had been disposed of.  It was a maxim, that those who feel can best judge.  This end would, he thought, be best attained, if money affairs were to be confined to the immediate representatives of the people.  This was his inducement to concur in the report.  As to the danger or difficulty that might arise from a negative in the second branch, where the people would not be proportionally represented, it might easily be got over by declaring that there should be no negative; or, if that will not do, by declaring that there shall be no such branch at all.”

The delegates believed that the subject of revenue and taxation should be decided by those in the government who most directly represent the people, as they can be held to account more readily than those representing the states.  (However, the members of the Senate are now also elected by the people per the 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913.)  James Madison amplified this concept later in the Federalist #58:

“The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of the government.  They, in a word, hold the power of the purse — that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representative of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government.”

It would be novel indeed, if the modern House would refuse to fund something, especially since the national debt is so large.  It would be novel if the House only raised revenue that was necessary for the support of the government; taxes, deficits, and the total debt would likely be much smaller.  But such a great portion of the money raised now goes to spending that is not related to the function of the government per se.  The budgetary power does in fact cause Congress to dominate the government, which is as it should be.  Unfortunately, the revenue policies have in modern times caused the government to exert undue influence over industry and the people alike.

[1]  Jonathan Elliot, Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution in the Convention Held at Philadelphia in 1787; With a Diary of the Debates of the Congress of the Confederation; as reported by James Madison, Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1881, Vol. 5, pp. 282-284

 

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Benjamin Franklin, Constitutional Convention, Federalist Papers, James Madison, U. S. Constitution, Uncategorized | No Comments »

Benjamin Franklin Asks For Prayer

by Edward Posted: Monday, 5/2/2011

Benjamin Franklin Asks For Prayer   <== PDF version

Benjamin Franklin is widely regarded as an atheist, or at most a deist, when the topic of the religion embraced by the founding fathers comes up.  Only God knows the true beliefs of any person.  Deism, for those not familiar with it, is the concept that God exists and created the universe, but takes no interest in the affairs of mankind; that God is completely impersonal and uninterested in the fate of His creation.

I will relate a short debate in the Continental Congress in which Franklin discusses his beliefs, not because I have any interest in advancing any theory about Franklin, but because it runs so contrary to what is commonly taught about him.  The members of the Convention had spent many days arguing about how the states would be represented in Congress; in fine, how the small states could guard themselves against the expected predations of the larger states, and how all the states could guard themselves against the national government.  They were not making much headway.  By late Jun 1787, they had agreed to two branches of a national legislature, but could not come to terms with how they should be constituted or how representation therein was to be allocated.  On 28 Jun 1787, Dr. Franklin gave a short speech in Convention that sparked a debate on the usefulness of daily prayer.  No such thing can be tolerated today in our public offices.  But here is the incorrigible Benjamin Franklin [1].

            “Dr. Franklin.  Mr. President, the small progress we have made after four or five weeks’ close attendance and continual reasonings with each other — our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ayes — is, methinks, a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the human understanding.  We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it.  We have gone back to ancient history for models of government, and examined the different forms of those republics which, having formed with the seeds of their own dissolution, now no longer exist.  And we have viewed modern states all round Europe, but find none of their constitutions suitable to our circumstances.

            In this situation of this assembly, groping, as it were, in the dark, to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, sir, that we have no hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the father of lights to illuminate our understandings?  In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection.  Our prayers, sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered.  All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor.  To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity.  And have we now forgotten the powerful Friend?  Or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance?  I have lived, sir, a long time, and, the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God governs in the affairs of men.  And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable than an empire can rise without his aid?  We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.”  I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed, in this political building, no better than the builders of Babel.  We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach and by-word to future ages.  And, what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom, and leave it to war, conquest, and chance.

            I therefore beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or two or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.”

There followed a short debate, in which the proposition was not brought to a vote, and as far as I know, never adopted.  Now, (only God knows) maybe old Ben was as cynical as they come, hoping the religious types would be pacified by prayers every morning that would serve to soften them up and make them more willing to give up their rights to the sensible atheists.  Maybe (only God knows), he was a true Christian, that is, personal belief in the saving work of Jesus Christ, the God-man.  Maybe he was somewhere in between.  But let’s admit, given what we have been told these many years about Franklin’s alleged dim view of Christianity, he made a speech that would get him kicked out of most schools, legislatures, and courthouses today.

[1]   Jonathan Elliot, Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution in the Convention held at Philadelphia in 1787; With a Diary of the Debates of the Congress of the Confederation; As Reported by James Madison, Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1881, Vol. 5, pp. 253, 254.

Posted in Benjamin Franklin, Constitutional Convention | No Comments »

On Federal vs. State Powers

by Edward Posted: Sunday, 5/1/2011

On Federal vs. State Powers    <== PDF version

What is the proper division of state and federal powers with regard to the funding of education in America?  The Arizona Republic published an article on 1 May 2011 by Pat Kossan and Ronald J. Hansen called “Money Gap for Charter Schools”.  In the article the authors mention that funding for charter schools is declining owing to reductions in state and federal revenues.  It turns out, according to the authors, that the charter schools actually receive less per-pupil funding from federal sources because the charter schools have fewer disabled and lower-income pupils than typical public schools.  Apparently the great planners in the federal government are willing to meddle in the funding of local schools, but not on an equal basis.  No doubt this formula was achieved with the usual amount of political negotiation and compromise.  But it is evident that federal funding of education was not intended by those who debated and ratified the U. S. Constitution.

First, no powers regarding the establishment or promotion of education were granted to the federal government in the U. S. Constitution.  Secondly, we need only look to the debates in the Constitutional Convention to observe that the topic of federal funding for education never came up.  The founding fathers were wary of giving too much power to the federal government on the grounds that those powers would be abused; they believed it was necessary, as a check upon the federal government, to leave many powers at the state level.  A few examples will suffice.

In the debate of 7 Jun 1787 in the Convention, George Mason, a delegate from Virginia stated, “Whatever power may be necessary for the national government, a certain portion must necessarily be left with the states.  It is impossible for one power to pervade the extreme parts of the United States, so as to carry equal justice to them.”

Charles Pinckney of South Carolina stated on 25 Jun 1787: “No position appears to me more true than this; that the general government cannot effectually exist without reserving to the states the possession of their local rights.  They are the instruments upon which the Union must frequently depend for the support and execution of their powers, however immediately operating upon the people and not upon the states.”

We have seen the unfortunate consequences of federal activism in many aspects of our daily lives.  Funding of education is only one of them.  It would be better by far for the states to resume their traditional role of providing for the education of its citizens, as the state governments may be more closely regulated by the people thereof.

Posted in Constitutional Convention, federalism, U. S. Constitution | No Comments »
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »