History of the Origin, Formation, and Adoption of the Constitution of the United States, Vol. 2: With Notices of Its Principle FramersCurtis, George Ticknor
History
History of the Origin, Formation, and Adoption of the Constitution of the United States, Vol. 2: With Notices of Its Principle Framers
Curtis, George Ticknor
Constitutional history -- United States
[311] The Constitution, Art. VI. (See Appendix.)
[312] July 17. Elliot, V. 322.
[313] The Constitution. Art. VI.
[314] Ibid. Art. III. § 2.
[315] Articles XXI., XXII., XXIII. of their draft. Elliot, V. 381.
[316] The Constitution, Art. VII.
[317] _Ante_, p. 177, _et seq._ The resolutions may be found in
Elliot, V. 541 (Sept. 13). But the proceedings on them are not found
in Mr. Madison's Minutes, or in the Journal of the Convention. The
official record of their unanimous adoption was laid before Congress
on the 28th of September, 1787, and it bears date September 17th. It
recites the presence in Convention of all the states that attended
excepting New York, and in the place of that _State_ stands "Mr.
Hamilton _from_ New York." This record precedes the official letter
addressed by the Convention to Congress. See Journals of Congress for
September 28, 1787, Vol. XII. pp. 149-165.
[318] See a speech made by Hamilton in the Convention of New York.
Works, II. 462.
[319] 4 Blackstone's Com., Book IV. ch. 6.
[320] Art. VI. § 2 of the first draft of the Constitution. Elliot, V.
379.
[321] Elliot, V. 450.
[322] The effect of these words is as if the statute read "adhering to
the enemy _by_ giving him aid and comfort," and not as if they were
two separate offences.
[323] See the debate, Elliot, V. 447-451.
[324] Ibid. Art. III. § 3 of the Constitution.
CHAPTER XIII.
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF DETAIL, CONTINUED.--ELECTION AND POWERS OF
THE PRESIDENT.
In describing the manner in which the Constitution and powers of the
Senate were finally arranged, I have already had occasion to state,
that, after the report of the committee of detail came in,--vesting
the appointment of the President in the national legislature, creating
a term of seven years, and making the incumbent ineligible a second
time,--a direct election by the people was negatived by a large
majority. This mode of election, as a means of removing the
appointment from the legislature, would have been successful, but it
was inadmissible on other accounts. In the first place, it would have
given to the government a character of complete consolidation, so far
as the executive department was concerned, to have vested the election
in the people of the United States as one community. In the second
place, not only would the States, as sovereignties, have been excluded
from representation in this department, but the slaveholding States
would have had a relative weight in the election only in the
proportion of their free inhabitants. On the other hand, to provide
that the executive should be appointed by electors, to be chosen by
the people of the States, involved the necessity of prescribing some
rule of suffrage for the people of all the States, or of adopting the
existing rules of the States themselves. Probably it was on account of
this embarrassment, that a proposition for electors to be chosen in
this mode was negatived, by a bare majority, soon after the vote
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account