The Journal of the Debates in the Convention which Framed the Constitution of the United States, May-September 1787. Volume 1Madison, James
History
The Journal of the Debates in the Convention which Framed the Constitution of the United States, May-September 1787. Volume 1
Madison, James
Constitutional law -- United States; Constitutions -- United States; United States. Constitution
M^r Lansing called for the reading of the 1^{st} resolution of each
plan, which he considered as involving principles directly in contrast;
that of M^r Patterson says he sustains the sovereignty of the respective
States, that of M^r Randolph destroys it: the latter requires a negative
on all the laws of the particular States; the former, only certain
general powers for the general good. The plan of M^r R. in short absorbs
all power except what may be exercised in the little local matters of
the States which are not objects worthy of the supreme cognizance. He
grounded his preference of M^r P's plan, chiefly on two objections
ag^{st} that of M^r R. 1. want of power in the Convention to discuss &
propose it. 2. the improbability of its being adopted, 1. He was
decidedly of opinion that the power of the Convention was restrained
to amendments of a federal nature, and having for their basis the
Confederacy in being. The Act of Congress The tenor of the Acts of the
States, the Co[~m]issions produced by the several deputations all
proved this. And this limitation of the power to an amendment of the
Confederacy, marked the opinion of the States, that it was unnecessary &
improper to go farther. He was sure that this was the case with his
State. N. York would never have concurred in sending deputies to the
Convention, if she had supposed the deliberations were to turn on a
consolidation of the States, and a National Government.
2. was it probable that the States would adopt & ratify a scheme, which
they had never authorized us to propose? and which so far exceeded what
they regarded as sufficient? We see by their several Acts particularly
in relation to the plan of revenue proposed by Cong. in 1783, not
authorized by the Articles of Confederation, what were the ideas they
then entertained. Can so great a change be supposed to have already
taken place. To rely on any change which is hereafter to take place in
the sentiments of the people would be trusting to too great an
uncertainty. We know only what their present sentiments are. And it is
in vain to propose what will not accord with these. The States will
never feel a sufficient confidence in a general Government to give it a
negative on their laws. The Scheme is itself totally novel. There is no
parallel to it to be found. The Authority of Congress is familiar to the
people, and an augmentation of the powers of Congress will be readily
approved by them.
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