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 Wilson would not say what modifications of the proposed power might
be practicable or expedient. But however novel it might appear the
principle of it when viewed with a close & steady eye, is right. There
is no instance in which the laws say that the individual sh^d be bound
in one case, & at liberty to judge whether he will obey or disobey in
another. The cases are parallel. Abuses of the power over the individual
person may happen as well as over the individual States. Federal liberty
is to the States, what civil liberty, is to private individuals, and
States are not more unwilling to purchase it, by the necessary
concession of their political sovereignty, than the savage is to
purchase Civil liberty by the surrender of the personal sovereignty,
which he enjoys in a State of nature. A definition of the cases in which
the Negative should be exercised, is impracticable. A discretion must be
left on one side or the other? will it not be most safely lodged on the
side of the Nat^l Gov^t? Among the first sentiments expressed in the
first Cong^s one was that Virg^a is no more, that Mass^{ts} is no
[more], that P^a is no more &c. We are now one nation of brethren. We
must bury all local interests & distinctions. This language continued
for some time. The tables at length began to turn. No sooner were the
State Gov^{ts} formed than their jealousy & ambition began to display
themselves. Each endeavoured to cut a slice from the common loaf, to add
to its own morsel, till at length the confederation became frittered
down to the impotent condition in which it now stands. Review the
progress of the articles of Confederation thro' Congress & compare the
first & last draught of it. To correct its vices is the business of this
convention. One of its vices is the want of an effectual controul in the
whole over its parts. What danger is there that the whole will
unnecessarily sacrifice a part? But reverse the case, and leave the
whole at the mercy of each part, and will not the general interest be
continually sacrificed to local interests?
M^r Dickenson deemed it impossible to draw a line between the cases
proper & improper for the exercise of the negative. We must take our
choice of two things. We must either subject the States to the danger of
being injured by the power of the Nat^l Gov^t or the latter to the
danger of being injured by that of the States. He thought the danger
greater from the States. To leave the power doubtful, would be opening
another spring of discord, and he was for shutting as many of them as
possible.
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