The Journal of the Debates in the Convention which Framed the Constitution of the United States, May-September 1787. Volume 2 — John Shaqi
The Journal of the Debates in the Convention which Framed the Constitution of the United States, May-September 1787. Volume 2Madison, James
History
The Journal of the Debates in the Convention which Framed the Constitution of the United States, May-September 1787. Volume 2
Madison, James
Constitutional law -- United States; Constitutions -- United States; United States. Constitution
M^r Randolph. One idea has pervaded all our proceedings, to wit, that
opposition as well from the States as from individuals, will be made to
the System to be proposed. Will it not then be highly imprudent, to
furnish any unnecessary pretext by the mode of ratifying it. Added to
other objections ag^{st} a ratification by the Legislative authority
only, it may be remarked that there have been instances in which the
authority of the Common law has been set up in particular States ag^{st}
that of the Confederation which has had no higher sanction than
Legislative ratification.--Whose opposition will be most likely to be
excited ag^{st} the System? That of the local demagogues who will be
degraded by it from the importance they now hold. These will spare no
efforts to impede that progress in the popular mind which will be
necessary to the adoption of the plan, and which every member will find
to have taken place in his own, if he will compare his present opinions
with those brought with him into the Convention. It is of great
importance therefore that the consideration of this subject should be
transferred from the Legislatures where this class of men, have their
full influence to a field in which their efforts can be less
mischievous. It is moreover worthy of consideration that some of the
States are averse to any change in their Constitution, and will not take
the requisite steps, unless expressly called upon to refer the question
to the people.
M^r Gerry. The arguments of Col. Mason & M^r Randolph prove too much.
They prove an unconstitutionality in the present federal system & even
in some of the State Gov^{ts}. Inferences drawn from such a source must
be inadmissible. Both the State Gov^{ts} & the federal Gov^t have been
too long acquiesced in, to be now shaken. He considered the
Confederation to be paramount to any State Constitution. The last
article of it authorizing alterations must consequently be so as well as
the others, and every thing done in pursuance of the article must have
the same high authority with the article. Great confusion he was
confident would result from a recurrence to the people. They would never
agree on any thing. He could not see any ground to suppose that the
people will do what their rulers will not. The rulers will either
conform to, or influence the sense of the people.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account