When the Philadelphia Convention was in session, designing a new 'Article of Confederation,' which became our Constitution, there were three views on what the new government should be.
1. The strongest group, those from Virginia, could be called the 'nationalists,' and their 'Virginia Plan' was the outline of a national government, substituting a central government, hugely powerful, for the federal government of the Confederation. This was not popular with the people.....thus, the 'closed doors' operation of the Philadelphia Convention.
"Resolved, That a union of the States merely federal, will not accomplish the objects proposed by the articles of the confederation, namely, common defence, security of liberty, and general welfare."
Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States | Teaching American History
2. The 'federalist' contingent was also in favor of a central government, but also of maintaining the states as the primary force in the government: a federal rather than national government. In the short term, this idea won out.....but beginning with the Progressive era, and the teaching of case law over the Constitution, untrustworthy, unsound, corrupt judges imposed their will, and, today, nationalism prevails.
3. But there was a third view at the Convention, that of Alexander Hamilton: the monarchists. The basic idea was to remove, totally, the influence of states, with the resultant single unitary government for the entire continent.
" He was particularly opposed to that from N. Jersey, being fully convinced, that no amendment of the Confederation, leaving the States in possession of their Sovereignty could possibly answer the purpose." Journal of the Federal Convention June 18th 1787 (Hamilton Speech)
4. Hamilton favored the British system. He called for
a President with a life term, as well as
Senators with life terms, and, as in the British system,
the appointment of governors of the states by the President.
Kevin Gutzman, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution"
5. The pendulum swung back and forth, and several American government hung in the balance. At first, the committee agreed to create a national government with fully national executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The national legislature would have a veto over state laws, as well as a very strong national judiciary.
By the end of the Convention, things changed: what was produced was a federal constitution!
6. The Constitution featured a federal legislatiove body, the Congress; it had no sweeping legislative authority or veto over the states. James Madison's repeated pleas for this veto power were rejected by the members.
7. Instead, the Convention saw to it that the power of the states was the essential aspect of the selection of members of Congress.
a. The House of Representatives was elected by voters in their states. No state, no representatives.
b. Senators, not chosen by the President (as per Hamilton), nor by the lower house of Congress (as per Madison and the Virginia nationalists), but by state legislatures.
On October 24, 1787, James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson that he was unhappy that the Congress would be federal, rather than national. He explained that the states power meant that the new government would be too responsive to the people's whims. Constitutional Government: James Madison to Thomas Jefferson
So....the Founders signed on to a federal government....not one where the states are merely agencies of the national government. Judges have capriciously altered that arrangement.
8. Judge Robert Bork, the intellectual godfather of originalism, addressed that, explaining that the problem for constitutional law has always been the solution of the Madisonian dilemma, that neither the majority nor the minority can be trusted to define the proper spheres of democratic authority and individual liberty. Bork states that the role of a judge is to solve this dilemma by setting the proper ground rules on when the majority and when the minority should rule, and that following the intentions of the framers and treating the Constitution like law will satisfy the dilemma, and constrain judges.
a. While a good start, it must be remembered that the words of the Constitution are law not the intentions.
If only that were true today......
1. The strongest group, those from Virginia, could be called the 'nationalists,' and their 'Virginia Plan' was the outline of a national government, substituting a central government, hugely powerful, for the federal government of the Confederation. This was not popular with the people.....thus, the 'closed doors' operation of the Philadelphia Convention.
"Resolved, That a union of the States merely federal, will not accomplish the objects proposed by the articles of the confederation, namely, common defence, security of liberty, and general welfare."
Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States | Teaching American History
2. The 'federalist' contingent was also in favor of a central government, but also of maintaining the states as the primary force in the government: a federal rather than national government. In the short term, this idea won out.....but beginning with the Progressive era, and the teaching of case law over the Constitution, untrustworthy, unsound, corrupt judges imposed their will, and, today, nationalism prevails.
3. But there was a third view at the Convention, that of Alexander Hamilton: the monarchists. The basic idea was to remove, totally, the influence of states, with the resultant single unitary government for the entire continent.
" He was particularly opposed to that from N. Jersey, being fully convinced, that no amendment of the Confederation, leaving the States in possession of their Sovereignty could possibly answer the purpose." Journal of the Federal Convention June 18th 1787 (Hamilton Speech)
4. Hamilton favored the British system. He called for
a President with a life term, as well as
Senators with life terms, and, as in the British system,
the appointment of governors of the states by the President.
Kevin Gutzman, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution"
5. The pendulum swung back and forth, and several American government hung in the balance. At first, the committee agreed to create a national government with fully national executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The national legislature would have a veto over state laws, as well as a very strong national judiciary.
By the end of the Convention, things changed: what was produced was a federal constitution!
6. The Constitution featured a federal legislatiove body, the Congress; it had no sweeping legislative authority or veto over the states. James Madison's repeated pleas for this veto power were rejected by the members.
7. Instead, the Convention saw to it that the power of the states was the essential aspect of the selection of members of Congress.
a. The House of Representatives was elected by voters in their states. No state, no representatives.
b. Senators, not chosen by the President (as per Hamilton), nor by the lower house of Congress (as per Madison and the Virginia nationalists), but by state legislatures.
On October 24, 1787, James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson that he was unhappy that the Congress would be federal, rather than national. He explained that the states power meant that the new government would be too responsive to the people's whims. Constitutional Government: James Madison to Thomas Jefferson
So....the Founders signed on to a federal government....not one where the states are merely agencies of the national government. Judges have capriciously altered that arrangement.
8. Judge Robert Bork, the intellectual godfather of originalism, addressed that, explaining that the problem for constitutional law has always been the solution of the Madisonian dilemma, that neither the majority nor the minority can be trusted to define the proper spheres of democratic authority and individual liberty. Bork states that the role of a judge is to solve this dilemma by setting the proper ground rules on when the majority and when the minority should rule, and that following the intentions of the framers and treating the Constitution like law will satisfy the dilemma, and constrain judges.
a. While a good start, it must be remembered that the words of the Constitution are law not the intentions.
If only that were true today......
