Those from large, populous states such as Virginia and Pennsylvania—supporters of the Virginia Plan—argued that representation in both houses of the proposed new congress should be based on population, while those from smaller states such as New Jersey and Delaware—supporters of the New Jersey Plan—argued for equal representation for each state.
The compromise that eventually emerged, one championed most energetically by the delegates from Connecticut, was obvious: representation in the House of Representatives would be apportioned according to population, with each state receiving equal representation in the Senate. In the final vote on the so-called Connecticut Compromise on July 16, five states supported the proposal; four opposed, including Virginia and Pennsylvania; and one state—Massachusetts—was divided.
James Madison and many of his nationalist colleagues were disconsolate, convinced that the compromise would destroy the very character of the national government they hoped to create.
In The Federalist No. In this, as in so many areas, the so-called original meaning of the Constitution was not at all self-evident— even to the Framers of the Constitution themselves.
The debate among the delegates over the nature of the American presidency was more high- toned and more protracted than that over representation in the Congress. They urged their fellow delegates to give the president an absolute veto over congressional legislation. In the end, it was compromise that once again won the day—the delegates agreed to give the President a limited veto power, but one which could be over-ridden by a vote of two-thirds of both houses of Congress.
Most of the delegates initially thought that the executive should be elected by the national legislature; still others thought the executive should be elected by the state legislatures or even by the governors of the states. James Wilson was virtually the only delegate who proposed direct election of the president by the people. He believed that it was only through some form of popular election that the executive branch could be given both energy and independence.
They voted against some version of the proposal on numerous occasions between early June and early September of , only agreeing to the version contained in our modern Constitution modified slightly by the Twelfth Amendment grudgingly and out of a sense of desperation, as the least problematic of the alternatives before them.
The other obvious solution—election by members of a national Congress whose perspective was likely to be continental rather than provincial—was ultimately rejected because of the problems it created with respect to the doctrine of separation of powers: the president, it was feared, would be overly beholden to, and therefore dependent upon, the Congress for his election.
The creation of an electoral college was a middle ground, and while many delegates feared that locally-selected presidential electors would be subject to the same sort of provincial thinking as ordinary citizens, they reluctantly came to the conclusion that it was the best they could do while still preserving an adequate separation of power between the executive and legislative branches.
It was a highly imperfect solution to a real problem, but, in the context of the times—perhaps until today—there may well have been no better alternative. For example, most of the delegates supported the imposition of property qualifications for voters in their individual states. But nowhere are those limitations more obvious than during the debates relating to the subject of slavery. In , slavery in America was in a state of decline, but it remained a significant part of the social and economic fabric in five of the states represented in the Convention.
Indeed, they enshrined the institution of slavery within their new Constitution. It was impossible to discuss questions relating to the apportionment of representation without confronting the fact that the slave population of the South—whether conceived of as residents or property—would affect the calculations for representation.
The final resolution of that issue—the Three-Fifths Compromise, a formula by which slaves would be counted as three-fifths of a person in apportioning both representation and taxation—was a purely mechanical and amoral calculation designed to produce harmony among conflicting interests within the Convention.
As many disgruntled delegates pointed out, it had little basis either in logic or morality, but in the end, the need for a consensus on the issue, however fragile that compromise might be, outweighed all other considerations. The debate over the future of the international slave trade was in many respects even more depressing than that which culminated in the Three-Fifths Compromise. Only the delegates from South Carolina and Georgia were determined to continue what most other delegates believed to be an iniquitous trade, yet their insistence that the trade continue for at least another twenty years carried the day.
The drafting process was grueling. They wanted the supreme law of the United States to be perfect. The first two months of the Convention saw fierce debate over the 15 points of the " Virginia Plan " which had been proposed by Madison as an upgrade to the Articles of Confederation. Yet, the "Committee of the Whole" couldn't agree on anything. So, on July 24 of that year, the Committee of Detail was enacted to handle the drafting process.
The United States U. Constitution was adopted on September 17, with 39 signatures before being distributed to the States for ratification. Other than Gorham, the committee members had all been respected lawyers, and would go on to become leading legal figures in the new government Randolph would be the first attorney general, while Rutledge, Ellsworth and Wilson would become Supreme Court justices. Supreme Court Nicknamed "Dictator John" "By doing good with his money, a man, as it were, stamps the image of God upon it, and makes it pass, current for the merchandise of heaven.
Edmund Randolph August 10, - September 12, First United States Attorney General Second Secretary of State "The general object was to produce a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origins, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.
Oliver Ellsworth April 29, - November 26, Senator of Connecticut Third Chief Justice of the United States "The powers of congress must be defined, but their means must be adequate to the purposes of their constitution.
It is possible there may be abuses and misapplications; still, it is better to hazard something than to hazard at all. Supreme Court "Government, in my humble opinion, should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government, which has not this in view, as its principal object, is not a government of the legitimate kind.
Nathaniel Gorham May 27, - June 11, 14th President of the United States under the Articles of Confederation Helped draft the Massachusetts Constitution "Any person chosen governor, or lieutenant-governor, counsellor, senator, or representative, and accepting the trust, shall before he proceed to execute the duties of his place or office, take, make and subscribe the following declaration, viz. Tasked with revising the existing government, the delegates came up with a completely new one.
Wary about centralized power and loyal to their states, they created a powerful central government. Representing wildly different interests and views, they crafted compromises. It stands today as one of the longest-lived and most emulated constitutions in the world. The founders set the terms for ratifying the Constitution.
They bypassed the state legislatures, reasoning that their members would be reluctant to give up power to a national government. Instead, they called for special ratifying conventions in each state.
Ratification by 9 of the 13 states enacted the new government. But at the time, only 6 of 13 states reported a pro-Constitution majority. The Anti-Federalists fought hard against the Constitution because it created a powerful central government that reminded them of the one they had just overthrown, and it lacked a bill of rights. The ratification campaign was a nail-biter.
0コメント