DOCSLIB.ORG

The History and Legacy of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, 61 Fordham L

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The History and Legacy of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, 61 Fordham L Fordham Law Review Volume 61 Issue 3 Article 1 1992 The Sleeper Wakes: The History and Legacy of the Twenty- Seventh Amendment Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation The Sleeper Wakes: The History and Legacy of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, 61 Fordham L. Rev. 497 (1992). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol61/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Sleeper Wakes: The History and Legacy of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment Cover Page Footnote This Article adapts and expands material presented in Richard B. Bernstein with Jerome Agel, Amending America: If We Love the Constitution So Much, Why Do We Keep Trying to Change It? (forthcoming 1993). I am grateful to William E. Nelson, Christopher N. Eisgruber, John Phillip Reid, Howard Venable, William P. La Piana, Peter C. Hoffer, Walter Walsh, Bill Braverman, Larry Kramer, and the other members of the New York University Law School Colloquium on Legal History for their incisive and lively comments on an earlier version of this Article. I am also indebted to Professor Thomas C. Mackey of the University of Louisville; Professor Martin Flaherty of Fordham Law School; Professor Ruti Teitel of New York Law School; Professor Stephen L. Schechter of Russell Sage College; Ene Sirvet, editor of The Papers of John Jay, Columbia University; Joanne B. Freeman, Department of History, University of Virginia; Linda Faulhaber, Assistant Editor of Constitution magazine; Paul Golob of Times Books; Jerome Agel; Dennis G. Combs; Phillip G. Haultcoeur; Steven J. Bernstein; Bob and Barbara Tramonte; Stephanie A. Thompson; April Holder; Joan Challinor; Diantha D. Schull; and Ron Blumer. Anyone who does research in the history of the early American republic owes an incalculable debt of gratitude to the labors of Charlene E. Bickford, Kenneth R. Bowling, and Helen E. Veit, editors of the Documentary History of the First Federal Congress (1972-), and to John P. Kaminski, Gaspare J. Saladino, and Richard Leffler, editors of the Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (1976-). I am especially grateful for their kindness, generosity, and encouragement. I am beholden to New York Law School for providing invaluable logistical and collegial support for my historical research and writing, and to the staff of the Fordham Law Review for their professionalism and good humor. Finally, I extend special thanks to Gregory D. Watson, the stepfather of the Twenty-seventh amendment, who in several telephone interviews graciously reviewed my account of the Amendment and the history of which he was so much a part; and to Timothy L. Hanford, Esq., Assistant Minority Tax Counsel, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, who first piqued my curiosity about the compensation amendment more than four years ago, and who has helped me satisfy that curiosity with unfailing good humor and friendship. This article is available in Fordham Law Review: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol61/iss3/1 ARTICLES THE SLEEPER WAKES: THE HISTORY AND LEGACY OF THE TWENTY-SEVENTH AMENDMENT RICHARD B. BERNSTEIN* No provision of the United States Constitution has a more drawn-out, tortured history than the Twenty-seventh Amendment, which was ratified more than two centuries after Representative James Madison introduced it in the First Congress. In this Article; ProfessorBernstein traces the Amendment's origins to the legisla- tive political culture of the late eighteenth century, as influenced by the contro- versy over ratifying the Constitution. He then examines the perennial controversies over congressional compensation in American historiy elucidating how in the 1980s and 1990s public anger at Congress reached critical mass suffi- cient to propel the 1789 compensation amendment into the Constitution. Finally, this Article demonstrates that the adoption of the Amendment has consequences beyond its effects on congressionalcompensation-both for the unresolved issues of the Article V amending process andfor the practice of "amendment politics." * © 1992 by Richard B. Bernstein Adjunct Associate Professor of Law, New York Law School; Assistant Editor, The Papers of John Jay, Columbia University. This Article adapts and expands material presented in Richard B. Bernstein with Jerome Agel, Amending America: If We Love the Constitution So Much, Why Do We Keep Trying to Change It? (forthcoming 1993). I am grateful to William E. Nelson, Christopher N. Eisgruber, John Phillip Reid, Howard Venable, William P. La Piana, Peter C. Hoffer, Walter Walsh, Bill Braverman, Larry Kramer, and the other members of the New York University Law School Collo- quium on Legal History for their incisive and lively comments on an earlier version of this Article. I am also indebted to Professor Thomas C. Mackey of the University of Louisville; Professor Martin Flaherty of Fordham Law School; Professor Ruti Teitel of New York Law School; Professor Stephen L. Schechter of Russell Sage College; Ene Sirvet, editor of The Papers of John Jay, Columbia University; Joanne B. Freeman, De- partment of History, University of Virginia; Linda Faulhaber, Assistant Editor of Consti- tution magazine; Paul Golob of Times Books; Jerome Agel; Dennis G. Combs; Phillip G. Haultcoeur; Steven J. Bernstein; Bob and Barbara Tramonte; Stephanie A. Thompson; April Holder; Joan Challinor Diantha D. Schull; and Ron Blumer. Anyone who does research in the history of the early American republic owes an incal- culable debt of gratitude to the labors of Charlene E. Bickford, Kenneth R. Bowling, and Helen E. Veit, editors of the Documentary History of the FirstFederal Congress(1972-), and to John P. Kaminski, Gaspare J. Saladino, and Richard Leffler, editors of the Docu- mentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (1976-). I am especially grateful for their kindness, generosity, and encouragement. I am beholden to New York Law School for providing invaluable logistical and colle- gial support for my historical research and writing, and to the staff of the Fordham Law Review for their professionalism and good humor. Finally, I extend special thanks to Gregory D. Watson, the stepfather of the Twenty- seventh amendment, who in several telephone interviews graciously reviewed my account of the Amendment and the history of which he was so much a part; and to Timothy L Hanford, Esq., Assistant Minority Tax Counsel, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, who first piqued my curiosity about the compensation amend- ment more than four years ago, and who has helped me satisfy that curiosity with unfail- ing good humor and friendship. FORDHAM LAW REVIEW [Vol. 61 INTRODUCTION O N May 7, 1992, the American people discovered that they had amended the Constitution almost in a fit of absent-mindedness. On that date, Michigan became the thirty-eighth state to ratify an amend- ment proposed in the First Congress on June 8, 1789 by Representative James Madison. The amendment, which had been all but neglected for two centuries, provides as follows: No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representa- tives shall have intervened.1 Thirteen days later, on May 20, 1992, the relevant authorities-the Ar- chivist of the United States, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the academic community-concurred that the amendment had been validly adopted.2 No one in the Revolutionary generation of Americans would have pre- dicted the protracted birth pangs of the amendment proposed so indiffer- ently in 1789. Ironically, however, the issues that its adoption revived in the 1990s were familiar to the ablest and most sophisticated constitu- tional theorists of the 1780s. For example, during the Federal Conven- tion of 1787, James Madison tried to draw the attention of his colleagues to the uncertainties that surrounded the amending process set forth in Article V of the Constitution. On September 15, 1787, Madison pleaded unsuccessfully that the Convention define with more specificity and clar- ity the workings of that process, stating, "difficulties might arise as to the form, the quorum, &c. which in Constitutional regulations ought to be as much as possible avoided." 3 The triumph of the Twenty-seventh Amendment has exposed to public view some of the "difficulties ... in Constitutional regulations" that Madison had vainly sought to address.' This Article seeks to clarify the Amendment's tangled history and sketch its legacy.5 Part I elucidates the antecedents of the Amendment in the confluence of two historical phenomena-the Anglo-American concern over the role of legislatures in governance and the demand by 1. U.S. Const. amend. XXVII. 2. See infra part IV. 3. 2 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 630 (Max Farrand ed., 1937) [hereinafter Records] (all references are to James Madison's notes unless otherwise indicated). 4. Id. 5. This Article draws on, corrects, and supplements the two previous extended dis- cussions of the Amendment. See David C. Huckabee, Congressional Research Serv. No. 86-889 GOV, The Constitutional Amendment to Regulate Congressional Salary In- creases: A Slumbering Proposal's New Popularity, (Sept. 16, 1986) [hereinafter Slumber- ing Proposal]; Robert S. Miller & Donald 0. Dewey, The Congressional Salary Amendment: 200 Years Later, 10 Glendale L. Rev. 92-109 (1991). I also make extensive use of Congressional Research Serv. No. LRS92-3691, The Twenty-seventh Amendment: Congressional Pay and the Constitution-Background Material and Selected News Arti- cles, 1987-1992 (June 1992) [hereinafter Background Material]. 1992] THE TWENTY-SEVENTH AMENDMENT many Americans during the period from 1787 to 1791 for amendments to the Constitution of 1787.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Nineteenth Amendment, Sex Equality, Federalism, and the Family
    VOLUME 115 FEBRUARY 2002 NUMBER 4 HARVARD LAW REVIEW ARTICLE SHE THE PEOPLE: THE NINETEENTH AMENDMENT, SEX EQUALITY, FEDERALISM, AND THE FAMILY Reva B. Siegel TABLE OF CONTENTS IN TRO D UCTIO N ............................................................................................................................... 948 I. THE SEX DISCRIMINATION PARADIGM ............................................................................... 953 II. TOWARD A SYNTHETIC READING OF THE FOURTEENTH AND NINETEENTH AMEND- MENTS: A NEW HISTORICAL FOUNDATION FOR SEX DISCRIMINATION DOCTRINE ....... 96o A. Frontiero's Use of History in Building the Race Analogy ................................................ 961 B. Analogical and Synthetic Interpretation:A New Role for History in Sex Discrim inationD octrine..................................................................................................... 965 C. HistoricalTies Between the Fourteenth and Nineteenth Amendments ......................... 968 D. Reading the Suffrage Debates: Some PreliminaryRemarks ........................................... 976 III. VOTING AND THE FAM ILY ...................................................................................................... 977 A. Virtual Representation:Male Household Headship in Public and Private Law .......... 981 B. "Self-Government": The Woman Suffrage Rejoinder....................................................... 987 C. The Surrejoinder:Marital Unity Arguments Against Woman Suffrage ......................... 993 IV. OF FAMILIES,
    [Show full text]
  • How to Read the Bill History Page Hb 2480
    HOW TO READ THE BILL HISTORY PAGE This tutorial will show you how to read the bill information and history page for a bill. This page and the next show the bill history for HB 2480 from the 2007-08 legislative session as it appears on the webpage. Beginning on page 3 this bill history is shown with a detailed explanation of what each line means. HB 2480 - 2007-08 (What is this?) Concerning public transportation fares. Sponsors: Clibborn, McIntire, Simpson Companion Bill: SB 6353 Go to documents. Go to videos. Bill History 2008 REGULAR SESSION Dec 21 Prefiled for introduction. Jan 14 First reading, referred to Transportation. (View Original Bill) Jan 17 Public hearing in the House Committee on Transportation at 3:30 PM. Jan 29 Executive action taken in the House Committee on Transportation at 3:30 PM. TR - Executive action taken by committee. TR - Majority; 1st substitute bill be substituted, do pass. (View 1st Substitute) Minority; do not pass. Feb 1 Passed to Rules Committee for second reading. Feb 12 Made eligible to be placed on second reading. Feb 13 Placed on second reading. Feb 14 1st substitute bill substituted (TR 08). (View 1st Substitute) Floor amendment(s) adopted. Rules suspended. Placed on Third Reading. Third reading, passed; yeas, 84; nays, 10; absent, 0; excused, 4. (View Roll Calls) (View 1st Engrossed) IN THE SENATE Feb 16 First reading, referred to Transportation. Feb 20 Public hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation at 1:30 PM. Feb 26 Executive action taken in the Senate Committee on Transportation at 3:30 PM.
    [Show full text]
  • THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY of AMERICA the Bill of Rights And
    THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA The Bill of Rights and Federalism: An Interpretation in Light of the Unwritten Constitution A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of the Department of Politics School of Arts and Sciences Of The Catholic University of America In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree Doctor of Philosophy © Copyright All Rights Reserved By Joseph S. Devaney Washington, D.C. 2010 The Bill of Rights and Federalism: An Interpretation in Light of the Unwritten Constitution Joseph S. Devaney, Ph.D. Director: Claes G. Ryn, Ph.D. According to conventional understanding, the primary purpose behind the framing and ratification of the Constitution was to preserve liberty through a form of government that provided for a highly structured system of federalism and separation of powers. The primary purpose behind the framing and ratification of the Bill of Rights was to allay Anti-Federalist fears that the Constitution did not sufficiently secure individual rights. For that reason, the original Constitution is frequently contrasted with the Bill of Rights. Yet distinguishing between the Constitution and the Bill of Rights obscures more about the nature of the Bill of Rights than it discloses. It is agreed that one of the primary Anti-Federalist objections to the Constitution was the absence of a bill of rights. A close examination of the debate over the absence of a bill of rights reveals that the first ten amendments to the Constitution occupy a much more complex place in the constitutional scheme than is commonly assumed. While individual rights did constitute an important theme during the ensuing debate concerning the importance of a bill of rights, they were not the only theme or even the prevailing theme.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Amendments That Never Were
    Constitutional Amendments That Never Were By Jon Bradley King However, certain proposals have received the The minute globe we inhabit has been partitioned by requisite two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate, the forces of language, religion and war into almost 170 yet have failed to win the necessary three-fourths of the ?atio?-states. These sovereign entities, varying widely states to their cause. This article will discuss these In Size, strength and political system share one ill-fated measures: the constitutional amendments that common characteristic: each has a body of laws and never were. customs reflecting the collective perception of its When the Founding Fathers brought forth their citizenry regarding the proper attributes of their work to the waiting world, the result was viewed by government, in short, a "constitution." In some states, some with alarm. Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, such as Great Britain and Saudi Arabia, the proclaiming that a "coalition of monarchy men . fundamental law is not contained in a single written aristocrats and drones" had authored the document, text. In other nations, China for example, the proposed a Bill of Rights as "necessary against the constitution is a veritable laundry list specifying in encroachments of power upon the indispen~able rights wearisome detail precisely what the state is of human nature." Several states ratified the proposed empowered to do. While some countries revere their constitutions and view alterations of the basic law with Constitution only upon the condition that amendments great hesitancy, other states, such as strife-torn Bolivia, be adopted to guarantee the rights of states and the have seen one military strongman after another people in the new federal government.
    [Show full text]
  • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. March 10
    1776 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. MARcH 10, H. Owen and ofW. W. Welch-severally to the Committee on Wax braces some six or seven hundred miles of road under one control, Claims. and, talring it in connection with its control of the Georgia road, By Mr. A.. HERR SMITH: The petition of soldiers and sailors of more than that. That is all worked in connection with the expor­ the late war for an increase of pension to all pensioners who lost an tation of productions at Savannah. The Louisville and Nashville arm and leg while in the line of duty-to the Committee on Invalid system, which is very prominent and controls probably some two Pensions. thousand miles of road, or more, works in harmony with the Central. By Mr. STONE: The petition of Patrick McDonald, to be placed That combination of roads naturally looks to Savannah as an outlet on the retired list-to the Committee on Military Affairs. for a great deal of the produce that is shipped over its lines. There By Mr. TALBOTT: Papers relating to the claim of Alexander M. is then the line by way of'the Georgia and Cent.ral, through Atlanta Templeton-to the Committee on War Claims. over the Stat.e Road~ as it is called, by the Nashville, Chattanoo~a By Mr. URNER: Papers relating to the claim of Robertson Topp antl Saint Louis, al o connecting with the Louisville and Nashviue and William L. Vance-to the same committee. Road to the western cities. There are the same connections up to By Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Hearing on the Equal Rights Amendment
    Written Statement of Elizabeth Price Foley Professor of Law Florida International University College of Law Hearing on the Equal Rights Amendment Committee on the Judiciary U.S. House of Representatives April 30, 2019 Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the procedures for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment ("ERA"). I am a tenured, full Professor of Law at Florida International University College of Law, a public law school located in Miami, where I teach constitutional law. I also serve Of Counsel with the Washington, D.C. office of BakerHostetler, LLP, where I practice constitutional and appellate law. I. Background on Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment An Equal Rights Amendment was first proposed in 1921 but did not receive approval of the requisite two-thirds supermajority of the House and Senate until March 22, 1972. The text of the proposed amendment reads as follows: Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.1 The Joint Resolution proposing the ERA contained a preamble limiting the allowed period of ratification to seven years: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress.2 The seven-year ratification period expired on March 22, 1979.
    [Show full text]
  • Bills of Attainder
    University at Buffalo School of Law Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship Winter 2016 Bills of Attainder Matthew Steilen University at Buffalo School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles Part of the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Matthew Steilen, Bills of Attainder, 53 Hous. L. Rev. 767 (2016). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles/123 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLE BILLS OF ATTAINDER Matthew Steilen* ABSTRACT What are bills of attainder? The traditional view is that bills of attainder are legislation that punishes an individual without judicial process. The Bill of Attainder Clause in Article I, Section 9 prohibits the Congress from passing such bills. But what about the President? The traditional view would seem to rule out application of the Clause to the President (acting without Congress) and to executive agencies, since neither passes bills. This Article aims to bring historical evidence to bear on the question of the scope of the Bill of Attainder Clause. The argument of the Article is that bills of attainder are best understood as a summary form of legal process, rather than a legislative act. This argument is based on a detailed historical reconstruction of English and early American practices, beginning with a study of the medieval Parliament rolls, year books, and other late medieval English texts, and early modern parliamentary diaries and journals covering the attainders of Elizabeth Barton under Henry VIII and Thomas Wentworth, earl of Strafford, under Charles I.
    [Show full text]
  • Thirteenth Amendment A
    University of Cincinnati College of Law University of Cincinnati College of Law Scholarship and Publications Faculty Articles and Other Publications College of Law Faculty Scholarship 2003 Stopping Time: The rP o-Slavery and 'Irrevocable' Thirteenth Amendment A. Christopher Bryant University of Cincinnati College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.uc.edu/fac_pubs Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Legal History, Theory and Process Commons Recommended Citation Bryant, A. Christopher, "Stopping Time: The rP o-Slavery and 'Irrevocable' Thirteenth Amendment" (2003). Faculty Articles and Other Publications. Paper 63. http://scholarship.law.uc.edu/fac_pubs/63 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law Faculty Scholarship at University of Cincinnati College of Law Scholarship and Publications. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Articles and Other Publications by an authorized administrator of University of Cincinnati College of Law Scholarship and Publications. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STOPPING TIME: THE PRO-SLAVERY AND "IRREVOCABLE" THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT • A. CHRISTOPHER BRYANT I. EXTRALEGAL AUTHORITY AND THE CREATION OF ARTICLE V ...................................... 505 II. HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE CORWIN AMENDMENT .......................................................... 512 III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE CORWIN AMENDMENT ......................................................... 520 A. Debate in
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)
    Friday Volume 497 16 October 2009 No. 125 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Friday 16 October 2009 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2009 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ Enquiries to the Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] 551 16 OCTOBER 2009 552 Solicitor-General to make a statement about the Yvonne House of Commons Fletcher case? It emerged last night that, two years ago, a senior lawyer carried out an independent review of Friday 16 October 2009 the case for the Crown Prosecution Service in which he said that the two Libyans involved could be charged for conspiracy to cause death. Neither had diplomatic The House met at half-past Nine o’clock immunity; they escaped from the Libyan embassy. The report made it clear that both those men played an instrumental role in the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher. PRAYERS Last night, as I said, it emerged that the Crown Prosecution Service had confirmed that, two years on, The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means took the police had still not provided it with the final case file the Chair as Deputy Speaker (Standing Order No. 3). containing the admissible evidence. Surely the Home Secretary should make a statement explaining why the NEW WRIT Metropolitan police are sitting on that vital evidence, Ordered, and to put our minds at rest by assuring us that Britain’s That the Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the trade interests are not being put before the interests of Crown, to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to bringing criminals to justice.
    [Show full text]
  • A Current Listing of Contents
    WOMEN'S SruDIES LIBRARIAN The University ofWisconsin System EMINIST ERIODICALS A CURRENT LISTING OF CONTENTS VOLUME 17, NUMBER 4 WINTER 1998 Published by Phyllis Holman Weisbard Women's Studies Librarian University of Wisconsin System 430 Memorial Library / 728 State Street Madison, Wisconsin 53706 (608) 263-5754 EMINIST ERIODICALS A CURRENT LISTING OF CONTENTS Volume 17, Number 4 Winter 1998 Periodical literature is the cutting edge ofwomen's scholarship, feminist theory, and much ofwomen's culture. Feminist Periodicals: A Current Listing ofContents is published by the Office of the University of Wisconsin System Women's Studies Librarian on a quarterly basis with the intent of increasing public awareness of feminist periodicals. It is our hope that Feminisf Periodicals will serve several purposes: to keep the reader abreast of current topics in feminist literature; to increase readers' familiarity with a wide spectrum of feminist periodicals; and to provide the requisite bibliographic information should a reader wish to subscribe to a journal or to obtain a particular article at her library or through interlibrary loan. (Users will need to be aware of the limitations of the new copyright law with regard to photocopying of copyrighted materials.) Table ofcontents pages from currentissues ofmajorfeministjournalsare reproduced in each issue ofFeminist Periodicals, preceded by a comprehensive annotated listing of all journals we have selected. As publication schedules vary enormously, not every periodical will have table of contents pages reproduced in each issue of FP. The annotated listing provides the following information on each journal: 1. Year of first publication. 2. Frequency of publication. 3. U.S. SUbscription price(s).
    [Show full text]
  • Constitution of the United States of America—17871
    CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA—1787 1 WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to SECTION. 2. 1 The House of Representatives form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, shall be composed of Members chosen every sec- insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the ond Year by the People of the several States, common defence, promote the general Welfare, and the Electors in each State shall have the and secure the Blessings of Liberty to our- Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most selves and our Posterity, do ordain and estab- numerous Branch of the State Legislature. lish this Constitution for the United States of 2 No Person shall be a Representative who America. shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the ARTICLE. I. United States, and who shall not, when elected, SECTION 1. All legislative Powers herein grant- be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall ed shall be vested in a Congress of the United be chosen. States, which shall consist of a Senate and 3 Representatives and direct Taxes shall be ap- House of Representatives. portioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be deter- 1 This text of the Constitution follows the engrossed copy signed by Gen. Washington and the deputies from 12 States. The mined by adding to the whole Number of free small superior figures preceding the paragraphs designate Persons, including those bound to Service for a clauses, and were not in the original and have no reference to Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, footnotes.
    [Show full text]
  • Tracing the History of the Bill of Rights
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 2019 From Appendix to Heart: Tracing the History of the Bill of Rights Lael Weinberger Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Weinberger, Lael, "From Appendix to Heart: Tracing the History of the Bill of Rights" (2019). Constitutional Commentary. 1202. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/1202 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Constitutional Commentary collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 07 WEINBERGER_FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 12/23/2019 10:24 AM FROM APPENDIX TO HEART: TRACING THE HISTORY OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS THE HEART OF THE CONSTITUTION: HOW THE BILL OF RIGHTS BECAME THE BILL OF RIGHTS. Gerard N. Magliocca.1 New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. Pp. xii + 235. $29.95 (Hardcover). Lael Weinberger2 I. INTRODUCTION: THE THINGS WE TAKE FOR GRANTED The upper level of the National Archives museum features three documents, grandly presented in a marble rotunda: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. When the hall is open for visitors, the documents are displayed behind bulletproof glass and constantly attended by guards; at night, the documents are stored still more securely in a bomb-proof vault.3 “In this Rotunda are the most cherished material possessions of a great and good nation,” President George W. Bush said in 2003 at an event reopening the hall after a major renovation.4 Every branch of government was represented at the event, offering encomiums to the documents enshrined in the hall.
    [Show full text]