DOCSLIB.ORG

Conlaw Chapter 5

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conlaw Chapter 5 CHAPTER FIVE: Constitutional Convention As a result of the problems experienced under the Articles of and Ratification Confederation, a meeting of representatives of all thirteen states was 5.1 The Constitutional called in 1786. Only five states showed Convention (Summer, 1787) up. Congress and each state were asked, 5.2 The Fight for Ratification – then, to send representatives to a meeting that was to be held in The Federalist Papers (1787- 1789) Philadelphia in 1787. The purpose was to 5.3 The Anti-Federalists change the Articles of Confederation and to strengthen the national government. Opposition Congress gave the state delegates 5.4 The Ratification of the only the authority to develop a plan to Constitution improve the Articles of Confederation. The report would then be sent back to KEY CONCEPTS AND VOCABULARY Congress. Fifty-five delegates attended the framers (no, NOT farmers!) • meeting which later became known as the • delegates Philadelphia Convention. From his • Federalist Papers Ambassador position in Paris, Thomas • ratification Jefferson wrote to John Adams that the • Federalist convention “really is an assembly of • Anti-Federalist demigods.” We now call these 55 men the • Virginia Plan framers of the Constitution. Jefferson did • bicameral legislature not take part in the drafting of the • executive branch Constitution. The average age (excluding Ben • judicial branch Franklin, who at 81 skewed the average) • federalism was forty-two, relatively young for such New Jersey Plan • an important assembly. One delegate was • amendment only twenty-six. Franklin, the oldest, and • Connecticut Compromise most respected American throughout the • three-fifths compromise world, was carried to his post on the • enumerated powers convention floor by four local prisoners. • necessary and proper clause Most of the fifty-five delegates had • clause considerable political experience; many • supremacy clause had attended the Second Continental • ex post facto laws Congress that created the Declaration of • advise and consent Independence. Although none of the framers were poor, and some of them • appropriation power quite rich, they were all said by a French override • diplomat to be “in easy circumstances.” • veto All were white and male. There were six • electoral college large plantation owners, eight important • judicial activism businessmen, three doctors. About half • status quo were college graduates – quite high for • factions that time. Seven were former governors • majority / super majority of their states; thirty-three were lawyers. • agrarian George Washington was the • Bill of Rights acknowledged leader, even though he did not want to attend, but gave in when he was convinced any change would not 5.1 THE CONSTITUTIONAL occur without his presence. He was CONVENTION (Summer, 1787) elected to preside over the convention. in Philadelphia,” refused in principal to He seldom spoke in debates. attend. Young (36 years old) James Madison’s notes are considered the The First Steps and the Virginia Plan: “official” notes of the proceedings. They were not published until 1836 – after his The Convention had a quorum – death. At only 36, he was a driving force enough people present to do business – at the convention, bringing the “Virginia on May 25, 1787. Almost immediately the Plan” that set the tone for the debates framers agreed on a few things: that followed. For his work he is often referred to as “The Father of the • They decided that the Articles were Constitution.” so defective that they should start The long, hot summer, the hall with from scratch and work on a new closed shutters (for secrecy), the Constitution. political intrigue and pressures – all of • They adopted a rule of secrecy, to these weighed heavily on those encourage free discussion, a attending the assembly. Even among minimum of public turmoil, and to this “assembly of demigods” some of the enhance its likelihood of passage. leaders stand apart. • They also decided that each state, It was Madison, along with Alexander regardless of delegation size, Hamilton and John Jay who wrote the should receive one vote when letters to newspapers called The voting on different aspects of the Federalist Papers. The letters helped creation of this new Constitution. to explain the arguments in favor of creating a new constitution. Madison, Hamilton and Jay used their extensive PROBLEM 5.1A knowledge of ancient governments and Evaluate the pros and cons of the two political theory to lead the debates in crucial decisions made at the beginning of both the convention and in their letters the convention: abolishing the Articles, to the newspapers. and the rule of secrecy. If a new Hamilton supported a strong national convention were called today, would government. (If he had had his way, we these same rules be adopted? Why or would have a President who serves for why not? life with absolute power over every act of the Congress.) He left the convention The creation of a new Constitution in a huff, but returned to sign the final began with a first session at which only document and argued brilliantly for its seven of the thirteen states had delegates passage. present. By the end of the convention Other major political figures were not every state except Rhode Island was as supportive of a strong central represented. However, it was not easy: government. George Mason, who remember, for many years these separate authored the Virginia Bill of Rights, was ex-colonies-now states thought of a strong supporter of the people’s rights themselves as separate entities, separate and of states’ rights. He opposed any countries. To come together now, to document that did not have a strong perhaps give some of their power up statement of these rights and he fought (especially a small state like Rhode against the ratification, or passage of Island) to an unknown entity, the national the Constitution. government, was a scary prospect to say Along with Jefferson, other prominent the least. figures from the fight for independence Madison took the initiative early in the were not in attendance. Thomas Paine convention and had Virginia Governor was in France; John Adams in England; Edmund Randolph bring forth the so- Patrick Henry, who said he “smelled a rat called Virginia Plan. The plan, contained in fifteen resolutions, proposed a truly that each state, no matter how many national government. people lived in it, would have the same Under this plan, there would be a number of representatives and votes. bicameral national legislature (two- Thus, at least in the Senate no state branch, or two-house legislature). The would have more power than any other voters would choose the representatives state. to one (lower) house directly. The other For more than two weeks the Virginia (upper) house would be itself chosen by Plan was debated. Finally, delegates from the lower house from nominations from New Jersey, a small state, came up with the state legislatures. Representation what is called the New Jersey Plan. would be proportional to population (thus, favoring the larger states…such as The New Jersey Plan: Virginia), and it could void any state law. In addition to the legislature, there William Patterson, of New Jersey, on would be two other branches of June 15, proposed what amounted to an government under this plan. The amendment (a change that is added on) executive branch (a president) would to the Articles of Confederation. Under be elected by the legislative branch. The this plan, there would be, as with the judicial branch (judges, court system) Articles, a one-house legislature; each would be selected by the legislature. state would get equal representation and There would be divided authority – votes in that house, and it would have what we call today federalism – in that increased authority. Congress (this one- a citizen of the United States would also house legislature) could pass laws be a citizen of their specific state. This affecting more than one state and other “dual citizenship” concept survives countries. Its taxing powers were today. increased, its laws and treaties would be The new national government would considered the supreme law of the have the power to collect its own taxes, country, and no state could make laws to make laws, and to enforce them in its that were contrary to Congress’ laws. own courts. With the Articles of Confederation, remember, the central PROBLEM 5.1B government could only request money, Can you name any laws, or types of laws, for example, and only states had the that are different from state to state? authority to raise that money by placing How about any laws that are different taxes upon their citizens. This would no between state and federal government? longer be a problem under the Virginia What might these differences mean? Plan. There was considerable debate In addition, the executive branch among the framers over the Virginia would be a group of several people, Plan. Most agreed that representation in selected by Congress to carry out national the House of Representatives (what the laws and appoint other necessary office lower house in the Virginia Plan was holders. Further, the members of this new called) should be based on population. executive branch would appoint a The main disagreement was about how supreme court to handle conflicts about many representatives each state could treaties, inter-state or international trade, have in the Senate (the upper house). and how taxes were to be dealt with. The bigger and more populous states Debate continued for another month. wanted the Senate also to be based on There were still major issues that proportional representation. Larger underlay the debate between the two states would have more votes, and plans. Without resolving these hence, more power, than less populated fundamental issues, the convention would states. soon fail.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • This Constitution: a Bicentennial Chronicle, Nos. 14-18
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 300 290 SO 019 380 AUTHOR Mann, Shelia, Ed. TITLE This Constitution: A Bicentennial Chronicle, Nos. 14-18. INSTITUTION American Historical Association, Washington, D.C.; American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.; Project '87, Washington, DC. SPONS AGENCY National Endowment for the Humanities (NFAH), Washington, D.C. PUB DATE 87 NOTE 321p.; For related document, see ED 282 814. Some photographs may not reproduce clearly. AVAILABLE FROMProject '87, 1527 New Hampshire Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20036 nos. 13-17 $4.00 each, no. 18 $6.00). PUB TYPE Collected Works - Serials (022) -- Historical Materials (060) -- Guides - Classroom Use - Guides (For Teachers) (052) JOURNAL CIT This Constitution; n14-17 Spr Sum Win Fall 1987 n18 Spr-Sum 1988 EDRS PRICE MFO1 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS. DESCRIPTORS Class Activities; *Constitutional History; *Constitutional Law; History Instruction; Instructioral Materials; Lesson Plans; Primary Sources; Resource Materials; Secondary Education; Social Studies; United States Government (Course); *United States History IDENTIFIERS *Bicentennial; *United States Constitution ABSTRACT Each issue in this bicentennial series features articles on selected U.S. Constitution topics, along with a section on primary documents and lesson plans or class activities. Issue 14 features: (1) "The Political Economy of tne Constitution" (K. Dolbeare; L. Medcalf); (2) "ANew Historical Whooper': Creating the Art of the Constitutional Sesquicentennial" (K. Marling); (3) "The Founding Fathers and the Right to Bear Arms: To Keep the People Duly Armed" (R. Shalhope); and (4)"The Founding Fathers and the Right to Bear Arms: A Well-Regulated Militia" (L. Cress). Selected articles from issue 15 include: (1) "The Origins of the Constitution" (G.
    [Show full text]
  • 12-1281 Brief for Respondent, Noel Canning
    No. 12-1281 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. NOEL CANNING, A DIVISION OF THE NOEL CORP., Respondent. On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia BRIEF OF RESPONDENT NOEL CANNING GARY E. LOFLAND NOEL J. FRANCISCO HALVERSON NORTHWEST Counsel of Record LAW GROUP G. ROGER KING 405 E. Lincoln Ave. JAMES M. BURNHAM Yakima, WA JONES DAY (509) 452-2828 51 Louisiana Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 LILY FU CLAFFEE [email protected] RACHEL L. BRAND (202) 879-3939 STEVEN P. LEHOTSKY NATIONAL CHAMBER LITIGATION CENTER, INC. 1615 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20062 (202) 463-5337 Counsel for Respondent QUESTIONS PRESENTED The President purported to make three “recess” appointments to fill preexisting vacancies on the National Labor Relations Board on January 4, 2012, the day after the Senate convened to commence the Second Session of the 112th Congress, and two days before the Senate convened in another Senate session. The questions presented are therefore: 1. Whether the President’s recess-appointment power may be exercised during a break that occurs during the Senate’s Session, or is instead limited to “the Recess of the Senate” that occurs between each enumerated Session. 2. Whether the President’s recess-appointment power may be exercised to fill vacancies that exist during a recess, or is instead limited to vacancies that first arise during that recess. 3. Whether the President’s recess-appointment power may be exercised when the Senate is convening every three days in pro forma sessions.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia Law Review
    COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW VOL. 99 DECEMBER 1999 NO. 8 GLOBALISM AND THE CONSTITUTION: TREATIES, NON-SELF-EXECUTION, AND THE ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING John C. Yoo* As the globalization of society and the economy accelerates, treaties will come to assume a significant role in the regulation of domestic affairs. This Article considers whether the Constitution, as originally understood, permits treaties to directly regulate the conduct of private parties without legislative implementation. It examines the relationship between the treaty power and the legislative power during the colonial, revolutionary, Framing, and early nationalperiods to reconstruct the Framers' understandings. It concludes that the Framers believed that treaties could not exercise domestic legislative power without the consent of Congress, because of the Constitution'screation of a nationallegislature that could independently execute treaty obligations. The Framers also anticipatedthat Congress's control over treaty implementa- tion through legislation would constitute an importantcheck on the executive branch'spower in foreign affairs. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................................... 1956 I. Treaties, Non-Self-Execution, and the Internationalist View ..................................................... 1962 A. The Constitutional Text ................................ 1962 B. Globalization and the PoliticalBranches: Non-Self- Execution ............................................. 1967 C. Self-Execution: The InternationalistView ................
    [Show full text]
  • Revolutionary Period (1763-1789) Part 3: Constitutional Convention
    Revolutionary Period (1763-1789) Part 3: Constitutional Convention The Constitutional Convention was held in 1787 in Philadelphia. Fifty-five delegates met to revise, or improve, the nation’s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation. The Articles were so weak, the framers decided to a write a new constitution. The U.S. Constitution created a strong national government, but with limits against the abuse of power. After the convention ended, the states ratified the new constitution. Problems under the Delegates meet at States ratify the new Articles of Confederation Constitutional constitution. Examples: no president Convention in 1787 and States have too write a new constitution. much power The most important conflict at the Convention was over Another conflict was over the counting of slaves when representation in the legislative branch (Congress). determining the number of representatives each state received in the House of Representatives. Virginia Plan New Jersey Plan Northern States Southern States -large state plan -small state plan -did not want to count -wanted to count -2-house legislature -1-house legislature slaves as part of the slaves as part of the -proportional -equal representation population population representation (population) Great Compromise 3/5 Compromise -2-house legislature -three-fifths of all -House of Representatives (proportional slaves would be representation) counted as part of the -Senate – equal representation (2 per population for state) representation Ratification Terms to Know Federalists – supported ratification of the Constitution Delegate - representative Federalist Papers – written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Framer - someone who and John Jay is support of ratification helped write the Constitution Anti-Federalists – opposed ratification of the Constitution, mainly Ratify - to approve or because it did not have a bill of rights accept .
    [Show full text]
  • The Three-Fifths Compromise 2.7
    The Three-Fifths Compromise 2.7 The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached between delegates from southern states and those from northern states during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. The debate was over if, and if so, how, slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes. The issue was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years, and to determine what percentage of the nation's direct tax burden the state would have to bear. The compromise was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman. The Convention had unanimously accepted the principle that representation in the House of Representatives would be in proportion to the relative state populations. However, since slaves could not vote, non-slaves in slave states would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. Delegates opposed to slavery proposed that only free inhabitants of each state be counted for apportionment purposes, while delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, opposed the proposal, wanting slaves to count in their actual numbers. A compromise which was finally agreed upon—of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers—reduced the representation of the slave states relative to the original proposals, but improved it over the Northern position.[1] An inducement for slave states to accept the Compromise was its tie to taxation in the same ratio, so that the burden of taxation on the slave states was also reduced.
    [Show full text]
  • The Great Compromise in Response to the Virginia Plan, New Jersey Delegate William Paterson Presented an Alternative on June 15
    212-217US8P R U2C08S2 11/26/02 12:23 PM Page 212 TERMS & NAMES 2 Creating the Constitutional Creating the Convention James Madison ConstitutionConstitution Virginia Plan New Jersey Plan Great Compromise MAIN IDEA WHY IT MATTERS NOW Three-Fifths Compromise The states sent delegates to a The Constitutional Convention convention to solve the problems of formed the plan of government that the Articles of Confederation. the United States still has today. ONE AMERICAN’S STORY On the afternoon of May 15, 1787, Edmund Randolph, the young governor of Virginia, arrived in Philadelphia for the Constitutional Convention. The young nation faced violence and lawlessness, as Shays’s Rebellion had shown. And now delegates from throughout the states were coming to Philadelphia to discuss reforming the government. Randolph knew the serious task he and the other delegates were about to undertake. Early in the convention, Randolph rose to speak. He looked squarely at the delegates and reminded them of their grave responsibility. A VOICE FROM THE PAST Edmund Let us not be afraid to view with a steady eye the [dangers] Randolph (left) with which we are surrounded. Are we not on the eve and the other of [a civil] war, which is only to be prevented by the hopes delegates from this convention? gathered in the Edmund Randolph, quoted in Edmund Randolph: A Biography Pennsylvania State House (above) to discuss Over the next four months, the delegates debated how best to creating a new keep the United States from falling apart. In this section, you will read government for about the Convention of 1787 and the creation of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitutionality of Congressional Deadlines on Amendment Proposals Under Article V
    University of Florida Levin College of Law UF Law Scholarship Repository UF Law Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 10-2019 'Great Variety of Relevant Conditions, Political, Social and Economic': The Constitutionality of Congressional Deadlines on Amendment Proposals under Article V Danaya C. Wright University of Florida Levin College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Danaya C. Wright, "Great Variety of Relevant Conditions, Political, Social and Economic": The Constitutionality of Congressional Deadlines on Amendment Proposals under Article V, 28 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 1 (2019) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at UF Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in UF Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UF Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. “GREAT VARIETY OF RELEVANT CONDITIONS, POLITICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC”1: THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CONGRESSIONAL DEADLINES ON AMENDMENT PROPOSALS UNDER ARTICLE V Danaya C. Wright* ABSTRACT Within a year or two, the thirty-eighth state is likely to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), setting up an unprecedented constitutional challenge.2 The ERA was proposed with a seven-year deadline in the resolving clause, establishing the mode of ratification.3 That was a shift from earlier precedents in which a deadline had been placed
    [Show full text]
  • The Virginia Plan Proposed a Strong Central Government Composed of Three Branches: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial
    Drafted by James Madison, and presented by Edmund Randolph to the Constitutional Convention on May 29, 1787, the Virginia Plan proposed a strong central government composed of three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. (National Archives) The Virginia Plan 29 May 1787 | Philadelphia, PA 1. Resolved, that the Articles of the Confederation ought to be so corrected and enlarged, as to accomplish the objects proposed by their institution, namely, common Defence, security of Liberty, and general welfare. 2. Resolved, therefore that this right, of suffrage in the traditional Legislation ought to be proportioned to the quota’s of contribution, or to the number of free inhabitants, as the one or the other may seem best, in different cases. 3. Resolved, that the National Legislature ought to consist of two branches. 4. Resolved, that the numbers of the first branch of the Nati[ona]l Leg[islatur]e, ought to be elected by the people of the several States, every [blank] for the term of three years. – to be of the age of ____ years at least. To receive liberal stipends, by which they may be compensated for the devotion of their time to public service. – to be ineligible to any office established by a particular state, or under the authority of the U.S. (except those particularly belonging to the functions of theis first branch) during the term of service and for the space of [one] after its expiration; to be incapable of re-election for the space of [blank] after the expiration of their term of service: and to be subject to recal.
    [Show full text]
  • Resolution VI: the Virginia Plan and Authority to Resolve Collective Action Problems Under Article I, Section 8, 87 Notre Dame L
    Notre Dame Law Review Volume 87 Issue 5 Symposium: Educational Innovation and the Article 11 Law 6-1-2012 Resolution VI: The irV ginia Plan and Authority to Resolve Collective Action Problems under Article I, Section 8 Kurt T. Lash Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Recommended Citation Kurt T. Lash, Resolution VI: The Virginia Plan and Authority to Resolve Collective Action Problems under Article I, Section 8, 87 Notre Dame L. Rev. 2123 (2013). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol87/iss5/11 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDL\87-5\NDL511.txt unknown Seq: 1 13-JUN-12 10:40 ARTICLES “RESOLUTION VI”: THE VIRGINIA PLAN AND AUTHORITY TO RESOLVE COLLECTIVE ACTION PROBLEMS UNDER ARTICLE I, SECTION 8 Kurt T. Lash* American courts have traditionally followed the general principle of limited enu- merated federal power in determining the scope of national authority. Recently, how- ever, a group of influential constitutional scholars such as Jack Balkin, Robert Cooter, Andrew Koppelman, Neil Siegel and others have called for doing away with this tradi- tional principle and replacing it with the principle declared in Resolution VI of the Virginia Plan. Originally introduced in the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention, Resolution VI declares that federal power should be construed to reach all matters involving the “general interests of the Union,” those to which the “states separately are incompetent” and those affecting national “harmony.” Under this principle, Congress has power to regulate all collective action problems of national importance.
    [Show full text]
  • The Threat of a Second Constitutional Convention: Patrick Henry's Lasting Legacy Jeffery K
    University of Richmond Law Review Volume 25 | Issue 3 Article 6 1991 The Threat of a Second Constitutional Convention: Patrick Henry's Lasting Legacy Jeffery K. Mitchell University of Richmond Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Jeffery K. Mitchell, The Threat of a Second Constitutional Convention: Patrick Henry's Lasting Legacy, 25 U. Rich. L. Rev. 519 (1991). Available at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview/vol25/iss3/6 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Richmond Law Review by an authorized editor of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE THREAT OF A SECOND CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION: PATRICK HENRY'S LASTING LEGACY I. INTRODUCTION The Bill of Rights secured the individual freedoms that constitute the mainstay of American liberty.1 The Framers of the Constitution did not include these vital rights in the original version of the document.2 In fact, the first ten amendments were proposed by Congress to secure ratifica- tion of the Constitution and, more importantly, to prevent a second con- stitutional convention.3 Virginians played a vital role in the first constitutional convention: the 1787 Philadelphia meeting started with the introduction of the "Virginia plan" for a federal constitution.4 Almost immediately after the close of the convention, another Virginia plan surfaced. This plan called for a sec-, ond constitutional convention. When the delegates to the Philadelphia meeting created the document that is now our Constitution, they surpassed their authority.
    [Show full text]
  • The Great Compromise, Three-Fifths Compromise, and the Dark Bargain
    The Great Compromise, Three-Fifths Compromise, and the Dark Bargain The Jersey Plan The Virginia Plan Proposed by William Patterson Proposed by Edmond Randolf and James Madison One-House Legislature like the “Aof C” Two-House Legislature One vote per state Representation in both Houses proportional Weak Executive Branch w/ two to the population of each state Presidents One Chief Executive Judicial System Power to set taxes and regulate trade Power to set taxes and regulate trade The Great Compromise Proposed by Roger Sherman Two-House Legislature: - Lower House of Representatives with number of votes based on population - Upper House, called the Senate, with two votes per state One Chief Executive (President) with sufficient powers Judicial System The Legislative Branch House of Representatives Senate 2 yr term, 25 yrs. Old, 7 yrs. a citizen, live in state 6 yr term, 1/3 up for reelection every 2 yrs. Impeach – charge an official with crimes 30 yrs. old, 9 yrs. a citizen, U.S. Vice President is - Collect taxes - Pay Military president of the Senat. Tries Impeachments - Promote General Welfare - Borrow money - Collect taxes - Pay Military - Borrow Money - Regulate Commerce - Coin Money - Promote General Welfare - Regulate Commerce - Declare War - Coin Money - Declare War The Executive Branch The President of the United States 4 yr term, 22nd Amendment in 1951 limits The Judicial Branch the President to 2 terms - Elected by the Electoral College - Natural born citizen - 35 yrs. old - lived in U.S. 14 yrs. Supreme Court - Commander & Chief
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Note on Formation of the Constitution
    HISTORICAL NOTE ON FORMATION OF THE CONSTITUTION In June 1774, the Virginia and Massachusetts assemblies independently proposed an intercolonial meeting of delegates from the several colonies to restore union and harmony between Great Britain and her American Colo- nies. Pursuant to these calls there met in Philadelphia in September of that year the first Continental Congress, composed of delegates from 12 colonies. On October 14, 1774, the assembly adopted what has become to be known as the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress. In that instrument, addressed to his Majesty and to the people of Great Britain, there was embodied a statement of rights and principles, many of which were later to be incorporated in the Declaration of Independence and the Federal Con- stitution.1 This Congress adjourned in October with a recommendation that an- other Congress be held in Philadelphia the following May. Before its succes- sor met, the battle of Lexington had been fought. In Massachusetts the colo- nists had organized their own government in defiance of the royal governor and the Crown. Hence, by general necessity and by common consent, the sec- ond Continental Congress assumed control of the “Twelve United Colonies”, soon to become the “Thirteen United Colonies” by the cooperation of Geor- gia. It became a de facto government; it called upon the other colonies to assist in the defense of Massachusetts; it issued bills of credit; it took steps to organize a military force, and appointed George Washington commander in chief of the Army. While the declaration of the causes and necessities of taking up arms of July 6, 1775,2 expressed a “wish” to see the union between Great Britain and the colonies “restored”, sentiment for independence was growing.
    [Show full text]