DOCSLIB.ORG

U.S. Constitution, N.D.Ağ

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
U.S. Constitution, N.D.Ağ ௐ 2 ഇ! ࢱ 79-98! 2020 ѐ/आ؞ཱི !ס έ៉઼ᅫࡁտ؞Ώ! ௐ 16 Taiwan International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 79-98 Summer 2020 美國的制憲－大妥協的產物 ࡔ඲౰ ܜ୶ѯ̂ጯϏֽጯࡁտٙઘି଱ٙ ၡ ࢋ Ă˵ߏ We the people ௐ˘Ѩڱߏˠᙷௐ˘ొј͛ጳڱ઼࡚۞ጳ ࡚ٺநሀёĄࢬ၆ᙯڼĂι˵யϠ݈ٙϏ֍۞઼छ̚ڱᆷˢˠᙷ۞ጳ ጳ۞࿅඀ᄃຍטЧ჌̙Т۞ෞᆊĂώ͛ԓ୕ਕྎΐᑭෛ઼࡚ڱጳ઼ ĂТॡԓ୕ਕԱ΍າ۞هО෪ٕߏߊѣ۞௖ரໄڕגཌྷĂរᙋ˘ਠ۞ ቁםጳ۞̂ԁטጳߏ˘࣎ϔ୉ّॾᄃϔ͹ّॾ۞ዳјĄ઼࡚ט൴Ąୁ ؠѣᏮѣᛏ۞፟טϲ઼࡚ϲ઼ჟৠĂᄮ୻Ӏৈυ൒኏ࡎ۞ώኳĄΪѣ ᚶᜈĂࠎҋ̎˵ឰҾˠѣۋߏࠎ˞ឰᚮםщĄԁ˳ڼܜਕ̖ޘט׶ົ ᆸˠϔ۞ሤଐغ˞ጳගԧࣇ۞ୁϯߏĂੵטᖙώ۞፟ົĄΩγĂ઼࡚ ᄃՙ͕γĂ˯ᆸයࡻ۞ംᇊᄃኢࢗਕ˧ՀߏјΑ۞ᙯᔣĄ םጳົᛉă֣ᓑ୧ഠă̂ԁטᙯᔣෟĈ̂ౙົᛉă ăௐ 2 ഇĞ2020/आ؞ཱིğס Įέ៉઼ᅫࡁտ؞Ώįௐ 16 80 I confess that there are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. ... I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. ... It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies. Benjamin FranklinĞU.S. Constitution, n.d.ağ 壹、前言 Ăזቔ͛ౢ̚೩˘۞ܕ઼࡚৸ࡗॡಡ૞᛼үछ Thomas Friedman д౵ ΁ྙય઼࡚̂૞ੰ७؎ࣶົĞcollege boardğ࢑ య SAT ̂ጯˢጯ҂ྏ۞͹გ ˠ̀Ă̦ᆃߏ઼࡚̂ጯϠдጯ७ጯ௫ᄃ૟ֽ΍ۤົĂ౵ᙯᔣࢦࢋ۞ԫਕ׶ ĂSAT ԓ୕͔ጱՏ࣎ӈ૟ซڱඍ९ߏĈ࿪ཝࡊጯ׶઼࡚ጳ۞זᙊĉ΁଀ۢ ௐ˘࣒ϒ९ĞFirst AmendmentğĂιৠཐг੃ڱˢ̂ጯ۞ጯϠਕৌ̷ᒢྋጳ ă֏ኢăາჷăะົăᄃኛᙸ̣̂ҋϤĄপҾߏ༊݈ѣ˘࣎Ҭͼି؟඾ྶ ព˞ĞFriedman, 2019ğĄځࢦࢋّಶՀ۞ڱᓁ௚Ăጳ۞ڱᑖ଀઼࡚ጳ͉̙ Ă˵ߏ We the people ௐ˘Ѩᆷˢˠڱߏˠᙷௐ˘ొј͛ጳڱ઼࡚۞ጳ ጯ۰ BilliasڱநሀёĄ઼࡚ጳڼĂι˵யϠ݈ٙϏ֍۞઼छ̚ڱᙷ۞ጳ ࡔ͵ 19 זᇆᜩ˧ࡍ෸ 3 ࣎͵ࡔĂࢵАд 18 ͵ࡔ۞ڱĞ2009ğᄮࠎ઼࡚ጳ ᇆᜩҘΔለതϔ઼छᄃതϔг̝ม۞ᙯܼాඕĄд 19 ͵ࡔڱഇĂ઼࡚ጳܐ ឰٛ˚࡚߷ăΐઙͧঔᔘѣለ߷۞ϔ୉͹ཌྷ੠Ր۰ѣٙણڱཧĂ઼࡚ጳ̚ Ăֲ߷ᄃٛ˚࡚߷઼ޢۋഇĂд࡚Ҙጼܐࡔ͵ 20 זࡔϐഇ͵ 19 ˞ז҂Ą ĂՀᇆޢࠎֶፂĄдௐ˘Ѩ͵ࠧ̂ጼඕՁڱछ۞ϔ୉͹ཌྷྻજౌ઼࡚̏ጳ າޢજĄௐ˟Ѩ͵ࠧ̂ጼඕՁྻٸ׶ֲ߷гડ۞തϔгྋڌ߷ă̚ܧזᜩ ĄޘטᎸ۞፾ϲ઼छ˵ౌણ҂઼࡚۞ጳ߆ ϔ͹ᄃӎ۞યᗟĂ۞ڱጯ۰ Robert Dahl ݒ೩΍઼࡚ጳڼ൒҃Ă઼࡚߆ ˘ߏӎৌ۞јࠎБ͵ࠧ۞׏ቑĄ΁Е΍ 22 ࣎ᄃ઼࡚ڱТॡ΁˵ኳႷ઼࡚ጳ ĂপҾᙱטᇹᘦؠ۞ϔ͹઼छ̚Ă՟ѣЇң˘઼࣎छߏϼड़઼࡚۞ጳ߆វ 81 ۏய۞םጳů̂ԁט઼࡚۞ ăᖎטᏊ፟טĂΒӣˬᝋ̶ϲ̚۞ޘטͽሀϼ۞ߏፋ࣎஄Ъд˘੓۞পҾ ăૻ๕۞عĞfirst-past-the-postğଵᑟௐˬᛨ׶ᓑЪ߆ޘטಏкᇴՙ۞Ᏼᓝ ည̂छຐ̙֭ڱ׌ੰ઼ົҭߏ̙၆ඈ۞ણᛉੰ΃ܑᝋĄͽѩ៍̝Ă઼࡚ጳ ϲдޙߏڱညг֤ਠߏϡдБ͵ࠧЧ઼˯ĄLazareĞ1997ğՀᄮؠ઼࡚۞ጳ ࿁ጳ۞ૄᖂ˯ĂЯࠎА݈۞ĺ֣ᓑ୧ഠĻĞArticles of Confederationğఢ ؠ Ї ఼࿅Լј 13 ࣎э۞ڱጳົᛉԯጳטң࣒Լυื 13 ֣࣎۞БᇴТຍĂҭߏ ׎̚۞ 9 ఼࣎࿅ӈΞĂ҃ͷֹϡ఺࣎࿁ጳ۞ఢ݋ૻҖ఼࿅઼࡚னѣ۞఺ొ Ąڱጳ ጳ΃ܑࣇטጳົᛉߏĶ෱ݱ؈ᖹķĂטΩ˘͞ࢬĂBowenĞ1986ğݒჍ Ξਕ۞ЇચĂΪਕͽ؈ᖹΐͽԛटĄ̙ܕдೋК۞̂ᒖဩ˭ĂԆј఺ีೀ ጳ۞࿅඀טЧ჌̙Т۞ෞᆊĂώ͛ԓ୕ਕྎΐᑭෛ઼࡚ڱ઼࡚ጳٺࢬ၆ᙯ ĂТॡԓ୕ਕԱ΍າ۞هО෪ٕߏߊѣ۞௖ரໄڕגᄃຍཌྷĂរᙋ˘ਠ۞ ୁ൴Ą 貳、制憲背景 1778 ٺĂޘטĂ˵ฟؕ඾͘నࢍЧ֣̝ፋЪۋ઼࡚д 1776 ฟؕ፾ϲጼ ѐᒔ଀፾ 1783 ޢѐଯ΍ĺ֣ᓑ୧ּĻĂ1781 ѐЧ֣Тຍྍ୧ּ̝̰टĄ̝ ঐਈλ̂Ă֣ᓑ઼̝ऱ۩෍ͷๅέ੼᎝Ă۞ۋ፾ϲጼٺ౼ӀĂϤ۞ۋϲጼ ๅચ׶̀һᓟᅹĂགྷᑻᏂ୧ͷ఼Ꮆ੼ႚĄ઼ڱ᎕ͣ ڱĂ൑ޘטᓑ୧ഠ۞֣ٺࢨצݒعᓝ۞ӧဩĂ֣ᓑ߆ޞࢬ၆тѩѺᆿ ᝋેҖ̳ᝋ˧Ąѩ˜Яࠎ֣ᓑ୧ּڱᝋ˧Ă˵൑Φ̝عѣड़гҖֹ̚δ߆ ᝋăҋϤă፾ڼᝋ˧ĂఢؠЧ֣̪ጾѣ׎௚۞عពгऴ̼̚δ߆ځௐ˟୧ Ķ̂ౙົᛉķĞContinental Congressğ׎၁̙ਕعϲҋ͹ᝋĂ༊ॡ۞̚δ߆ ၆ Congress ۞ᒢྋĄֽޢٺჍࠎ઼ົĂ౤кΪߏЧ֣۞΃ܑົᛉĂ̙ਕඈТ ֣˘Ąд΃ܑົᛉ̚ĂՏع୧ּ̰ट౹ౄ΍˘࣎൑ᝋă൑ᇆᜩ˧۞̚δ߆ ኢˠ˾кဿĂౌѣπඈ۞˘ைᝋ˧ĂЧ֣ΞҋҖՙؠтңᏴࠁົᛉ΃ܑĂ̙ ࢎ઼छ߆ඉ۞טϺΞᐌॡͽЧ჌நϤಓаٕՀೱ΃ܑĄѩ΃ܑົᛉߊ৿ͻ Ąܛᝋ˧ĂՀᚑࢦ۞ߏ՟ѣᇈඁᝋĂΪਕЈᏥЧֶ֣ຍᙸ೩ֻྤ ăௐ 2 ഇĞ2020/आ؞ཱིğס Įέ៉઼ᅫࡁտ؞Ώįௐ 16 82 ၆̰ᄃ၆γਕ˧ౌϏజኬ̟ĄعЧ֣˵ΞЧҋซҖγϹ̍үĂ̚δ߆ ஄ใĄ൑ੑٽЧ֣˵ѣЧҋ۞ఱ။ր௚Ă՟ѣ˘࣎௚˘۞ఱ။ĂЧ֣۞Ϲ үĄ఺ྻ̝عᐺᔘγๅĂ˵൑ੑ˧ჯ޺̚δ߆ڱĂॲώ൑˭ڶ߆ਕ˧̝ଐ ăع൑߆˯ڼၗĂለ߷ˠ˵ෛ༊ॡ۞઼࡚ߏ߆ېع൑߆ٺܕ߱ഇมΞᄲೀ ॡѣֱതϔгˠۋгડĄಶည፾ϲጼޢགྷᑻ˯൑৩Ԕă઼ϔม൑৵ኳ۞ར ࡻ઼۞௚هឰధк઼࡚ˠᘃ˵ڶېĂ఺߱஄ใ۞۞ڼ௚ވߏጾ᜕ࡻ઼ͳ̀ ᔘՀΐӧᙱĄۋந˘࣎າ۞઼छͧχᛏ፾ϲጼڼזĄ΁ࣇវົڼ ౵۞ޘטѐ۞ᔁΦ੓ཌྷĞShays’ RebellionğĂߏᑅݲ֣ᓑ 1786 ٺ൴Ϡ Ă༊ॡࢬءॡ۞઼࡚࢕ۋॲቌਨĄ͹֎ᔁΦĞDaniel Shaysğߏ፾ϲጼ˘ޢ ၆֣ᓑഇม౫ᖠኜ๫ੑ߆εԔĂ႐ෛྺϔ۞ϠࢍĂࠤҌᇈќᏴᓝˠᐝඁඈĄ ᔵ൒జᗉᑅĂֽޢᄃ࢕ͫऱĄੰڱˠϔԡ൑ΞԡĂдᔁΦ۞ᅳጱ˭ĂԽҫ ҭߏ͔੓ໂ̂۞ዩፁĄЧ֣ፉְ͕ၗᕖ̂Ă็ߖҌ׎΁Ч֣Ăࢦႊ࡚࢕༊ ̙גԼࢭ̏གྷזצᅳጱˠૻধຏڼĂ઼࡚Ч֣߆ۋጼ۞ጼކԩᇷ၆ࡻ઼ܐ Ąعδ߆̚ޙߏฟؕซҖଯજ࣒Լ֣ᓑ୧ּᄃࢦٺटቤĂ ણΐ۞֣ΪٺΡฟ̂ົĂϤعѐд੺֧ᜋࢵ 1786 ٺЯ҃̂ౙົᛉ΃ܑ ѣ 5 ࣎Ă΃ܑࣇᄮࠎᑕྍՀӅ˧д෱ݱΡฟՀᚑඥ۞ጳ߆ົᛉĄჯРκֲ д 1787 ѐ 2 ͡Ă̂ٺࢵА޽ࠁ˞΃ܑĂ૲જ׎΁֣ត˵ྫྷ඾޽ࠁ΃ܑĂ௣ ౙົᛉ൴΍Ρฟ̂ົ۞ੈिĂ൒҃༊ॡ۞ࢵࢋϫᇾΪߏ࣒ϒ֣ᓑ୧ּĂֹ ׎ٙѣၑბਕѣड़ྋՙĄ҃ͷٙઇ࣒Լυื೩ಡ̂ౙົᛉĂ֭ᒔ଀Ч֣Т ຍ̝ޢĂ̖ਕϠड़Ą ྿෱ݱ1Ăז౪࢚ᅊĞJames MadisonğĂ̙ҭதА۞̝ͭڱజჍࠎ઼࡚ጳ ጳ΃ܑΒӣ૵˜ղҹ William Samuel JohnsonăRoger ShermanăOliver Ellsworthט 1 ĞElsworthğ*ĈᇇٛϞ George ReadăGunning Bedford, Jr.ăJohn DickinsonăRichard William FewăAbraham BaldwinăWilliam Houstoun*ă ֲڼBassettăJacob Broomćಕ William L. Pierce*ć੺֧ᜋ James McHenryăDaniel of St. Thomas JeniferăDaniel Carrollă Luther Martin*ăJohn F. Mercer*ć౫ᖠኜ๫ Nathaniel GorhamăRufus KingăElbridge Gerry*ăCaleb Strong*ćາցοआ John LangdonăNicholas Gilmanć৸፨Ҙ William LivingstonăDavid BrearlyĞBrearleyğăWilliam PatersonĞPattersonğăJonathan Daytonă William C. Houston*ć৸ࡗ Alexander HamiltonăJohn Lansing, Jr.*ăRobert Yates*ΔΙᘲ ඿ৼ William BlountăRichard Dobbs SpaightăHugh WilliamsonăWilliam R. Davie*ă κֲ Benjamin FranklinăThomas MifflinăRobert MorrisăGeorgeڱAlexander Martin*ćᄼ́ 83 ۏய۞םጳů̂ԁט઼࡚۞ ᚑࢦ๋ט΁Հซ˘Վ೩΍̙ҭߏࢋ࣒Լ֣ᓑ୧ּĂЯࠎ֣ᓑ୧ּ۞ՙඉ፟ ؠາጳטؠ˘इາఢ݋۞͞ШĂ఺ߏט͹វّĂЯѩᅮࢋഈ۞عच̚δ߆ Ăࢋឰາڱࢎ˘ొາጳטĞBowen, 1986ğĄ౪࢚ᅊ͹ૺᑕྍزௐ˘࣎ᄲ۞ ҭࢋጾѣ༊ॡ̂ౙົᛉ۞Бొᝋ˧ĂՀࢋጾѣ෹΍Ч֣۞׎̙عᓑ֣߆۞ ጳົᛉĞConstitutionalטιᝋ˧Ăѩ׌ีࣧ݋ӈࠎჯРκֲ͞९Ą ႬᅊĞJames Wilsonğރጳࠁд౪࢚ᅊᄃטConventionğ۞᜜ኢणฟԔ၌Ą ࢎ߆ඉ۞ט૲ᅳ˭Ă᎕ໂଯજᆿੵ൑ેҖड़ਕ۞̚δ߆ᝋͽ̈́Ч֣፾ϲ۞ ಏҜĂڱᑕਕۡତგநˠϔĂ౅࿅Җ߆ᄃΦعĂ΁ࣇᄮࠎĂ઼छ̚δ߆ڱү ᄃ׻΄ĄΩγĂາ۞઼ົ΃ܑˠᇴυืѣԁච۞щଵĄڱޠ၁ેҖ׎̷ 參、主要爭議與妥協 ᛉ˵ు˘ঙனĄௐ˘࣎ۋጳ۞າࢱĂٙѣטٚ˯ٙ֏Ă౪࢚ᅊˠ೬ฟ ᛉᕇߏາ઼ົ۞௡јͽ̈́Ᏼᓝ͞ёĂ˘࣎΃ܑэᝋ۞ણᛉੰۋ͹ࢋ۞ ۋĞSenateğâ࣎΃ܑˠϔ۞ிᛉੰĞHouse of RepresentativesğĄௐ˟࣎ ᓁ௚۞ˠᇴăЇഇăᏴٺ௡ᖐ׶யϠ͞ёĄপҾߏᙯ۞ܝҖ߆ొٺᛉᕇд ЇֽܜኢĂ̙Т۞͹ૺΒ߁ᑕ༊ϤЧээۋયᗟඈѣٙ۞ךᓝ͞ёăజᇅ ׻ăϤЧэ۞ᛉົֽᏴᓝăϤˠϔۡତᏴᓝăϤᏴᓝˠֽᏴᓝăࠤҌߏϤ ᓁ௚ᝋ˧͉̂ĂតјΩ˘઼࣎ͳĂͤ֨ٺ٩ចՙؠĄ҂ณ۞Я৵дֽົ઼ ҭ˵̙ԓ୕ߏ˘࣎൑၁ᝋ۞ऴ๕ᅳጱˠĂࢦႊ֣ᓑ۞ӧဩĄ ז˸Ą̙Ϊߏхᆿ۞યᗟĂᔘѣ੟טኢͧྵ̂۞યᗟߏζᔴۋௐˬ࣎ טᛉ۞གྷᑻᄃ྽ᇇયᗟĄௐα࣎ۋ׍ޝߏ˵ٽҋϤэ۞఍நયᗟĂζᔴ෶ ᏳᏴ͞ёĄ̈э͹ૺĂϤણᛉੰ۞ءڱٺኢ۞͹ࢋયᗟߏĂᙯۋ˯ጳົᛉ ĄءڱĂҭߏ౪࢚഑ඈˠ͹ૺϤᓁ௚ֽЇ׻ءڱЇ׻ֽ ClymerăThomas FitzsimonsĞFitzSimons; FitzsimmonsğăJared IngersollăJames Wilsonă Gouverneur MorrisćݑΙᘲ඿ৼ John RutledgeăCharles CotesworthăPinckneyăCharles PinckneyăPierce Butlerćᘲᇇफ՟ѣࠁ΃ܑćჯРκֲ John BlairăJames Madison Jr.ă George WashingtonăGeorge Mason*ăJames McClurg*ăEdmund J. Randolph*ăGeorge ጳົᛉဦĄט ᐂ 1ܢ͛ІĞLloyd, n.d.ğĄણ֍ڱ՟ѣᘪཌጳޢWythe*ćŎܑϯ౵ ăௐ 2 ഇĞ2020/आ؞ཱིğס Įέ៉઼ᅫࡁտ؞Ώįௐ 16 84 Ăυืͽፋវֽ࠻ĂЯࠎ΁ࣇ̝ม۞ڍඕޢᛉ۞੅ኢᄃ౵ۋ఺ֱ͹ࢋ ߏాજᇆᜩĄд઼ົ۞यѨ̶੨˯Ă౪࢚ᅊ૲ᅳ۞ჯРκֲ͞९͹ૺםԁ ׌ੰӮ޷ˠ˾ּͧซҖ̶੨Ă׎̚ிᛉੰۡତϤˠϔᏴᓝĂ҃ણᛉੰ݋Ϥ Ąܓэ۞ᝌ̂זצிᛉੰᏴᓝயϠĄѩ͞९೼࿆ ΩγĂֽҋݑΙᘲ඿ৼэ۞πҹκĞCharles PinckneyğаᑕჯРκֲ ९Ă೩΍ᑕྍϡ୧ࡗٕᓑ༖۞ԛё૟ 13 ࣎эᓑᘭ੓ֽĂТຍనཉણி׌͞ ϔ̚Ᏼ΍˘ҜிᛉࣶćГϤிᛉࣶᏴ΍ણᛉࣶĂ઼ົاĂҭߏՏ 1,000 Ҝੰ к۞͉זᔘᅮд׌ੰᓑयົᛉ˯Ᏼ΍ᓁ௚֭޽ؠ̰ᅦˠᏴĄѩ͞९՟ѣ଀ ੅ኢĂΪѣొ̶д׎΁੅ኢॡజ೩̈́Ą প഑ĞWilliams PattersonğسჯРκֲ೩΍۞̂э͞९Ă৸፨Ҙ۞ٺ࠹၆ প഑ᄮࠎ֣ᓑ୧س೩΍˘Њ΃ܑ̈эϲಞ۞͞९ĂӈజჍࠎ৸፨Ҙ͞९Ą ኬ̟Чэд઼ົ̚۞΃ܑᝋౌߏπඈ۞ĂՏэౌߏ˘ை۞ܑՙᝋĂҭჯּ ព၆ځРκֲ͞९݋೩΍઼ົ׌ੰ΃ܑˠᇴӮ޷Чэˠ˾ᇴณซҖ̶੨Ă ࣒ጳ۞͹ܕˠ˾̈э۞ӀৈĄѩ͞९ߏྵତז਎ރэ̙ӀĂЯѩົᚑࢦ̈ ૺĂ΁ࣇ೩΍ܲ঻̂ౙົᛉĂҭߏࢋ૟׎ᝋ˧ᕖૺĂ౵ࢦࢋ۞ߏኬ̟ᇈඁ ,ĞU.S. ConstitutionޠڱЧэ۞ٺӮ੼ޠڱᝋ˧Ă҃ͷЇң઼ົ఼࿅۞۞ n.d.bğĄ ѩ͞ٺௐˬ࣎͹ࢋ͞९ߏϤ႔૜Ⴌ࿲ĞAlexander Hamiltonğ೩΍ĂϤ Ăٙͽ˵జჍࠎࡻ઼͞९Ą႔૜Ⴌ࿲Тຍనϲણி׌ט९ྵᙷҬࡻ઼۞វ Ă׎̚ிᛉੰϤˠϔۡᏴĂЇഇ 3 ѐĄ҃ણᛉੰ݋дˠϔٙᏴࠁ۞௣֗ੰ Їᖚ۞΃ܑ̚ซҖᏴᓝĄТॡ఺˘͞९˵ఢؠϤᏴᓝˠᏴᓝ΍۞Б઼Җ߆ ९ጾѣ඗၆۞ӎՙᝋĄѩγĂڱĞᓁ௚ğߏࠎ௣֗ᖚĂ֭ͷ၆Їң઼ົܜࢵ ,ĞU.S. ConstitutionڱϤ઼ົ޽ࠁĂ֭ͷ઼ົѣᝋଯᖙЇңэ۞ϲܜЧээ n.d.bğĄ ͽ˯۞͞९ĂЧѣٙӀৈჯ᜕Ă˵Чѣٙિ޺Ă̂эᄃ̈э̝ม۞̶ Ϥ૵˜ղҹ۞ᔁႬતĞRoger Shermanğ೩΍˞૵ޢពĂᙱͽੜឰĄ౵ځڡ ͹ࢋߏፋЪჯРκֲ۞̂э͞९Ă׶৸፨Ҙ۞̈ם९Ą఺˘ԁםղҹԁ˜ э͞९Ă೩ᛉдிᛉੰ۞΃ܑˠᇴᑕྍ޷Чэˠ˾ᇴณ̶੨Ă҃ણᛉੰ݋ 85 ۏய۞םጳů̂ԁט઼࡚۞ ᑕྍՏ˘࣎эౌТᇹߏѣ˘Ҝ΃ܑ2Ăѩ೩९јΑгቁϲણᛉࣶЩᗝ۞̶ Ąטᓑ֣វ۞̚ڱᝊĂ֭ܲ޺˞ጳ ೼࿆ĂੵטĂ༊ॡ۞ζᔴڍጳົᛉ۞ඕטโζયᗟ˵ߏ஝જፋ࣎ٺҌ ጳົטγĂ̙ኢݑΔ͞ౌѣᄊζ۞ଐԛĄણᄃטາࡻॾᜋߏԆБ൑ζᔴ˞ ᛉ۞ 55 Ҝ΃ܑ̚ಶѣ 25 Ҝߏζᔴ͹Ą༊ॡݑ͞ЧэֶᏥζᔴֽჯ޺׎჌ ᕝ൒༰ͤζᔴڱາጳڍё׎Ϡх۞͹ࢋᙯᔣĄЯѩтטങఄ๩གྷᑻĂζᔴ ԛјڱጳົᛉεୀĂซ҃൑טĂ๕υ͔੓ݑ͞э۞ૻধͅᇅĂࠤҌጱ࡭ט ࣎ᓑ֣វրĄ˘ ᑕྍ༰ͤЧэણᄃЇң઼ᅫڱિ޺ᆿζĂҭߏ̪િ޺ጳڱζੱᒉ൑ͅ ׎΁ז߷Ķซ˾ķζᔴٕߏ૟ώ઼ζᔴĶ΍˾ķܧĂΒ߁ଂٽζᔴ෶۞ّ Ϥ˘࣎ 11 Ҝ΃ܑ௡ј۞পҾ؎ࣶົ੅ኢՙޢĂ౵˭̙ેۋछĄ׌͞ຍ֍઼ ٽ९ĂؼᏵᓑ઼֣ົጾѣ׶Җֹ༰઼ͤᅫζᔴ෶͞םඉĂ֭೩ֻ˞˘࣎ԁ Ąҭߏ୧Іࠎ૟ֽᓑ֣ٽጳົᛉ̙̚ົ༰ζᔴ෶טĂ΃ܑޢᝋ˧Ҍ 20 ѐ۞ ᕣΪᅮܝ९Ă׎఼࿅۞ڱᇈඁĂ఼ٕ࿅࠹ᑕٽᅮࢋ၆઼ᅫζᔴ෶ڍтع߆ ࠹၆кᇴӈΞĂ̙ᅮࢋߏ 2/3 ۞඗၆кᇴ఼࿅Ą ᛉߏтңৼˢˠ˾ࢍზ̚ĂপҾߏдࢍზЧэ۞ۋโζాજ۞Ω˘࣎ ζэ೩ᛉ૟โζෛࠎੑயĂ̙ৼˢிᛉࣶ۞ܧிᛉࣶयѨॡ۞ࢍზᇾ໤Ą यѨ̶੨ࢍზ̚Ąᄊζэ۞ͅᇅૻধΞຐ҃ۢĂ΁ࣇᄮࠎдࢍზЧэ۞̶ ੨ඁኬॡโζజࢍზˢ̰Ă༊൒д̶੨ிᛉࣶयѨॡ˵ྍБᇴৼˢࢍზĄ Ⴌᅊ೩ᛉд௚ࢍЧэˠ˾ֽՙؠྍэிᛉࣶˠᇴॡĂՏҜโζ޷ރϤޢ౵ ˞ז଀םĄ఺˘ԁם઼࡚̳࣎ϔࢍზĂ఺ಶߏٙᏜ۞̶̣̝ˬԁˬ̶̝̣ ࣎ࢦ̂ᛉᗟĞWills, 2003ğĄ˘ޢ఼࿅Ă֭ͷ˵ߏົᛉྋՙ۞౵ ᛉĂ׎̚౵ᙯᔣ۞Яם᜜̙ᕝҭߏᓁਕ྿јۋጳົᛉ۞࿅඀Ăטტ៍ ̙˵Гܑϯ͵ࠧ˯՟ѣȈБȈ࡚۞ְĂٙͽ˘ڒჟৠĂಱᜋҹ۞ם৵ߏԁ Ăڍಶߏ౵р۞ඕڶѣȈБȈ࡚۞ྋՙ͞९ĂᔖࢦಶᅅĂਕྴฟ౵ᗼ۞ଐົ Ą఺჌ڱጳ۞צĂҭߏ̂छΞͽତڱჍ఺̙ߏ˘ొԆ࡚۞ጳڒٙͽಱᜋҹ ѣ࠹༊ӄৈĄםछચ၁гԁ̂ٺన၆ޙԆ࡚۞͕நޞഇ̙ 2 ౵ޢజ࣒ԼࠎՏэ 2 ЩણᛉࣶयѨĄ ăௐ 2 ഇĞ2020/आ؞ཱིğס Įέ៉઼ᅫࡁտ؞Ώįௐ 16 86 ጳົᛉ΃טጳјΑ۞ࢦࢋЯ৵Ąטቢ˵ߏ͔ጱغγĂ౵ૄώ۞̝םԁ ጳᛉົ̙ਕ˘ְ൑טቢĈࢵАߏغ̂ˬࣇᄮТ఺࣎ࢦࢋ۞ົᛉυืિчܑ ߏ̙ਕϡޢјćГ۰̙ਕЯѩጱ࡭઼छ۞̶ෘĂ҃ͷυืᓑЪ׶௚˘ć౵ ጳົᛉኘטĂΪਕдۋ྿јᓑЪ׶௚˘Ă̙ਕឰ઼࡚дགྷ።˘Ѩጼֽ˧ڠ ҿ྿јĄ ਨڱฏ˭Ăጳܔিጶͷާ඾૱ܧጳ΃ܑࣇౌט።གྷ 127 ͇۞ጬ੽Ăд ᘪфĄಱᜋҹ˯ڱ΍ᚤĂҭΪѣБొ 55 Ҝᄃົ΃ܑ̚۞ 39 Ҝдጳٺ९௣ ᄲ΍።Ϋ˯ໂࠎѣЩ۞˘߱ྖĂ΁ᄲĶҋ̎གྷ૱࠻඾͹यഎ̄˯۞఺࣎ڒ ੼Ꮈгۢޝؠ఺൪۞տౣߏ͟΍ᔘߏ͟རĄ̙࿅னдԧۺวĂݒᓁߏ̙͉ Օ۞͉วĄķĞShea, 2012: 212ğ˭ܧ҃̿˯྽఺ߏ͟΍Ă఺ߏ࣎ϒд फ़ֽ໚ĈUShistory.orgĞn.d.ğĄྤ ጳົᛉර஽࿲ٙӱ۞͹यഎ̄טဦ 1ċ జਖ਼ҌЧэڱௐ˛୧۞ఢؠĂጳڱߏֶፂጳܮĂГֽޢጳົᛉඕՁט г֤ਠึӀĂЧޞጳົᛉ΃ܑഇטซҖԲ఼ࣞ࿅ĄЧэ۞Բࣞ࿅඀̙֭ည ߏϤ౪ܮᒉ̚Ă౵ѣЩ۞ੱ۞ڱэ̰ొ̪ѣ፬ধ۞ኢ᜜Ąિؠጾ᜕ᓑ֣ጳ ࢚഑ă႔૜Ⴌ࿲ᄃ౰ϿĞJohn JayğˬˠĂֹϡඊЩ೼Ӏন೻ĞPubliusğд ͛ౢĄ1788 ѐĂ۞טᄃᓑ֣វڱ৸ࡗэ۞ಡ৽˯ాᜈ൴ܑ˞ 85 ቔ͚޺າጳ ᄪ۞ The Federalist PapersĞĮᓑ֣ኢįĂٕ็͵ޢĂјࠎۍ఺ֱ͛фඕะ΍ 87 ۏய۞םጳů̂ԁט઼࡚۞ ٽߏĮᓑ֣Ṑˠ͛ะįğĄፋώ͛ะ͔ϡΟԓᘷݱ֣ăᘲ੺ॡഇ۞ඕ༖ă෶ тң̖ਕԛј˘࣎ՀࠎԆච۞ᓑ༖Ăߊ಴ࢦЧ֣۞ҋ͹ځጼ߇ְĂᄲفᄃ ᝋĂ˫ਕ൴೭ᓑ༖۞౵̂ᐹ๕Ą೩ᏹ઼࡚ˠ඗̙ࢋࢦᔏᖬᖽ።Ϋ۞εୀି੊Ą फ़ֽ໚ĈCNN LibraryĞ2018ğĄྤ ࣧቇڱဦ 2ċ઼࡚ጳ 肆、美國憲法的原則 ޙٙڱࢵАĂԧࣇ͔ϡ઼࡚ጳ߆ጯ۰ SkousenĞ2007ğٙᕩৼ۞઼࡚ጳ ࣧ݋Ĉ̂ 28 ઼ޙϲ۞઼࡚ Ă̖ڱNatural law is the basis of a just and free societyĈΪѣᏲчҋ൒ .1 ϲ̳ϒᄃҋϤ۞ۤົĄޙਕ 2. A free society cannot exist without moral and virtuous peopleĈ˘࣎ҋ ˠĄ۞إϤ۞ۤົυืࢋѣݡᇇ੼ 3. A free society cannot exist without moral and virtuous leadersĈ˘࣎ҋ ᅳጱˠĄ۞إϤ۞ۤົ˵˘ؠࢋѣݡᇇ੼ ׶̳ϔعЈĂ߆ܫି؟՟ѣڍThe role of religion is foundationalĈт .4 Ą˳ܜҋϤಶ̙ਕ۞ ăௐ 2 ഇĞ2020/आ؞ཱིğס Įέ៉઼ᅫࡁտ؞Ώįௐ 16 88 5. All things were created by God, therefore upon Him all mankind are ˯࠰Ϥۏequally dependent, and to Him they are equally responsibleĈ༱ ࢬ݈ĂˠᙷӮֳѣТඈ۞ԕҦĂϺٚፉТඈ۞యЇĄޓ˯ٙ౹ౄĂдޓ All men are created equalĈٙѣ۞ˠϠֽౌߏπඈ۞Ą .6 عGovernment protects equal rights, does not provide equal thingsĈ߆ .7 ኳπඈĄۏᖚਕߏܲᅪˠϔ۞πඈᝋӀĂ̙҃ߏ೩ֻ۞ ͹ۏUnalienable rights are endowed by their CreatorĈˠᙷ͇Ϡֳѣౄ .8 ኬ̟۞̙Ξࣤဳ۞ᝋӀĄ 9. To protect rights God revealed certain divine lawsĈ˯ޓ೬ϯ᜕ܲˠᙷ ĄޠڱᝋӀ۞ৠཐ 10. Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed; ϒ༊ֽّҋБវˠϔ۞Т۞عsovereignty remains with the peopleĈ߆ ຍĂৠ̖ົኬ̟ᝋ˧Ą 11. Oppressive government may be altered or abolished by the peopleĈˠ ϔ ĄعѣᝋԼតٕଯᖙ߉Җᇷ߆۞߆ ϲВ׶߆វĄޙThe United States shall be a RepublicĈ઼࡚ᑕ .12 13. A constitution should be structured to permanently protect the people ۰Яҋ൒۞ˠّڼfrom the human frailties of their rulersĈࠎ˞֨ͤ௚ Ąޘטనࢍ΍ϖ˳۞ܲᅪڱऴᕇ๋҃चˠϔ۞ᝋӀĂυืϤጳ Property rights secure people’s libertiesĈˠϔυืֳѣੑய۞ᝋӀĂ .14 ਕֳѣҋϤĄ̖ 15. Free market and minimal government best supports prosperityĈ౅࿅ҋ ࿰Ăߏᒔ଀ᓄၷ۞౵ָܲᙋĄ̒عϤξಞགྷᑻ׶౵͌۞߆ 16. Government should be separated into three branches: Legislative, Ąܝ࣎ొˬڱăҖ߆׶Φڱᑕྍထ̶ࠎϲعExecutive and JudicialĈ߆ 17. A system of checks and balances help to prevent abuse of powerĈᑕޙ Ăͽ֨ቑᝋ˧ᑿϡĄޘטᏊטϲˬᝋ̶ϲ۞ ҌᙯࢦࢋĄڱA written Constitution protects unalienable rightsĈј͛ጳ .18 ᝋ˧ᑕྍ۞عGovernments should have limited and defined powersĈ߆ .19 89 ۏய۞םጳů̂ԁט઼࡚۞ Ąטѣٙؠཌྷ׶ࢨ кᇴˠՙؠפMajority rules, law protects the minority rightsĈՙඉଳ .20 υื᜕ܲ಴ࢦ͌ᇴˠ۞ᝋӀĄ˵ޠڱࣧ݋Ă۞ 21.
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]
  • The Inventory of the Ralph Ingersoll Collection #113
    The Inventory of the Ralph Ingersoll Collection #113 Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center John Ingersoll 1625-1684 Bedfordshire, England Jonathan Ingersoll 1681-1760 Connecticut __________________________________________ Rev. Jonathan Ingersoll Jared Ingersoll 1713-1788 1722-1781 Ridgefield, Connecticut Stampmaster General for N.E Chaplain Colonial Troops Colonies under King George III French and Indian Wars, Champlain Admiralty Judge Grace Isaacs m. Jonathan Ingersoll Baron J.C. Van den Heuvel Jared Ingersoll, Jr. 1770-1823 1747-1823 1749-1822 Lt. Governor of Conn. Member Const. Convention, 1787 Judge Superior and Supreme Federalist nominee for V.P., 1812 Courts of Conn. Attorney General Presiding Judge, District Court, PA ___ _____________ Grace Ingersoll Charles Anthony Ingersoll Ralph Isaacs Ingersoll m. Margaret Jacob A. Charles Jared Ingersoll Joseph Reed Ingersoll Zadock Pratt 1806- 1796-1860 1789-1872 1790-1878 1782-1862 1786-1868 Married General Grellet State=s Attorney, Conn. State=s Attorney, Conn. Dist. Attorney, PA U.S. Minister to England, Court of Napoleon I, Judge, U.S. District Court U.S. Congress U.S. Congress 1850-1853 Dept. of Dedogne U.S. Minister to Russia nom. U.S. Minister to under Pres. Polk France Charles D. Ingersoll Charles Robert Ingersoll Colin Macrae Ingersoll m. Julia Helen Pratt George W. Pratt Judge Dist. Court 1821-1903 1819-1903 New York City Governor of Conn., Adjutant General, Conn., 1873-77 Charge d=Affaires, U.S. Legation, Russia, 1840-49 Theresa McAllister m. Colin Macrae Ingersoll, Jr. Mary E. Ingersoll George Pratt Ingersoll m. Alice Witherspoon (RI=s father) 1861-1933 1858-1948 U.S. Minister to Siam under Pres.
    [Show full text]
  • Just Because John Marshall Said It, Doesn't Make It So: Ex Parte
    Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship 2000 Just Because John Marshall Said it, Doesn't Make it So: Ex Parte Bollman and the Illusory Prohibition on the Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus for State Prisoners in the Judiciary Act of 1789 Eric M. Freedman Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship Recommended Citation Eric M. Freedman, Just Because John Marshall Said it, Doesn't Make it So: Ex Parte Bollman and the Illusory Prohibition on the Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus for State Prisoners in the Judiciary Act of 1789, 51 Ala. L. Rev. 531 (2000) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship/53 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MILESTONES IN HABEAS CORPUS: PART I JUST BECAUSE JOHN MARSHALL SAID IT, DOESN'T MAKE IT So: Ex PARTE BoLLMAN AND THE ILLUSORY PROHIBITION ON THE FEDERAL WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR STATE PRISONERS IN THE JUDIcIARY ACT OF 1789 Eric M. Freedman* * Professor of Law, Hofstra University School of Law ([email protected]). BA 1975, Yale University;, MA 1977, Victoria University of Wellington (New Zea- land); J.D. 1979, Yale University. This work is copyrighted by the author, who retains all rights thereto.
    [Show full text]
  • Two Advisory Opinions by Chiefjustice Oliver Ellsworth
    Two Advisory Opinions by ChiefJustice Oliver Ellsworth William R. Casto ODA.Y ADVISORY OPINIONS are between the President and the House of anathema to the federal judiciary, but Representatives. Representative Edward T the early justices ofthe Supreme Court Livingston of New York had introduced a were not so loath to provide extrajudicialadvice resolution that would have reqnired President ro the Executive Branch. Although thejustices Washington to submit to the House the fanlOusly refused to render an advisory opinion documents and correspondence relevant to onone occasion duri~gthe Neutrality Crisis of the negotiation of the Jay Treaty, purportedly '793, their refusal was an exception (albeit an to assist the House in deciding whether to exception that was to become the rule) to their appropriate funds related to the treary. As ordinary practice. John Jay, the first Chief ProfeSSor David Currie has noted, "debate on Justice ofthe United States, gave the Executive this resolution lasted an enrire month and was Branch advisory opinions on a wide variety of one of the most impressive and fundamental • subjects before the 1793 refusal. After the ever conducted in Congress:'z Five days after Neutrality Crisis, the Court's third Chief he became Chief Justice, Ellsworth wrote an Justice, Oliver Ellsworth, continued the opinion letter to Connecticut Senator • practice..I .Jonathan-Trumbull, _cQru;!lJdinUj;t .. the. I , In 1796, Ellsworth wrote an advisory House had. no constitutional role in treaty • opinion on a looming constitutional dispute making and was thus bound to appropriate William R. Casto is the Alvin R. Allison Professor ofLaw at the Texas nch University School ofLaw.
    [Show full text]
  • Ch 5 NC Legislature.Indd
    The State Legislature The General Assembly is the oldest governmental body in North Carolina. According to tradition, a “legislative assembly of free holders” met for the first time around 1666. No documentary proof, however, exists proving that this assembly actually met. Provisions for a representative assembly in Proprietary North Carolina can be traced to the Concessions and Agreements, adopted in 1665, which called for an unicameral body composed of the governor, his council and twelve delegates selected annually to sit as a legislature. This system of representation prevailed until 1670, when Albemarle County was divided into three precincts. Berkeley Precinct, Carteret Precinct and Shaftsbury Precinct were apparently each allowed five representatives. Around 1682, four new precincts were created from the original three as the colony’s population grew and the frontier moved westward. The new precincts were usually allotted two representatives, although some were granted more. Beginning with the Assembly of 1723, several of the larger, more important towns were allowed to elect their own representatives. Edenton was the first town granted this privilege, followed by Bath, New Bern, Wilmington, Brunswick, Halifax, Campbellton (Fayetteville), Salisbury, Hillsborough and Tarborough. Around 1735 Albemarle and Bath Counties were dissolved and the precincts became counties. The unicameral legislature continued until around 1697, when a bicameral form was adopted. The governor or chief executive at the time, and his council constituted the upper house. The lower house, the House of Burgesses, was composed of representatives elected from the colony’s various precincts. The lower house could adopt its own rules of procedure and elect its own speaker and other officers.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to the Ratification of the Constitution in Maryland
    Introduction to the Ratification of the Constitution in Maryland Founding the Proprietary Colony The founding and establishment of the propriety government of Maryland was the product of competing factors—political, commercial, social, and religious. It was intertwined with the history of one family, the Calverts, who were well established among the Yorkshire gentry and whose Catholic sympathies were widely known. George Calvert had been a favorite of the Stuart king, James I. In 1625, following a noteworthy career in politics, including periods as clerk of the Privy Council, member of Parliament, special emissary abroad of the king, and a principal secretary of state, Calvert openly declared his Catholicism. This declaration closed any future possibility of public office for him. Shortly thereafter, James elevated Calvert to the Irish peerage as the baron of Baltimore. Calvert’s absence from public office afforded him an opportunity to pursue his interests in overseas colonization. Calvert appealed to Charles I, son of James, for a land grant.1 Calvert’s appeal was honored, but he did not live to see a charter issued. In 1632, Charles granted a proprietary charter to Cecil Calvert, George’s son and the second baron of Baltimore, making him Maryland’s first proprietor. Maryland’s charter was the first long-lasting one of its kind to be issued among the thirteen mainland British American colonies. Proprietorships represented a real share in the king’s authority. They extended unusual power. Maryland’s charter, which constituted Calvert and his heirs as “the true and absolute Lords and Proprietaries of the Region,” might have been “the best example of a sweeping grant of power to a proprietor.” Proprietors could award land grants, confer titles, and establish courts, which included the prerogative of hearing appeals.
    [Show full text]
  • The Question of Representation at the 1787 Convention
    The Question of Representation at the 1787 Convention Student Name ___________________________________________________ Date ________________ Activity Two: Bicameralism, Modes of Election and the “Rule of Suffrage” in Congress Reading Set A. One House or Two? 1. Constitutional Convention, 16 June 1787 http://www.teachingamericanhistory.com/convention/debates/0616.html Mr. PATTERSON, said as he had on a former occasion given his sentiments on the plan proposed by Mr. R. he would now avoiding repetition as much as possible give his reasons in favor of that proposed by himself…It is urged that two branches in the Legislature are necessary. Why? for the purpose of a check. But the reason of7 the precaution is not applicable to this case. Within a particular State, where party heats prevail, such a check may be necessary. In such a body as Congress it is less necessary, and besides, the delegations of the different States are checks on each other. Do the people at large complain of Congs.? No, what they wish is that Congs. may have more power. If the power now proposed be not eno', the people hereafter will make additions to it… Mr. WILSON entered into a contrast of the principal points of the two plans so far he said as there had been time to examine the one last proposed. These points were 1. in the Virga. plan there are 2 & in some degree 3 branches in the Legislature: in the plan from N. J. there is to be a single legislature only… [P]roceeding now to the 1st point on which he had contrasted the two plans, he observed that anxious as he was for some augmentation of the federal powers, it would be with extreme reluctance indeed that he could ever consent to give powers to Congs.
    [Show full text]
  • Union Calendar No. 502
    1 Union Calendar No. 502 107TH CONGRESS "!REPORT 2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 107–801 REPORT ON THE LEGISLATIVE AND OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS DURING THE 107TH CONGRESS JANUARY 2, 2003.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 19–006 WASHINGTON : 2003 COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS BILL THOMAS, California, Chairman PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida FORTNEY PETE STARK, California NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut ROBERT T. MATSUI, California AMO HOUGHTON, New York WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania WALLY HERGER, California SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland DAVE CAMP, Michigan JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin JIM NUSSLE, Iowa JOHN LEWIS, Georgia SAM JOHNSON, Texas RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts JENNIFER DUNN, Washington MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York MAC COLLINS, Georgia WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana ROB PORTMAN, Ohio JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania XAVIER BECERRA, California WES WATKINS, Oklahoma KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas JERRY WELLER, Illinois EARL POMEROY, North Dakota KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado RON LEWIS, Kentucky MARK FOLEY, Florida KEVIN BRADY, Texas PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin (II) LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, Washington, DC, January 2, 2003. Hon. JEFF TRANDAHL, Office of the Clerk, House of Representatives, The Capitol, Washington, DC. DEAR MR. TRANDAHL: I am herewith transmitting, pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 1(d), the report of the Committee on Ways and Means on its legislative and oversight activities during the 107th Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Life in the Early Republic: a Machine-Readable Transcription
    Library of Congress Social life in the early republic vii PREFACE peared to them, or recall the quaint figures of Mrs. Alexander Hamilton and Mrs. Madison in old age, or the younger faces of Cora Livingston, Adèle Cutts, Mrs. Gardiner G. Howland, and Madame de Potestad. To those who have aided her with personal recollections or valuable family papers and letters the author makes grateful acknowledgment, her thanks being especially due to Mrs. Samuel Phillips Lee, Mrs. Beverly Kennon, Mrs. M. E. Donelson Wilcox, Miss Virginia Mason, Mr. James Nourse and the Misses Nourse of the Highlands, to Mrs. Robert K. Stone, Miss Fanny Lee Jones, Mrs. Semple, Mrs. Julia F. Snow, Mr. J. Henley Smith, Mrs. Thompson H. Alexander, Miss Rosa Mordecai, Mrs. Harriot Stoddert Turner, Miss Caroline Miller, Mrs. T. Skipwith Coles, Dr. James Dudley Morgan, and Mr. Charles Washington Coleman. A. H. W. Philadelphia, October, 1902. ix CONTENTS Chapter Page I— A Social Evolution 13 II— A Predestined Capital 42 Social life in the early republic http://www.loc.gov/resource/lhbcb.29033 Library of Congress III— Homes and Hostelries 58 IV— County Families 78 V— Jeffersonian Simplicity 102 VI— A Queen of Hearts 131 VII— The Bladensburg Races 161 VII— Peace and Plenty 179 IX— Classics and Cotillions 208 X— A Ladies' Battle 236 XI— Through Several Administrations 267 XII— Mid-Century Gayeties 296 xi ILLUSTRATIONS Page Mrs. Richard Gittings, of Baltimore (Polly Sterett) Frontispiece From portrait by Charles Willson Peale, owned by her great-grandson, Mr. D. Sterett Gittings, of Baltimore. Mrs. Gittings eyes are dark brown, the hair dark brown, with lighter shades through it; the gown of delicate pink, the sleeves caught up with pearls, the sash of a gray shade.
    [Show full text]
  • Charles Ingersoll: the ^Aristocrat As Copperhead
    Charles Ingersoll: The ^Aristocrat as Copperhead HE INGERSOLL FAMILY is one of America's oldest. The first Ingersoll came to America in 1629, just nine years after the T^Mayflower. The first Philadelphia Ingersoll was Jared Inger- soll, who came to the city in 1771 as presiding judge of the King's vice-admiralty court. Previously, he had been the King's colonial agent and stamp master in Connecticut. During the Revolution, Jared remained loyal to the Crown. He stayed in Philadelphia for the first two years of the war, but in 1777, when he and other Tories were forced to leave, he returned to Connecticut, where he lived quietly until his death in 1781.1 Jared's son, Jared, Jr., was the first prominent Philadelphia Inger- soll. He came to Philadelphia with his father in 1771, studied law, and was admitted to the bar in 1778. Unlike his father, Jared, Jr., wholeheartedly supported the Revolution. Subsequently, he was a member of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, a member of the city council, city solicitor, attorney general of Pennsylvania, and United States District Attorney. Politically, he was an ardent Fed- eralist, but politics and affairs of state were never his prime interest; his real interest was the law, and most of his time and energy was devoted to his legal practice.2 Jared, Jr.'s, son, Charles Jared Ingersoll, was probably the most interesting of the Philadelphia Ingersolls. Like his father, grand- father, and most of the succeeding generations of Ingersolls, Charles Jared was a lawyer. He began a practice in Philadelphia in 1802, but devoted much of his time to politics.
    [Show full text]
  • The Signers of the U.S. Constitution
    CONSTITUTIONFACTS.COM The U.S Constitution & Amendments: About the Signers (Continued) The Signers of the U.S. Constitution On September 17, 1787, the Constitutional Convention came to a close in the Assembly Room of Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. There were seventy individuals chosen to attend the meetings with the initial purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation. Rhode Island opted to not send any delegates. Fifty-five men attended most of the meetings, there were never more than forty-six present at any one time, and ultimately only thirty-nine delegates actually signed the Constitution. (William Jackson, who was the secretary of the convention, but not a delegate, also signed the Constitution. John Delaware was absent but had another delegate sign for him.) While offering incredible contributions, George Mason of Virginia, Edmund Randolph of Virginia, and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts refused to sign the final document because of basic philosophical differences. Mainly, they were fearful of an all-powerful government and wanted a bill of rights added to protect the rights of the people. The following is a list of those individuals who signed the Constitution along with a brief bit of information concerning what happened to each person after 1787. Many of those who signed the Constitution went on to serve more years in public service under the new form of government. The states are listed in alphabetical order followed by each state’s signers. Connecticut William S. Johnson (1727-1819)—He became the president of Columbia College (formerly known as King’s College), and was then appointed as a United States Senator in 1789.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record-Senate. 1497
    1909~ CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1497 By 1\Ir. LOVERING:· Petition of T. S. Howes and others, of insecticides and fungicides in interstate commerce (H. R. Dennis Grange, No. 260, favoring a national Wghways commis- 21318)-to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. sion-to the Committee on Agriculture. · Also, petition of board of directors of New Jersey Chapter of By l\Ir. McLAUGHLIN of Michigan: Papers to accompany American Institute of Architects, favoring integrity of the plan bills for relief of Martin J. Cole and Eli D. Johnson-to the for improvement of Washington by placing the Lincoln me­ Committee on Invalid Pensions. morial at west end of the 1\iall-to the Committee on the By l\Ir. l\IALBY: Petition of Gouverneur (N. Y.) Grange, Library. favoring creation of a national Wghways commission-to the Also, petition of Hamilton Grange, No. 79, Pah·ons of Hus­ Committee on Agriculture. • bandry, of Hamilton Square, N. J., favoring establishment of By Mr. l\IANN: Petition of employees of Isthmian Canal postal savings banks and a parcels post-to the Committee on Commission and Panama Railroad Company, against action on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. part of United States Government or Isthmian Canal Commis­ sion curtailing commissary privileges-to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. SENATEG . Also, petition of Fort Worth (Tex.) freight bureau of Texas Hardware Jobbers' Association, favoring H. R. · 22901, 22902, THURSDAY, January 28,1909. and 22903, relative to interst..'lte-rate requirement-to the Com­ Prayer by ·the Chaplain, Rev. Edward E. Hale. mittee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
    [Show full text]