Posted on 05/16/2002 11:37:00 AM PDT by Aurelius
Abel Parker Upshur was a member of John Tyler's administration. While Secretary of the Navy he was killed in an accidental explosion onboard USS Princeton in 1844.
When it comes to con men who better than DiLorenzo would know?
You've allready answered your own argument - the answer is in the ratification itself. The ratification itselef was conditioned by a few items which were non-negotiable, followed by proposed amendments. Considering that more that one future President, future Chief Justice, numerous senators, ambassadors etc signed the things answers your question.
"Whereas the powers granted under the proposed Constitution are the gift of the people, and every power not granted thereby remains with them, and at their will, — no right, therefore, of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and, among other essential rights, liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."And whereas any imperfections, which may exist in the said Constitution, ought rather to be examined in the mode prescribed therein for obtaining amendments, than by a delay, with a hope of obtaining previous amendments, to bring the Union into danger,
"Resolved, That it is the opinion of this committee, that the said Constitution be ratified. But in order to relieve the apprehensions of those who may be solicitous for amendments, —
"Resolved, That it is the opinion of this committee, that whatsoever amendments may be deemed necessary, be recommended to the consideration of the Congress which shall first assemble under the said Constitution, to be acted upon according to the mode prescribed in the 5th article thereof."
A committee was appointed "to prepare and report a form of ratification pursuant to the first resolution;[that's the one I just posted above] and "Governor Randolph, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Madison, Mr. Marshall, and Mr. Corbin" composed the said committee.
Has anyone posted this portion of the ratification?
"We, the said delegates, in the name and behalf of the people of Virginia, do by these presents, assent to and ratify the Constitution, recommended on the seventeenth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, by the federal Convention, for the government of the United States; hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern, that the said Constitution is binding upon the said people, according to an authentic copy hereto annexed, in the words following."
Are you saying we should resolve the question by referring to what John Marshall and James Madison say? And anyway, I looked it up (since you still appear too...well, unwilling, let's say, to actually supply evidence--it's just I think this, I think that). They voted against a conditional ratification. The resolution in question merely emphasizes the plain language of the Constitution. In fact, it leaves us right where we started. The document clearly states that the Constitution is binding.
Actually, yes, the Constitution did contain some novel concepts, but that's not my point. Aside from the whole notion of attempting to apply concepts from the law of contracts to the ratification of a Constitution (which, despite what you have said, has never been "common practice"), the particular concepts from the more modern law of contracts that you are attempting to utilize (i.e., piecing together a contract from a portion of a document here and a portion of a document document there) did not even exist in the eighteenth century. It wasn't even until the late nineteenth century that we began getting rid of the rules requiring particular forms of action wherein the facts had to be somehow tortured and twisted so as to fit the format of a particular writ.
"Do by these Presents".
That clinches if for me!
According to my references, this interpretation is inaccurate:
The phrase "by these presents" is used to refer to the document or instrument in which the phrase occurs.
The way I read that, by these presents simply means "via this document." The same way you say "with this ring I thee wed", you say "by these presents, we assent." There is nothing inherent to that phrase which implies anything conditional. In fact, as I already said, they voted against a conditional ratification, choosing rather to pass resolutions which were no more than recommendations and statements of their disposition.
Once again, I have provided evidence to support my argument. When will you bother to do the same? Don't tell me what you think. Show me what an expert or authoritative reference says. Then we can talk.
What document?
Oh yeah, that's right! The colonies already had legislatures that sent designated represenatives to the Continental Congress.
Thank you for your enlightened contribution.
You could always have just pretended that you missed the article.
As always, Dr. D. is his own best refutation.
Cheers,
Richard F.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.