Madison
Thanks, Jacquerie, for this terrific post.
The RevWar/Colonial History/General Washington ping list...
Madison sought a government with powers commensurate with its objects.
The people, not the states must form the basis of the new government.
Confer to this government the powers given to Congress in the Articles of Confederation, plus regulatory powers over commerce and taxation of exports and imports.
Veto power over all state legislation. (Under the Articles, states could render the laws of Congress null)
Thirteen Judiciaries and Legislatures superior to Congress was no way to promote republican freedom.
Popular government would be limited to the first House of the Legislature. Too much democracy is deadly. The executive should be appointed.
Neither Madison nor any other Framer posited a popularly elected Legislature as we have had for almost 100 years.
Several ideas, including multiple executives were floated at the Convention before a single President emerged.
The likes of Shays’ and possible slave rebellions must be addressed.
Either the general government must have a veto over state laws, or troops must be authorized to collect taxes from the states.
The people are sovereign. Let their representatives decide the issue.
Under the Articles, the states could and did ignore Treaty terms.
After Shays Rebellion, Madison expected MA to go off the deep end of democracy. The Convention could not happen soon enough.
Constitution ping!
Would that we had people as wise and good as at our beginnings.
... and 200 years later they instead elevated white trash bootleggers to some quasi-aristocracy and I'm still not quite sure they're over it yet.
West Virginia has the same problem, but at least their "aristocracy" has some legitimate historical basis.
A great source of info documents from 500 BC to 1800. Many of the links are dead but most can be found with a little further searching.
http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/primarysources.html
Conceiving that an individual independence of the States is utterly irreconcileable with their aggregate sovereignty; and that a consolidation of the whole into one simple republic would be as inexpedient as it is unattainable, I have sought for some middle ground, which may at once support a due supremacy of the national authority, and not exclude the local authorities wherever they can be subordinately useful.
Referring to the states as "subordinately useful" shows the kind of disdain for the state governments that we usually ascribe only to Hamilton.
Great post!
The States will continue to invade the national jurisdiction, to violate treaties and the law of nations & to harrass each other with rival and spiteful measures dictated by mistaken views of interest.
So let me get this straight Mr Madison:
IF the central government denies protection, which you hereby declare is its responsibility, of any subject State from invasion across the national border, then that State is "spiteful" and "mistaken" in defending its "views of interest?"
This thought sounds to me like a totally subjective reaction to the issues and events of the moment (various dissension among the colonies), hardly infinite wisdom for all time.
Our forefathers were admirable men, but hardly all-knowing.
Johnny Suntrade
>Half measures to improve the Articles of Confederation would not do.
Yeah, the six whole years that the AoC were given prove that.
Funny, session isn’t mentioned in the Constitution because it would not have been ratified if it had been included. Secession is the final arbiter of Federal Power. Continue.
session=secession
Thanks, Jacquerie, for this terrific post.
The RevWar/Colonial History/General Washington ping list...