Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: rustbucket; fortheDeclaration
"The colonists had just thrown off one oppressive central government (Britain). What makes you think they wanted to turn everything over to another central government without strong checks on its power?"

There exists a persistent idea that the Framers of the Constitution of 1787 were worried about creating a general government that was too strong. In fact, for many of the Framers, the opposite was true.

In the 11 intervening years between the Declaration and the Philadelphia Convention (1776-1787), the wartime government of the Continental Congress, and its successor, the Congresses of the Confederation under the Articles, proved to be far less than optimal. Madison, in particular, realized the dangers involved in a weak central government, and in conjunction with patriots of similar convictions, proposed, in convention, the Virginia Plan for a new form of government.

Though that plan did not become the final blueprint for the new government, the modified version (through a summer of discussion, debate, and compromise) provided for a stronger general government than had existed for the past 11 years.

2,466 posted on 12/07/2004 8:34:09 AM PST by capitan_refugio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2391 | View Replies ]


To: capitan_refugio; fortheDeclaration
Though that plan did not become the final blueprint for the new government, the modified version (through a summer of discussion, debate, and compromise) provided for a stronger general government than had existed for the past 11 years.

I agree that it was a stronger central government than what had existed before. It did not need every state to agree in order to pass laws. It became possible for the government to be more effective in governing.

And yes, some of the Founders indeed weren't worried about creating too strong a central government. Some of those same people (Federalists) fought against the Bill of Rights, then after the BOR became part of the Constitution, passed laws contravening the freedom of the press (Sedition Act). Forgive me if I don't have too high an opinion of such people.

Other Founders, of course, were concerned with the power of the central government and wished a balance between state and central government powers. That is why several states at the time of ratification reserved the right of the people to resume their own government or words to that effect. If they were simply claiming a right to revolt, they didn't need to express that. Everyone always has the right to revolt.

I suspect that concern over the possibility that the central government would get out of control was a key reason why the 9th and 10th Amendments were added.

2,476 posted on 12/07/2004 9:58:56 AM PST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2466 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson