Ping! The thread has been posted.
Earlier threads:
"61. Regarding it, then, in every point of view, with a candid and disinterested mind, I am bold to assert that it is the best form of government which has ever been offered to the world.
What a remarkable conclusion in his No. 61!
In No. 60, however, he directs attention to the what may be described as a unique provision and protection of "the People's" rights provided by the new Constitution. Here, he highlights the only valid means by which that Constitution can be amended, as laid out in Article V's specifications.
In his oration at Philadelphia on July 4, 1788, Wilson--signer of both the Declaration and Constitution--declared, "A good constitution is the greatest blessing which a society can enjoy." (As quoted in "Our Ageless Constitution," Page 172)
Thank you for providing this excellent study.
Alas, one other modern innovation, the income tax, belies this rosy prediction. It sits there, the 16th Amendment, proper and in full accordance with the requirements of the Constitution.
Yes it does and that is one of the most unfortunate things to have happened in our entire history as there is absolutely no reason what-so-ever that we cannot raise the revenue necessary via the method endorsed by Mr. Wilson even today!
One of the hazards of honorable men is they cannot see into the minds of dishonorable ones.
The constraints on government were put there because of those that lust for power and they implemented far too few of those.
Back to the Top
Incrementalism has worked its evils on us, bit by bit, year by year, decade after decade. Sometimes it slows way down, but other times, The Great Society, it barrels ahead full steam.
I have all but given up on turning back the clock. I'll be happy just to see it slowed down enough to let America continue to be the greatest nation in history.
Could you ping your group?
The argument was not about establishing Rights. It was about how to protect the rights that already existed. Hamilton's view would be preferred in a perfect society but when applied to the realities ( and compromises ) necessary to ratify the Constitution, He underestimated the need of the People to be reassured that an effort was being made to protect those Rights. I find it interesting that the efforts made from both sides of the Bill of Rights argument was so impassioned even though the ultimate goal of protecting those rights were one and the same. They both understood that the powers of government are ultimately derived from the People, yet to many observers the disparity of the arguments that seemed so polarizing were simply different paths leading to the protection of the Rights of Man. Hamilton expected the electorate to understand their rights inherently, in that respect He was mistaken.
•At 22, Wilson points out that the proceedings of the Supreme Court are regulated by Congress, a reference to Article III. Congress has the right to determine what kinds of cases the Supreme Court may or may not hear, but that right has been used sparingly. Was there a defect in the Convention’s thinking about the Judiciary, and why or why not?
The fact that a court decision could and would become the law until legislation was enacted to affirm or reverse a decision, must have been a significant factor in their debates. The power of the people to control the Supreme Court through their elected representatives was relied on to provide a balance.
The political party system that we have today was not existent at the time. There was a very real need for a Judicial power that would have jurisdiction over those specific cases that simply didn't lend themselves to State Judiciaries. A couple of examples would be the use of waterways separating several states and conflicting territorial claims between States.
English Common Law was in use then as it is now.
"That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. The system of jurisprudence that originated in England and which was latter adopted in the U.S. that is based on precedent instead of statutory laws."
Again, here we have the power of 'We the People' as the ultimate judicial authority and any statutory laws to be enacted would be by consent of the People. Or so they thought.
These threads are very interesting. Thanks for taking this on.
One small request... can you post a link to the successive thread when you post the new threads? I expect that I will refer back to these threads in the future and building in that continuity will be a help.
BTW, what’s the latest on the AS book?
We should all be as "common" as Franklin!
OUTSTANDING post, commentary, questions, thread. WOW! Fantastic project. Thanks to all.
History/education/current events/BUMP!
Judge Wilson was a close ally of John Dckinson, but brokewith him to cast a vote for independence.
The invention of the Electoral College was brilliant.
If there is one thing that needs to be taught in school these days, it’s the Electoral College.
I like Wilson’s somewhat theoretical view regarding what the Constitution already implied at that point in history. Unfortunately, his theory flies in the face of human nature.
I suggest those pushing for a Bill of Rights had a somewhat cynical and realistic view in regards to human nature and power.