Replies

•At 7, Wilson takes up Hamilton’s argument that a bill of rights was not necessary. Hamilton had argued that such a bill of rights would have been too long and would have left out rights. At this point in time, state ratifying conventions had yet to demand a bill of rights as the price for ratification. Was Hamilton right, and why or why not?

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.

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.

•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?

Wasn't that precisely the situation in Hamdan a couple years ago? If memory serves, Congress had named the D.C. District Court as supreme in such cases. Yet the case was appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Court heard the case in violation of the law.

Even Scalia wrote, in his dissent, (my paraphrase) "We have no jurisdiction nor authority to hear this case and render an opinion on it. To do so would violate the Constitution. But here's my opinion anyway, so there!"

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.

What an excellent point! If only the heated political debates of our time were over how best "to secure these rights", rather than over who has dibs on the raping and pillaging of our country.