POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA

What we are not talking about already elsewhere
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 27510
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA

Post by thelivyjr » Wed Sep 09, 2020 1:40 p

An American Citizen: An Examination of the Constitution of the United States IV, continued ...

Tench Coxe

October 21, 1788

The influence which foreign powers may attempt to exercise in our affairs was foreseen, and a wholesome provision has been made against it; for no person holding an office under the United States is permitted to enjoy any foreign honors, powers or emoluments.

The apprehensions of the people have been excited, perhaps by persons with good intentions, about the powers of the new government to raise an army.

Let us consider this point with moderation and candor.

As enemies will sometimes insult us, invade our country, and capture our property, it is clear a power in our government to oppose, restrain or destroy them, is necessary to our honor, safety and existence.

The military should, however, be regarded with a watchful eye; for it is a profession that is liable to dangerous perversion.

But the powers vested in the federal government do not go the length which has been said.

A standing army is not granted or intended, for there can be no provision for its continuing three years, much less for its permanent establishment.


Two years are the utmost time for which the money can be given.

It will be under all the restrictions which wisdom and jealousy can suggest, and the original grant of the supplies must be made by the House of Representatives, the immediate delegates of the people.

The Senate and President, who also derive their power from the people, appoint the officers; and the heads of the departments, who must submit their accounts to the whole legislature, are to pay and provide them, as shall be directed by the laws that shall contain the conditions of the grant.

The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary.

They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to overawe them — for our detached situation will seldom give occasion to raise an army, though a few scattered companies may often be necessary.

But whenever, even on the most obvious reasons, an army shall be raised, the several states shall be called, by the nature of things, to attend to the condition of the militia.

Republican jealousy, the guardian Angel of these states, will watch the motions of our military citizens, even though they will be the soldiers of a free people.

There is a wide difference between the troops of such a commonwealth as ours, founded on equal and unalterable principles, and those of a regal government, where ambition and oppression are the profession of the king.

In the first case, a military officer is the occasional servant of the people, employed for their defence; in the second, he is the ever ready instrument to execute the schemes of conquest or oppression, with which the mind of his royal master may be disturbed.


TO BE CONTINUED ...

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 27510
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA

Post by thelivyjr » Thu Sep 10, 2020 1:40 p

An American Citizen: An Examination of the Constitution of the United States IV, concluded ...

Tench Coxe

October 21, 1788

Observations have been made on the power given to the federal Government in regard to the elections of Representatives and Senators.

The regulations of these elections are, by the first part of the clause, to be prescribed by the state legislatures, who are certainly the proper bodies, if they will always execute the duty.

But in case the union or the public safety should be endangered by an omission of this duty, as in the case of Rhode-Island, then the legislature of the United States can name for the people a convenient time, and do other matters necessary to ensure the free exercise of their right of election.

The exception, in regard to the places of chusing Senators, was made from due respect to the sovereignty of the state legislatures, who are to elect the Senators, and whose place of meeting ought not to be prescribed to them by any authority, except indeed, as we always must, by the authority of the people.

This power given to the federal legislature is no more than what is possessed by the governments of all the states.

The constitution of Pennsylvania permits two thirds of such cities and counties, as shall elect representatives, to exercise all the powers of the General Assembly, “as fully and amply as if the whole were present,” should any part of the state neglect or refuse to perform their duty in this particular.

In short, it is a power necessary to preserve the social compact of each state and the confederation of the United States.

Besides the securities for the liberties of the people arising out of the federal government, they are guarded by their state constitutions, and by the nature of things in the separate states.

The Governor or President in each commonwealth, the Councils, Senates, Assemblies, Judges, Sheriffs, Grand and Pettit Juries, Officers of Militia, Clergy and Lay Officers of all churches, state and county Treasurers, Prothonotaries, Registers, Presidents and other officers of Universities, Colleges and Academies, Wardens of ports and cities, Burgesses of towns, Commissioners of counties, County Lieutenants, and many other officers of power and influence, will still be chosen within each state, without any possible interference of the federal government.

The separate states will also chuse all the members of the legislative and executive branches of the United States.

The people at large in each state will choose their Federal representatives, and, unless ordered otherwise by the state legislatures, may choose the electors of the President and Vice-President of the Union.

And lastly, the legislatures of the states will have the election of the Senate, as they have heretofore had of the Members of Congress.

Let us then, with a candor worthy of the subject, ask ourselves, whether it can be feared, that a majority of the Representatives, each of whom will be chosen by six thousand enlightened freemen, can betray their country?

Whether a majority of the Senate, each of whom will be chosen by the legislature of a free, sovereign and independent state, without any stipulations in favour of wealth or the contemptible distinctions of birth or rank, and who will be closely observed by the state legislatures, can destroy our liberties, controuled as they are too by the house of representatives?

Or whether a temporary limited executive officer, watched by the federal Representatives, by the Senate, by the State Legislatures, by his personal enemies among the people of his own state, by the jealousy of the people of rival states, and by the whole of the people of the Union, can ever endanger our Freedom?


Permit me, my fellow-citizens, to close these observations by remarking, that there is no spirit of arrogance in the new federal constitution.

It addresses you with becoming modesty, admitting that it may contain errors.

Let us give it a trial; and when experience has taught its mistakes, the people, whom it preserves absolutely all powerful can reform and amend them.

That I may be perfectly, understood, I will acknowledge its acceptance by all the states, without delay, is the second wish of my heart.

The first is, that our country may be virtuous and free.

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/lib ... states-iv/

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 27510
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA

Post by thelivyjr » Fri Sep 11, 2020 1:40 p

Richard Henry Lee to George Mason

Richard Henry Lee

October 1, 1787

I have waited until now to answer your favor of Septr. 18th from Philadelphia, that I might inform you how the Convention plan of Government was entertained by Congress.

Your prediction of what would happen in Congress was exactly verified.

It was with us, as with you, this or nothing; & this urged with a most extreme intemperance.

The greatness of the powers given, & the multitude of Places to be created, produces a coalition of Monarchy men, Military Men, Aristocrats, and Drones whose noise, imprudence & zeal exceeds all belief – Whilst the Commercial plunder of the South stimulates the rapacious Trader.

In this state of things the Patriot voice is raised in vain for such changes and securities as Reason and Experience prove to be necessary against the encroachments of power upon the indispensable rights of human nature.


Upon due consideration of the Constitution under which we now Act, some of us were clearly of opinion that the 13th article of the Confederation precluded us from giving an opinion concerning a plan subversive of the present system and eventually forming a New Confederacy of Nine instead of 13 States.

The contrary doctrine was asserted with great violence in expectation of the strong majority with which they might send it forward under terms of much approbation.

Having procured an opinion that Congress was qualified to consider, to amend, to approve or disapprove – the next game was to determine that tho a right to amend existed, it would be highly inexpedient to exercise that right; but merely to transmit it with respectful marks of approbation.

In this state of things I availed myself of the Right to amend, & moved the Amendments copy of which I send herewith & called the ayes & nays to fix them on the journal.

This greatly alarmed the Majority & vexed them extremely – for the plan is, to push the business on with great dispatch, & with as little opposition as possible: that it may be adopted before it has stood the test of Reflection & due examination.

They found it most eligible at last to transmit it merely, without approving or disapproving; provided nothing but the transmission should appear on the Journal.

This compromise was settled and they took the opportunity of inserting the word Unanimously, which applied only to simple transmission, hoping to have it mistaken for an Unanimous approbation of the thing.

It states that Congress having Received the Constitution unanimously transmit it &c.

It is certain that no Approbation was given.

This constitution has a great many excellent Regulations in it and if it could be reasonably amended would be a fine System.

As it is, I think ’tis past doubt, that if it should be established, either a tyranny will result from it, or it will be prevented by a Civil war.


I am clearly of opinion with you that it should be sent back with amendments Reasonable and Assent to it withheld until such amendments are admitted.

You are well acquainted with Thos. Stone & others of influence in Maryland – I think it will be a great point to get Maryld. & Virginia to join in the plan of Amendments & return it with them.

If you are in correspondence with our Chancelor Pendelton it will be of much use to furnish him with the objections, and if he approves our plan, his opinion will have great weight with our Convention and I am told that his relation Judge Pendleton of South Carolina has decided weight in the State & that he is sensible & independent.

How important will it be then to procure his union with our plan, which might probably be the case, if our Chancelor was to write largely and pressingly to him on the subject; that if possible it may be amended there also.

It is certainly the most rash and violent proceeding in the world to cram thus suddenly into Men a business of such infinite Moment to the happiness of Millions.
…..

Suppose when the Assembly recommended a Convention to consider this new Constitution they were to use some words like these – It is earnestly recommended to the good people of Virginia to send their most wise & honest Men to this Convention that it may undergo the most intense consideration before a plan shall be without amendments adopted that admits of abuses being practised by which the best interests of this Country may be injured and Civil Liberty greatly endanger’d.

This might perhaps give a decided Tone to the business.

Source: Jensen, Merrill, et al, editors. Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution. Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1976. Volume VII, pages 59-67.

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/lib ... e-mason-2/

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 27510
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA

Post by thelivyjr » Sat Sep 12, 2020 1:40 p

Centinel I

Centinel

October 5, 1787

Introduction

There is a difference of opinion with respect to what to call the opponents of the Constitution.

The Federalist Papers referred to them as the antifederalists, degrading them to a position of irrelevance and incoherence.

Some modern scholars, by contrast, capitalize their name but then hyphenate it, making them Anti-federalists — relevant, but incoherent.

We have chosen the nomenclature “Antifederalist” in order to encourage the reader to see their remarks as both relevant and coherent.

This essay of “Centinel” offered one of the earliest public Antifederalist critiques of the Constitutional framers’ work as the ratification process began.

He opens his remarks, addressed to the Freemen of Pennsylvania, with a reminder and a question: the essential liberties of the people are secured in the Pennsylvania Bill of Rights; are they secure under the proposed Constitution?

He suggests that “all the blessings of liberty and the dearest privileges of freemen are now at stake and dependent on your present conduct.”

Beware, he adds, the work of “artful and designing men.”

Unfortunately, Centinel contends, the Convention was inspired by John Adams’s political thought on “good government,” which presumed a balancing of the three functions of government — legislative, executive, and judicial — in three branches.

According to Centinel, this means that the Constitution does not rely on the virtue of the people; it simply balances the powers of those governing them.

“A republican, or free government, can only exist where the body of the people are virtuous, and where property is pretty equally divided,” Centinel maintains.

Furthermore, the plan encourages the exercise of extensive powers by the general government — see the general welfare clause and the supremacy clause — over an extensive territory, which is a recipe not “for a regular balanced government” but for “a permanent ARISTOCRACY.”

Centinel concludes that 1) the new Constitution does not include a bill of rights to ward off future crises and 2) no such crisis exists compelling adoption of the Constitution right away.

That we are in crisis “is the argument of tyrants.”

We need to follow the wisdom of the French political theorist Montesquieu (whose Spirit of the Laws was widely read among the Framers) concerning the size and homogeneity of republics; if they were to remain free, they need to be small, and their citizens had to have common interests.

The “Centinel” series comprised 24 separate essays, published in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer and the Philadelphia Freeman’s Journal, the last appearing November 4, 1788.

This first Centinel essay was republished in several other newspapers.

Source: Herbert J. Storing, ed., The Complete Anti-Federalist, vol. 2, 136-143.

To the Freemen of Pennsylvania

Friends, Countrymen and Fellow Citizens, Permit one of yourselves to put you in mind of certain liberties and privileges secured to you by the constitution of this commonwealth, and to beg your serious attention to his uninterested opinion upon the plan of federal government submitted to your consideration, before you surrender these great and valuable privileges up forever.

Your present frame of government, secures to you a right to hold yourselves, houses, papers and possessions free from search and seizure, and therefore warrants granted without oaths or affirmations first made, affording sufficient foundation for them, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded or required to search your houses or seize your persons or property, not particularly described in such warrant, shall not be granted.

Your constitution further provides “that in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the parties have a right to trial by jury, which ought to be held sacred.”

It also provides and declares “that the people have a right of FREEDOM OF SPEECH, and of WRITING and PUBLISHING their sentiments, therefore THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS OUGHT NOT TO BE RESTRAINED.”

The constitution of Pennsylvania is yet in existence, as yet you have the right to freedom of speech, and of publishing your sentiments.

How long those rights will appertain to you, you yourselves are called upon to say, whether your houses shall continue to be your castles; whether your papers, your persons and your property, are to be held sacred and free from general warrants, you are now to determine.

Whether the trial by jury is to continue as your birth-right, the freemen of Pennsylvania, nay, of all America, are now called upon to declare.

Without presuming upon my own judgment, I cannot think it an unwarrantable presumption to offer my private opinion, and call upon others for theirs; and if I use my pen with the boldness of a freeman, it is because I know that the liberty of the press yet remains unviolated, and juries yet are judges.

The late Convention have submitted to your consideration a plan of a new federal government — The subject is highly interesting to your future welfare — Whether it be calculated to promote the great ends of civil society, viz.[1] the happiness and prosperity of the community; it behoves you well to consider, uninfluenced by the authority of names.

Instead of that frenzy of enthusiasm, that has actuated the citizens of Philadelphia, in their approbation of the proposed plan, before it was possible that it could be the result of a rational investigation into its principles; it ought to be dispassionately and deliberately examined, and its own intrinsic merit the only criterion of your patronage.

If ever free and unbiased discussion was proper or necessary, it is on such an occasion.

All the blessings of liberty and the dearest privileges of freemen, are now at stake and dependent on your present conduct.

Those who are competent to the task of developing the principles of government, ought to be encouraged to come forward, and thereby the better enable the people to make a proper judgment; for the science of government is so abstruse, that few are able to judge for themselves; without such assistance the people are too apt to yield an implicit assent to the opinions of those characters, whose abilities are held in the highest esteem, and to those in whose integrity and patriotism they can confide; not considering that the love of domination is generally in proportion to talents, abilities, and superior acquirements; and that the men of the greatest purity of intention may be made instruments of despotism in the hands of the artful and designing.

If it were not for the stability and attachment which time and habit gives to forms of government it would be in the power of the enlightened and aspiring few, if they should combine, at any time to destroy the best establishments, and even make the people the instruments of their own subjugation.

TO BE CONTINUED ...

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 27510
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA

Post by thelivyjr » Sun Sep 13, 2020 1:40 p

Centinel I, continued ...

Centinel

October 5, 1787

I am fearful that the principles of government inculcated in Mr. [John] Adams’s treatise,[2] and enforced in the numerous essays and paragraphs in the newspapers, have misled some well designing members of the late Convention.

But it will appear in the sequel, that the construction of the proposed plan of government is infinitely more extravagant.

I have been anxiously expecting that some enlightened patriot would, ere this, have taken up the pen to expose the futility, and counteract the baneful tendency of such principles.

Mr. Adams’s sine qua non[3] of a good government is three balancing powers, whose repelling qualities are to produce an equilibrium of interests, and thereby promote the happiness of the whole community.

He asserts that the administrators of every government, will ever be actuated by views of private interest and ambition, to the prejudice of the public good; that therefore the only effectual method to secure the rights of the people and promote their welfare, is to create an opposition of interests between the members of two distinct bodies, in the exercise of the powers of government, and balanced by those of a third.

This hypothesis supposes human wisdom competent to the task of instituting three co-equal orders in government, and a corresponding weight in the community to enable them respectively to exercise their several parts, and whose views and interests should be so distinct as to prevent a coalition of any two of them for the destruction of the third.


Mr. Adams, although he has traced the constitution of every form of government that ever existed, as far as history affords materials, has not been able to adduce a single instance of such a government; he indeed says that the British constitution is such in theory, but this is rather a confirmation that his principles are chimerical[4] and not to be reduced to practice.

If such an organization of power were practicable, how long would it continue?

Not a day — for there is so great a disparity in the talents, wisdom and industry of mankind, that the scale would presently preponderate to one or the other body, and with every accession of power the means of further increase would be greatly extended.

The state of society in England is much more favorable to such a scheme of government than that of America.

There they have a powerful hereditary nobility, and real distinctions of rank and interests; but even there, for want of that perfect equality of power and distinction of interests, in the three orders of government, they exist but in name; the only operative and efficient check, upon the conduct of administration, is the sense of the people at large.

Suppose a government could be formed and supported on such principles, would it answer the great purposes of civil society; If the administrators of every government are actuated by views of private interest and ambition, how is the welfare and happiness of the community to be the result of such jarring adverse interests?

Therefore, as different orders in government will not produce the good of the whole, we must recur to other principles.

I believe it will be found that the form of government, which holds those entrusted with power, in the greatest responsibility to their constituents, the best calculated for freemen.

A republican, or free government, can only exist where the body of the people are virtuous, and where property is pretty equally divided; in such a government the people are the sovereign and their sense or opinion is the criterion of every public measure; for when this ceases to be the case, the nature of the government is changed, and an aristocracy, monarchy or despotism will rise on its ruin.

The highest responsibility is to be attained, in a simple structure of government, for the great body of the people never steadily attend to the operations of government, and for want of due information are liable to be imposed on — If you complicate the plan by various orders, the people will be perplexed and divided in their sentiments about the source of abuses or misconduct, some will impute it to the senate, others to the house of representatives, and so on, that the interposition of the people may be rendered imperfect or perhaps wholly abortive.

But if, imitating the constitution of Pennsylvania, you vest all the legislative power in one body of men (separating the executive and judicial) elected for a short period, and necessarily excluded by rotation from permanency, and guarded from precipitancy and surprise by delays imposed on its proceedings, you will create the most perfect responsibility, for then, whenever the people feel a grievance they cannot mistake the authors, and will apply the remedy with certainty and effect, discarding them at the next election.

This tie of responsibility will obviate all the dangers apprehended from a single legislature, and will the best secure the rights of the people.

TO BE CONTINUED ...

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 27510
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA

Post by thelivyjr » Mon Sep 14, 2020 1:40 p

Centinel I, continued ...

Centinel

October 5, 1787

Having premised this much, I shall now proceed to the examination of the proposed plan of government, and I trust, shall make it appear to the meanest capacity, that it has none of the essential requisites of a free government; that it is neither founded on those balancing restraining powers, recommended by Mr. Adams and attempted in the British constitution, or possessed of that responsibility to its constituents, which, in my opinion, is the only effectual security for the liberties and happiness of the people; but on the contrary, that it is the most daring attempt to establish a despotic aristocracy among freemen, that the world has ever witnessed.

I shall previously consider the extent of the powers intended to be vested in Congress, before I examine the construction of the general government.

It will not be controverted[5] that the legislative is the highest delegated power in government, and that all others are subordinate to it.

The celebrated Montesquieu[6] establishes it as a maxim, that legislation necessarily follows the power of taxation.

By sect. 8, of the first article of the proposed plan of government, “the Congress are to have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, but all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

Now what can be more comprehensive than these words; not content by other sections of this plan, to grant all the great executive powers of a confederation, and a STANDING ARMY IN TIME OF PEACE, that grand engine of oppression, and moreover the absolute control over the commerce of the United States and all external objects of revenue, such as unlimited imposts upon imports, etc. — they are to be vested with every species of internal taxation — whatever taxes, duties and excises that they may deem requisite for the general welfare, may be imposed on the citizens of these states, levied by the officers of Congress, distributed through every district in America; and the collection would be enforced by the standing army, however grievous or improper they may be.

The Congress may construe every purpose for which the state legislatures now lay taxes, to be for the general welfare, and thereby seize upon every object of revenue.

TO BE CONTINUED ...

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 27510
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA

Post by thelivyjr » Tue Sep 15, 2020 1:40 p

Centinel I, continued ...

Centinel

October 5, 1787

The judicial power by 1st sect. of article 3 “shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made or which shall be made under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, to controversies to which the United States shall be a party, to controversies between two or more states, between a state and citizens of another state, between citizens of different states, between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.”

The judicial power to be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such Inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

The objects of jurisdiction recited above, are so numerous, and the shades of distinction between civil causes are oftentimes so slight, that it is more than probable that the state judicatories would be wholly superseded; for in contests about jurisdiction, the federal court, as the most powerful, would ever prevail.

Every person acquainted with the history of the courts in England, knows by what ingenious sophisms they have, at different periods, extended the sphere of their jurisdiction over objects out of the line of their institution, and contrary to their very nature; courts of a criminal jurisdiction obtaining cognizance in civil causes.

To put the omnipotency of Congress over the state government and judicatories out of all doubt, the 6th article ordains that “this constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

By these sections the all-prevailing power of taxation, and such extensive legislative and judicial powers are vested in the general government, as must in their operation, necessarily absorb the state legislatures and judicatories; and that such was in the contemplation of the framers of it, will appear from the provision made for such event, in another part of it; (but that, fearful of alarming the people by so great an innovation, they have suffered the forms of the separate governments to remain, as a blind.)

By sect. 4th of the 1st article, “the times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the place of choosing senators.”

The plain construction of which is, that when the state legislatures drop out of sight, from the necessary operation [of] this government, then Congress are to provide for the election and appointment of representatives and senators.

If the foregoing be a just comment — if the united states are to be melted down into one empire, it becomes you to consider, whether such a government, however constructed, would be eligible in so extended a territory; and whether it would be practicable, consistent with freedom?

It is the opinion of the greatest writers, that a very extensive country cannot be governed on democratical principles, on any other plan, than a confederation of a number of small republics, possessing all the powers of internal government, but united in the management of their foreign and general concerns.

It would not be difficult to prove, that any thing short of despotism, could not bind so great a country under one government; and that whatever plan you might, at the first setting out, establish, it would issue in a despotism.


TO BE CONTINUED ...

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 27510
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA

Post by thelivyjr » Wed Sep 16, 2020 1:40 p

Centinel I, continued ...

Centinel

October 5, 1787

If one general government could be instituted and maintained on principles of freedom, it would not be so competent to attend to the various local concerns and wants, of every particular district, as well as the peculiar governments, who are nearer the scene, and possessed of superior means of information, besides, if the business of the whole union is to be managed by one government, there would not be time.

Do we not already see, that the inhabitants in a number of larger states, who are remote from the seat of government, are loudly complaining of the inconveniencies and disadvantages they are subjected to on this account, and that, to enjoy the comforts of local government, they are separating into smaller divisions.

Having taken a review of the powers, I shall now examine the construction of the proposed general government.

Art. 1. Sect. 1. “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives.”

By another section, the president (the principal executive officer) has a conditional control over their proceedings.

Sect. 2. “The house of representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year, by the people of the several states."

"The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000 inhabitants.”

The senate, the other constituent branch of the legislature, is formed by the legislature of each state appointing two senators, for the term of six years.

The executive power by Art. 2, Sect. 1. is to be vested in a president of the United States of America, elected for four years: Sect. 2. gives him “power, by and with the consent of the senate to make treaties, provided two thirds of the senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law,” etc.

And by another section he has the absolute power of granting reprieves and pardons for treason and all other high crimes and misdemeanors, except in case of impeachment.

The foregoing are the outlines of the plan.

Thus we see, the house of representatives, are on the part of the people to balance the senate, who I suppose will be composed of the better sort, the well born, etc.

The number of the representatives (being only one for every 30,000 inhabitants) appears to be too few, either to communicate the requisite information, of the wants, local circumstances and sentiments of so extensive an empire, or to prevent corruption and undue influence, in the exercise of such great powers; the term for which they are to be chosen, too long to preserve a due dependence and accountability to their constituents; and the mode and places of their election not sufficiently ascertained, for as Congress have the control over both, they may govern the choice, by ordering the representatives of a whole state, to be elected in one place, and that too may be the most inconvenient.

The senate, the great efficient body in this plan of government, is constituted on the most unequal principles.

The smallest state in the union has equal weight with the great states of Virginia, Massachusetts, or Pennsylvania — The Senate, besides its legislative functions, has a very considerable share in the Executive; none of the principal appointments to office can be made without its advice and consent.

The term and mode of its appointment, will lead to permanency; the members are chosen for six years, the mode is under the control of Congress, and as there is no exclusion by rotation, they may be continued for life, which, from their extensive means of influence, would follow of course.

The President, who would be a mere pageant of state, unless he coincides with the views of the Senate, would either become the head of the aristocratic junto in that body, or its minion, besides, their influence being the most predominant, could the best secure his re-election to office.

And from his power of granting pardons, he might screen from punishment the most treasonable attempts on liberties of the people, when instigated by the Senate.


TO BE CONTINUED ...

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 27510
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA

Post by thelivyjr » Thu Sep 17, 2020 1:40 p

Centinel I, continued ...

Centinel

October 5, 1787

From this investigation into the organization of this government, it appears that it is devoid of all responsibility or accountability to the great body of the people, and that so far from being a regular balanced government, it would be in practice a permanent ARISTOCRACY.

The framers of it, actuated by the true spirit of such a government, which ever abominates and suppresses all free enquiry and discussion, have made no provision for the liberty of the press, that grand palladium of freedom, and scourge of tyrants, but observed a total silence on that head.

It is the opinion of some great writers, that if the liberty of the press, by an institution of religion, or otherwise, could be rendered sacred, even in Turkey, that despotism would fly before it.

And it is worthy of remark, that there is no declaration of personal rights, premised in most free constitutions; and that trial by jury in civil cases is taken away; for what other construction can be put on the following, viz. Article 3. Sect. 2d. “In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a State shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction."

"In all the other cases above mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact”?

It would be a novelty in jurisprudence, as well as evidently improper to allow an appeal from the verdict of a jury, on the matter of fact; therefore, it implies and allows of a dismissal of the jury in civil cases, and especially when it is considered, that jury trial in criminal cases is expressly stipulated for, but not in civil cases.

But our situation is represented to be so critically dreadful that, however reprehensible and exceptionable the proposed plan of government may be, there is no alternative, between the adoption of it and absolute ruin.

My fellow citizens, things are not at that crisis, it is the argument of tyrants; the present distracted state of Europe secures us from injury on that quarter, and as to domestic dissensions, we have not so much to fear from them, as to precipitate us into this form of government, without it is a safe and a proper one.

For remember, of all possible evils that of despotism is the worst and the most to be dreaded.

Besides, it cannot be supposed, that the first essay on so difficult a subject, is so well digested, as it ought to be, if the proposed plan, after a mature deliberation, should meet the approbation of the respective States, the matter will end, but if it should be found to be fraught with dangers and inconveniencies, a future general Convention being in possession of the objections, will be the better enabled to plan a suitable government.

Who’s here so base, that would a bondsman be?
If any, speak; for him have I offended.
Who’s here so vile, that will not love his country?
If any, speak; for him have I offended.

—Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene 2

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/lib ... entinel-i/

Post Reply