Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
FOUNDERS QUOTES ON THE COMPACT THEORYConstitutional Convention:
Edmund Randolph, in his remarks on his proposed Virginia Plan in the openingdays of the Constitutional Convention stated: “1. that a union of the States merelyfederal [in international law, a “federate alliance” was a multinational confederation] willnot accomplish the objects proposed by the articles of Confederation, namely commondefense, security of liberty, & gen welfare. 2. that no treaty or treaties among he wholeor part of the States, as individual Sovereignties, would be sufficient.” Madison’s
 Notesof Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 
. (May 30, 1787.)On June 6
th
, George Mason, in arguing against states having representation in theHouse by noting that under “the existing Confederacy, Congs. represent the States
4
notthe people of the States: their acts operate on the States, not on the individuals.
5
The casewill be changed in the new plan of Govt. The people will be represented; they oughttherefore to choose the Representatives.”During debates on June 19
th
, Madison acknowledged that the proposed newgovernment did not simply strengthen the existing compact theory government under theArticles, but that it created an entirely new type of government. As evidence of this, henoted that a compact government exercised power “not on the people individually, but onthe people collectively, on the States,” while the opposite would be true under the newgovernment. He also pointed out that a compact government “derived its appointmentsnot immediately from the people, but from the States which they respectively composed,”unlike the various proposals for the new government put forth by the convention.On June 5, 1787, the Constitutional Convention discussed the proposal for theConstitution to be ratified by the people in special state ratifying conventions. During thedebate, James Madison argued in favor of the proposal, noting that “the new constitutionought to have the highest source of authority, at least paramount to the powers of therespective constitutions of the States.”He contrasted it with “the mischiefs that have arisen in the old confederation,which depends upon no higher authority than the confirmation of an ordinary act of alegislature.” James Wilson also favored the proposal, noting that “the people by aconvention are the only power that can ratify the proposed system of the newgovernment.”This debate over the mode of ratification came up again on July 23, 1787, atwhich time George Mason argued:[That he] considered a reference of the plan to the authority of the people as one of the most important and essential of theResolutions. The Legislatures have no power to ratify it. They arethe mere creatures of the State Constitutions, and can not be
 
greater than their creators. And he knew of no power in any of theConstitutions, he knew there was no power in some of them, thatcould be competent to this object. Whither then must we resort? Tothe people with whom all power remains that has not been givenup in the Constitutions derived from them. It was of great momenthe observed that this doctrine should be cherished as the basis of free Government. Another strong reason was that admitting theLegislatures to have a competent authority, it would be wrong torefer the plan to them, because succeeding Legislatures havingequal authority could undo the acts of their predecessors; and the National Govt. would stand in each State on the weak and totteringfoundation of an Act of Assembly. There was a remainingconsideration of some weight. In some of the States the Govts.were not derived from the clear & undisputed authority of the people. This was the case in Virginia Some of the best & wisestcitizens considered the Constitution as established by an assumedauthority. A National Constitution derived from such a sourcewould be exposed to the severest criticisms.
 Notes of the Debatesin the Federal Convention of 1787.
Edmund Randolph concurred, arguing:One idea has pervaded all our proceedings, to wit, that oppositionas well from the States as from individuals, will be made to theSystem to be proposed. Will it not then be highly imprudent, tofurnish any unnecessary pretext by the mode of ratifying it. Addedto other objections agst. a ratification by Legislative authority only,it may be remarked that there have been instances in which theauthority of the Common law has been set up in particular Statesagst. that of the Confederation which has had no higher sanctionthan Legislative ratification. Whose opposition will be most likelyto be excited agst. the System? That of the local demagogues whowill be degraded by it from the importance they now hold. Thesewill spare no efforts to impede that progress in the popular mindwhich will be necessary to the adoption of the plan, and whichevery member will find to have taken place in his own, if he willcompare his present opinions with those brought with him into theConvention. It is of great importance therefore that theconsideration of this subject should be transferred from theLegislatures where this class of men, have their full influence to afield in which their efforts can be less mischeivous. It is moreover worthy of consideration that some of the States are averse to anychange in their Constitution, and will not take the requisite steps,unless expressly called upon to refer the question to the people.
 Notes of the Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787.
 
Gouvernear Morris argued that the existing Articles can be altered by “an appealto the people of the U.S., the supreme authority.” A majority of them may change theform of government, “in like manner as the Constitution of a particular state may bealtered by a majority of the people in the State.” In responding to Mr. Elseworth’sargument that the state legislatures should ratify the Constitution, Morris states thatElseworth “erroneously supposes that we are proceeding on the basis of theConfederation. This Convention is unknown to the Confederation.”Madison voiced his agreement, noting:[That he] thought it clear that the Legislatures were incompetent tothe proposed changes. These changes would make essentialinroads on the State Constitutions, and it would be a novel &dangerous doctrine that a Legislature could change the constitutionunder which it held its existence. There might indeed be someConstitutions within the Union, which had given, a power to theLegislature to concur in alterations of the federal Compact. Butthere were certainly some which had not; and in the case of these, aratification must of necessity be obtained from the people. Heconsidered the difference between a system founded on theLegislatures only, and one founded on the people, to be the truedifference between a
league
or 
treaty,
and a
Constitution.
Theformer in point of 
moral obligation
might be as inviolable as thelatter. In point of 
 political operation,
there were two importantdistinctions in favor of the latter. 1. A law violating a treaty ratified by a preexisting law, might be respected by the Judges as a law,though an unwise or perfidious one. A law violating a constitutionestablished by the people themselves, would be considered by theJudges as null & void. 2. The doctrine laid down by the law of  Nations in the case of treaties is that a breach of any one article byany of the parties, frees the other parties from their engagements.In the case of a union of people under one Constitution, the natureof the pact has always been understood to exclude such aninterpretation. Comparing the two modes in point of expediency hethought all the considerations which recommended thisConvention in preference to Congress for proposing the reformwere in favor of State Conventions in preference to theLegislatures for examining and adopting it. Farrand’s
The Recordsof the Federal Convention of 1787 
Volume IIContrary to the contention by Thomas Woods, no draft of the Constitutioncontained the words “We the States.” To the contrary, preliminary drafts (for instance,the one on August 6, 1787, began with the words “We the People of the States of…”followed by a list of the original thirteen states. Woods is correct that the list of stateswas dropped due to uncertainty over how many would initially ratify the document.
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more