You are on page 1of 2

Jenna Wang Journal A Roger Sherman Connecticut This afternoons meeting was successful and fairly positive.

I received a lot of good ideas and positive feedback from other delegates. Throughout the meeting, we would basically start out with a specific resolution from one state delegate and then discuss the resolution by standing on different sides of the argument, by which we believed in, then vote to pass the resolution or not. Within the discussion, we would have motions to discuss as a table, have a caucus on it, and or make amendments on it before we decided to pass the resolution. All the resolutions proposed were passed successfully. There were many resolutions made during these two meetings, four made on the first day and three proposed on the second. On the first meeting day, the resolutions passed include one for equal and population-based representation in Congress, by both houses, another for the election in Congress in by state legislatures, one that stated that Congress should have the power to distribute and produce currency, to place centralized trade regulations, and to organize public defense, and one that proposes that there should be a council that advises the chief executive officer. There was no strong opposition or debate on the resolutions, making the meeting go very smoothly with few interruptions. On the second meeting day, the resolutions discussed include one declaring that the states had the power to set slavery laws, define individual rights, and regulate its individual trade with other states should be granted to the states, another stating that the legislatures of the states shall appoint their states respective elector and the electors shall then make the final decision on the appointment of the governor upon advisory of the people, and one that proposes that each elected person shall be in office for a maximum of three years at a time and can have only one direct re-election after their term. There were some opposition and need for clarification during the discussions for these resolutions, therefore, not all of these resolutions were passed and will still be further discussed at the next meeting. Overall, the first two meetings were fairly

Jenna Wang Journal A Roger Sherman Connecticut successful and I gained a lot from it. The process was very orderly and we gradually got the flow of the procedure, as we got more into the discussions. Every delegate had equal chances of offering their opinions and provide an argument. Throughout the discussions for each resolution, I was able to understand each states delegates perspectives and why they would believe in what they proposed, depending on their states interests. I agreed with many of their ideas and helped support those that I believed in. The part of the process that was not as successful was that many of the motions for amendments that were attempted were not approved because their reasons for amendments were unclear. Many motions to make amendments needed much clarification for the other delegates to understand. The process would go much smoother and with less confusion if the delegates that are debating, whether pro or con, would say their arguments in a more orderly fashion. The delegates should state their opinions starting from those that are for the resolution, then all those against it. That way, we can better understand which side they stand on and acknowledge their perspectives. All in all, the process of sharing resolutions and discussions went very efficiently and we were able to debate on many significant issues. I hope that during our next meeting, the parliamentary process would be more effective in the order and that it will be as successful and positive, if not more, than the first two meetings.