The men who participated at the Constitutional Convention May 25 to September 17, 1787, in Philadelphia were sent there to represent their respective nations to address problems in governing the United States of America, following independence from Great Britain. Throughout the Convention, delegates would regularly come and go, with only 30 - 40 being present on a typical day. Rhode Island, fearing that the Convention would work to its disadvantage, boycotted the Convention and, when the Constitution was put to the states, initially refused to ratify it.
Before the Constitution was drafted, the nearly 4 million inhabitants of the 13 newly independent states were governed under the Articles of Confederation. Each of these nations had the authority to govern themselves.
Under the Articles of Confederation, the United States was not a country it was a union of 13 separate independent nations. The Articles of Confederation were closer to a treaty between sovereign states than they were to a national constitution. American legislatures had created state governments where the executive was beholden to the legislature. Benjamin Franklin represented the nation known as Pennsylvania while George Washington was unanimously elected president of the Convention, and represented a nation known as Virginia. Each of them respectively, were sovereign independent nations and they were united into a league of perpetual friendship.
The purpose of this union was to form an alliance that would protect the individual nations against threat of invasion from European powers, as well as other pressing issues where the Articles of Confederation were inadequate for managing the various conflicts etc. that arose among the states. The power of the veto was given solely to the executive.
Once the Convention began, the delegates first agreed on the principles of the Convention, then they agreed on Madison's Virginia Plan. After that they began to modify it.
Charles Pinckney also introduced a plan, where the House would have one member for every 1,000 inhabitants, (not Residents), although this plan was never considered and its exact character has been lost to history.
Alexander Hamilton also offered a plan of a strong centralized government after the Convention was well under way. It included an executive serving for life and the delegates felt it too closely resembled a monarchy. Most of the Original Convention's delegates along with Hamilton thought that states already protected individual rights, and that the Constitution did not authorize the national government to take away rights, so there was no need to include protections of rights.
The Connecticut Compromise wasn't a plan but one of several compromises offered by the Connecticut delegation. It was key to the ultimate ratification of the constitution, although was included only after being modified by Benjamin Franklin in order to make it more appealing to larger states.
After the Convention was well under way, the New Jersey Plan was introduced though never seriously considered. James Madison suggested that state governments should appoint commissioners "to take into consideration the trade of the United States; to examine the relative situation and trade of said states; to consider how far a uniform system in their commercial regulations may be necessary to their common interests and permanent harmony".
The resulting Constitution created a new National government and the United States began the process of being converted from a union of independent nation states into a single unified country. Unfortunately, that would eventually lead to us being controlled by the bankers and the financial elite.
The final nail in the coffin of despotic control was driven home by Abraham Lincoln who successfully laid the foundation for the Corporate Democracy that exists to this day. Contrary to what we have been taught in our “public” schools, he did not save the union; he destroyed it and created a government that would ultimately turn Sovereign Citizens into debt slaves on a federal plantation.
I'm intensely dead-set against surreptitious promotion of this stupid Con-Con lunacy, along with the other idiotic notion, of government direct issued paper credit notes (Bills of Credit forbidden by the Constitution's composers), pushed over-time on this site, that I very seriously suspect it to have been set up as a subversive Orwellian NewSpeak brainwash gambit.
This jack-assed idea of a Con-Con will hand The Republic over to the despicable elites on a solid gold platter, dripping with The People's entrails and blood.
Great response, Pat! Bravo.
You missed it Pat,
Nobody is talking about opening THAT can o worms.
Pat, I feel the same way you do. I don't think the people who are wanting to do this are as aware of the consequences that would follow. This is not the time to do this. I was called on the carpet by a fellow that told me I better do my research because I apparently didn't know much about the Constitution. This is not true. I have very much knowledge of the Constitution. I have taken classes on it and I know what the discussions were about. It was said vote NO to a CON-CON as we could very easily loose everything that is in it.
Why some people think their way is the right way and won't listen to anyone else is a shame. This is why we are in the position we are today in America because those who voted Obama in didn't do their homework and research.
I too say NO to CON-CON
Thank you Pat. I've been fighting AGAINST a con-con for the past 30 years, coming up about once a decade. We agree full tilt on the money subject as well. Occasionally it is some "ag script" or whatever. Paper is paper, and prohibited. If people want to barter with sea shells or whatever, FINE. But government can't touch anything BUT gold AND silver coin, at least until the crackpot tea drinkers and their globalist cronies legalize what is currently forbidden by opening a con-con that will be run by the same goons that brought us a "yes we can" goober like Obama. Fitting that the tea party founder will herd sheep toward this disaster, and a bunch of little nuts (Acornists) will manage it.
You got it partly correct in this quote: "The resulting Constitution created a new National government and the United States began the process of being converted from a union of independent nation states into a single unified country." The government was NOT created by the Constitution. It was altered "in order to form a more perfect union". I know. That's splitting hairs a bit; but the rest of this is not. The only national aspect of the government is found at Article I, Section 8, Clauses 17-18. That is a separate, inferior municipality created for the purpose of allowing the federal government to have a measure of autonomy to oversee its own internal affairs. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that comes close to doing what you have alleged. The process to which you allude is an ongoing work in progress; and you are aiding and abetting that process by making such absurd statements! You really MUST study the difference between a national and a federal form of government. If you understood the difference, you would never make such a silly mistake.
Everybody cool your jets,
There is nothing in here suggesting that we have a new Con Con and Keith is in complete agreement with you guys anyway. Also, all of the content is strictly historical, factually based and referenced mostly out of Wikipedia. It is strictly written only as a description of what happened and is based on the historical record. No one at CC is espousing or encouraging people toward opening that can of worms. Note also that this was posted by me, not Keith.
This piece was meant to show the differences between the AOC and the Constitution, and the similarity between the Original Articles of Confederation and the pact signed by the tribes who gathered together as the Iroquois Nation, nothing more.
So calm down and read it again. It is just a history piece, nothing more. Take from it what you will, but NOWHERE in this article is there mention of an opinion stating that we should have an Article V Convention. Read it again, cause you all seem to have missed the point.
No worries Morton. In fact, the TITLE of the piece (that came in the original e-mail notice) is what's off. I teach a collection of courses in Sherman Institute where the first (only) Convention is studied in full detail, with Elliot's Debates as the main text. Vol. 5 of Elliot (Madison's Notes) encompasses the first part (HI-215), the Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers are the focus of HI-216, and the State Ratification Conventions are course # HI-217. Taken as a trio, with the other Constitution studies we offer, this is the only real undergraduate program in constitution studies I know of in ANY school situation.
You'll excuse my "hair trigger" on the con-con idea in modern times. The mass of materials I've accumulated on the first, and knowing the ambitions of the promoters of the modern (if you care to explore) will show the magnitude of my defenses on it.
Honestly though, pull from Elliot, rather than Wikipedia, for your sources. Much more enlightening -- as this set has the full history of these conventions, and related source documents.
As usual Aaron,
You guys are way smarter than me. I can't keep up with you people. Why don't you write an article on your area of expertise, unless you already have. And if you don't mind let me post it here for all to see. I wouldn't mind the help.
My apologies to Keith; but not for anything i wrote. Maybe you should read my comments again. That way you'd know that they had nothing to do with anything except what was referenced; and hopefully you'd see the error of your ways vis a vis those comments and nothing else.
Excuse me Steven, But
First I wasn't really addressing you necessarily, but if you want to talk about it. Lets see what you wrote. You said "The process to which you allude". One, I have alluded to nothing. And Two, you have not told me to what I referenced.
You also said, "There is NOTHING in the Constitution that comes close to doing what you have alleged.". What did I "allege"? And where did I make "absurd statements"? I never said the government was created by the Constitution, I indicated that it was ALTERED or morphed into a newly formed NATIONAL government.
The states created this entity known as the Federal Government when they ratified the NEW Constitution. You are way off base in interpreting what I wrote and I suggest YOU go back and read it again. Besides that particular statement was directly copied from another source and is their exact wording, not mine.
And finally the word federal was created during the original convention to distract attention away from the unpopular word NATIONAL. The word Federal was nothing more than a smoke screen. There is virtually no difference between the two words and their meanings. I know you mean well, but you are reading WAY TOO MUCH into what I wrote. Try again.
I appreciate your contrite attitude Morton and would hope that all of us would continue to disagree agreeably. We have much to learn from history, but not much of greater importance than the value of tact and diplomacy in gaining strategic ground. Let us all extend to one another a generous spirit in our love for liberty.