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.

Views: 431

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

What's the point in trying again? You can't read a simple dictionary; so why should i bother?

The email claimed an invitation..... this isn't even revealing where this is occurring. I agree with the above comments. The Constitution has very little to do with life in the private sector and was dictated for the purpose of putting the newly formed fed on notice about what actions were to be allowed it. Once the elected realized theirs was to be a common position, inroads were made to defeat the protocols set forth. The document didn't hardly have a chance to be exercised when the Crown returned in an attempt to erase all that had occurred up to the point of the sacking and burning of the District.

Thankfully several of the confederate States had already started printing their own copies of the actions of the "new born" and we are finally getting some history about the lives of the immigrants fleeing the corruption of the ruling Houses of Europe.

Rewrite the Constitution? Can we not at least make an effort to give it a chance to preform the functions it was originally designed to do? Sorry ruling families of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Inc. we will not roll over that easily!!

Thanks for the additional background.  I'm currently taking Hillsdale College's free course on the U.S. Constitution and find this, and many other discussions and other background information quite helpful.  I've discovered that the discussion board on Hillsdale's course website has other fascinating contributions from similarly well informed constitutional historians.  The course is free and still available for enrollment.  As with other "distance learning" classes, you can take it at your own timing and do as much or as little "reading" as you wish.

Change of topic:  I've seen lots of (mostly negative) discussion on this site about the "con-con," but very little about the alternative Article Five amendment approach usually referred to as the "compact of states."  Anyone care to take that one up?  From what I've read, it's a more rapid and better controlled approach.

Edward:

The "Conference of States" approach is a misnomer. (You called it a "compact"  -- that's a typo.)  There's no such thing, either way.  If you read Article V there are TWO ways to amend the Constitution:  Propose amendments directly in Congress and submit to the states for ratification OR, have the states call for an Article V convention.  That's it.  There is no "controlled" convention.  NOTHING can modify the means for this to happen.  If 34 states wants a convention, under the so-called "state's petition," then a full-blown, Article V convention is called. 

The notion of limiting it to any "collection of amendments" is a full-blown LIE designed to get an Article V event in motion. Gore Vidal, the noted leftist, had this to say:

I have written exhaustively on this, including taking apart, piece by piece, the "fact sheet" of the Goldwater Institute.  It's all posted at the LINK here.  30 years of listening to people LIE about "limiting" a convention to some collection of amendments has gone into this convention retort.  Last time it was a "COS" with governors Leavitt and Nelson (Nebraska and Utah, respectively) in the mid 90's.  Before that (mid 80's) it was Jim Davidson and the National Taxpayer's Union arguing that they wanted a "limited" convention solely for the purpose of a Balanced Budget Amendment. 

Supreme Court Justices, the US Senate Judiciary Committee, etc. all "tried" to come up with "rules" to limit a convention, and discussed (honestly) that no matter what they did, it could NOT be limited.

Again, this is all explained in the documents at that LINK.  Read the "Goldwater Rebuttal" document.  It took me 23 pages to address all the red herrings, misdirection, and bovine effluvia contained in that two-page document of theirs.

There is no "alternative Article Five amendment approach."  Read the sentence analytics done by our Dean of English. on Article V.  She identifies, in another 10 pages (including a sentence diagram of it) what each word used in Article V means with respect to every other.  There's  no politics involved -- simple rules of grammatical construction. 

I even went to the pains required to accumulate the "kitchen sink" into a single, 155 page document.  The sentence diagram is the cover of this book.  It takes a few moments (depending on your connection speed) to download this 25 mb book.  We have a print edition of it coming when we pre-sell enough to cover printing costs.  See what's involved.  Contact our Scholars Team if you know a radio show host that will have us on.

Aaron

Thanks, Aaron, for the discussion and embedded links.  I'm coming late to this game, so I'm rather like a sponge soaking up all I can.  I do believe that something must be done before we sacrifice our few remaining liberties and property to the establishment parties.  I'm just trying to figure out what that might be before I start looking for an M-1 that doesn't have it's gas port sealed.

Ed

No worries Edward.  There are many things that can be done, but anything touching Article V is merely a disaster waiting to happen.  I won't discourage the M-1 approach either. :) 

Aaron

But the convention became a run away convention in the broadest sense when they basically threw away the Articles of Confederacy and re-wrote everything.  It turned out good for us, primarily because we had good people representing our interests to the best of their abilities.  That is no longer true.  There is no way you can convince me that this convention won't become another run away and re-write our present Constitution and eliminate what we all hold dear.  Who will be the delegates to this convention?  I can almost guarantee that it won't be you or me, that's a given.  The delegates will be the same useless idiots we already have in office and who are contributing to the demise of our freedoms and our country.  So I am dead set against any sort of convention where the Constitution is at risk.  People, we already fought this fight back in the 70's and 80's when "someone" tried to get a "con-con" going and we just bearly defeated it by the skin of out teeth.  So why in the world would we suddenly think a new con-con is a good idea?   The telling thing for me is that the chief advocates of the Article 5 convention are all funded by George Soros.  Can any thinking person give a good reason why he'd be doing ANYTHING that would be a benefit to America?  This is just another version of maobama's "fundamental change" for America and it stinks just as bad. 

Steven.

I may not be the Constitutional scholar that you evidently think you are, but I know what I fought against decades ago and it appears to me that the demon has resurfaced in a slightly different form.  So forgive me my "silly comments".  I thought this was a forum for all to express their comments, silly or not.  But don't worry, I'll keep my silly comments to myself and let the rest of you "experts" continue to contaminate the air with yours.

First off, i don't know you from Adam. Everything i wrote was in direct response to what Morton wrote, not you; so what's your beef?

Secondly, you obviously don't have a clue what you were fighting in the jungles of Viet Nam. You probably think it was Communism; but that was just a charade. Like all the wars of the past 300 yrs. or so, that conflict was about carnage, destruction and the goal was always DEBT. The banksters control countries with debt. Wars create nothing but debt. The tools, the dust, so to speak, are the blood and ravages of war. Bullets and bombs are expensive; but they make for great tallies to the banksters' invoices. I'm just an old carpenter. I never claimed to be an expert at anything except the building trades. At that i'm as good as they come. I can't imagine why your feelings got hurt over something i wrote to someone else. Are you just trying to get in touch with your feminine side? I think you've succeeded. Your slip is showing.

Because you put it in a reply to my name, that's why.  Second you don't know what your talking about either.  When I mentioned fighting I wasn't referring to Viet Nam, but the battle in the 70's and 80's against the proposed Con-Con.  Tell you what, how about you ignore me and I'll do the same for you.  I don't need to be flamed the very first time I express an opinion on this site.  So you keep your views about me and my silly ideas to yourself and I'll do the same. 

The Constitution did not replace 13 sovereign states with one sovereign County, but it did open the door to that creation of the American Empire. The transition from a Republic to a Fascist Dictatorship was realized thanks to the efforts of President Abraham Lincoln. In order to save the union he had to trash the Constitution and the republic/

The Iroquois Constitution provided for a method of mediating disputes between the 5 tribes and provided a military alliance that would protect them against other hostile tribes which were not part of the Iroquois Confederation. This model was shared at the New Albany Conference in 1765 by the Iroquois and it was the model used by those who wrote the Articles of Confederation.

RSS

© 2020   Created by Online Professor.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service