Mr. Morris was not seconded. (Senate suffrage almost destroyed the Convention; move on.)
The 6th Resolution was taken up. (Resolved. that the national Legislature ought to be empowered to enjoy the legislative rights vested in Congress by the confederation-and moreover to legislate in all cases to which the separate States are incompetent: or in which the harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual legislation. to negative all laws passed by the several States contravening, in the opinion of the national Legislature, the articles of union, or any treaties subsisting under the authority of the union.)
Roger Sherman (CN) thought it would be difficult to draw the line between state and general government powers. He motioned to replace “of individual legislation,” with “"to make laws binding on the people of the United States in all cases which may concern the common interests of the Union; but not to interfere with the Government of the individual States in any matters of internal police which respect the Govt. of such States only, and wherein the general welfare of the U. States is not concerned."
(Kind of clunky, but his attempt to prohibit interference with state police powers would be sorely missed by the 1930s. Notice also his use of “general welfare,” which in no way implies what the Left today tells us it does.)
James Wilson (PA) seconded the motion.
Governeur Morris (PA) asked about “tricks” such as paper money.
Roger Sherman (CN) read a list of enumerated powers including taxes on trade but no power of direct taxation.
Governeur Morris (PA) asked if Mr. Sherman intended to continue subversive quotas and requisitions.
Roger Sherman (CN) agreed that an additional tax of some sort was needed. His motion failed to pass, 8-2.
Gunning Bedford (DE) moved to modify the second clause to "and moreover to legislate in all cases for the general interests of the Union, and also in those to which the States are separately [FN8] incompetent," or in which the harmony of the U. States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual Legislation."
Governeur Morris (PA) seconded.
Governor Edmund Randolph described the wide sweep of powers over the states Mr. Bedford’s motion would mean.
Gunning Bedford (DE) said his proposal was no more extensive than the current clause. (What did he mean by: “no State being separately competent to legislate for the general interest of the Union?” Did he refer to the elimination of state supremacy as it stood under the Articles?)
Mr. Bedford’s motion passed 6-4.
The last portion of Resolution 6 was next, “To negative all laws passed by the several States contravening, in the opinion of the national Legislature, the articles of union, or any treaties subsisting under the authority of the union.”
Governeur Morris (PA) thought it would be terrible to the states and could not support this unnecessary provision when “sufficient” legislative authority was to be given to Congress anyway.
Roger Sherman (CN) (viewed judicial veto of unconstitutional laws as organic to general judicial power) disapproved the clause as unnecessary since “courts of the states” would invalidate unconstitutional laws.
Luther Martin (MD) regarded the legislative veto as both improper and inadmissible.
James Madison (VA) explained it as “essential” to the objects of the convention and as a defense against state encroachment. He feared state encroachment as under the Articles. Without this power, states could inflict injury before their laws got shot down by Congress or Courts. State courts cannot be relied upon as guardians of national interests. Mr. Madison described the judge selection process of a few states and legislative abuses. (Madison let loose. His distrust and disgust with the states under the Articles ran deep.)
Governeur Morris (PA) reinforced the belief that the judicial veto and (What would become the supremacy clause) supremacy of national laws would be sufficient. (It was nearly certain the Constitution would have been rejected by the people of the states if it contained a Congressional veto.)
Charles Pinckney (SC) supported the clause. It failed to pass 7-3.
Luther Martin (MD) proposed what would become the Supremacy clause. It passed without objection.
The 9th Resolution, “that Natl. Executive consist of a single person,” passed without objection.
The next clause of the 9th: "To be chosen by the National Legisl:"
(More than sixty votes were eventually taken to define the method of Presidential election. The nature of these debates were different from those around the Senate which involved the clash of political power. This new office, that of the President, had to be strong enough to execute the laws yet not violate republican principles and morph into an authoritarian strongman.)
Governeur Morris (PA) warned the Executive would be but a creature of the legislature who would never be impeached. Mr. Morris pushed for popular election. It appeared that governors were elected in NY and CN. The people would select men of national reputation, of distinguished character. Awful intrigue would enter into an Executive appointed by Congress.
He compared it to the selection of a Pope by Cardinals. (Money quote, the motion was doomed.)
Mr. Morris moved to strike “National Legislature” and insert “citizens of US.” (For a man who supported a truly aristocratic Senate, it may appear contradictory for him to motion popular election of the Executive. IMO, it merely reflected an intent to ensure distinct and independent branches of government.)
Roger Sherman (CN) framed some problems with popular elections. Uninformed people, (how true 220 years later) the near impossibility of one man garnering a majority of votes, a preference for favorite sons, (true still) and the largest states would have an advantage. (VA, cradle of Executives) He suggested it would be easy to require a majority of votes for one man if elected by the Legislature.
(This discussion reflected the revolutionary dilemma that confronted our forebears. Legitimate government must be by consent of the people, but too much democracy is dangerous. What is the proper balance?)
James Wilson (PA) did not think electoral commotions would result if the people elected the Executive. In the event no single person carried a majority, perhaps the example of MA could be used, where the legislature by voice vote selects the governor absent a majority vote by the people. Still, the Executive should not be beholding to the legislature.
Charles Pinckney (SC) did not trust the people to elect a Executive. The legislature would be more likely to select a man prone to carry out the laws.
Governeur Morris (PA) summarized well the argument for popular election. Intrigue would happen among legislators, not the people who would actually be quite well enough informed to judge the character of candidates. If chosen by the legislature he would never be independent of it. “Usurpation and tyranny” as in England last century could result.
George Mason (VA) pointed out the contradiction of comments regarding the legislature, i.e. it was to be trusted with indefinite power and trust, and yet it was also not to be trusted at all. A government that was to endure must be practicable. It would be as natural for the people to choose a man of character as a blind man could be trusted to select colors. Extent of the country alone precludes a capacity to judge good men. (Several delegates stressed character above all other qualities necessary in our Executive. I distinctly recall democrats hollering far and wide in the 1990s how good character was unnecessary.)
James Wilson (PA) thought the legislature deserved trust in some situations and not in others. When it came to high office appointments, corruption would rule.
Hugh Williamson (NC) assumed the Executive would be limited to one term. As such, there would be less dependency if appointed by the legislature.
By a 9-1 vote, the Convention would retain Congressional appointment of Executives.
Luther Martin (MD) proposed state legislatures assign electors to elect the Executive.
Jacob Broome (DE) seconded, but it went down to defeat, 8-2.
(Hmm, no debate and defeat of the method to be eventually used.)
The Convention voted unanimously for Congress to appoint the Executive.
“For a term of seven years,” was postponed without opposition.
William Houston (GA), Governeur Morris (PA) motioned "to carry into execution the national laws," and "to appoint to offices in cases not otherwise provided for," both agreed to without opposition.
William Houston (GA) motioned to remove "to be ineligible a second time,” which was seconded by Mr. Sherman.
Governeur Morris (PA) warned that ineligibility would reduce the motive to good behavior. “Make hay while the sun shines.”
Mr. Houston’s motion to allow reappointment passed 6-4.
Back to, “for a term of seven years.”
Jacob Broome (DE) preferred a shorter term, now that the Executive was eligible for reappointment.
James McClurg (VA) moved to strike “seven years” and replace with “during good behavior.” (An appointed Executive for life) His goal was an Executive as independent as the Judiciary. (Mr. McClurg was the replacement delegate for Patrick Henry who refused to attend. Odd that he would be one to propose an elected Monarch.)
Governeur Morris (PA) seconded the motion. A Executive for life was essential to good government. The manner of his election/appointment was irrelevant. (Again the tendency toward the admired British system.)
Jacob Broome (DE) strongly supported the motion. (There was still a monarchal strain among the delegates. It was less than fifteen years since they fought for the “Rights of Englishmen” under a monarchy)
Roger Sherman (CN) considered unlimited tenure as unsafe.
James Madison (VA) reminded delegates that separation of powers was essential. An Executive dependent on the legislature for reappointment was hardly separated from the legislature. ( I admit I could not divine most of what he said)
George Mason (VA) cut to the chase. A Executive holding office during good behavior would do so for life. It was a short walk from there to hereditary monarchy. The States would not approve this.
James Madison (VA) viewed a strong executive necessary to check what experience has shown; nearly all power ends up in the legislative branches.
Governeur Morris (PA) claimed to be no friend of monarchy. Keep the people happy to prevent monarchy.
James McClurg (VA) focused on the object, an independent executive which was essential to guard against republican tyranny. Since the Convention decided to not term limit the Executive, service during good behavior would ensure his independence.
The motion to replace “seven years” with “good behavior” failed 6-4.
The motion to strike “seven years” failed 6-4.
It was now unanimously agreed that the vote which had struck out the words "to be ineligible a second time" should be reconsidered to-morrow.
(Mr. Madison elaborated the “good behavior” vote in [FN40]. “The avowed friends of an Executive, "during good behaviour" were not more than three or four, nor is it certain they would finally [FN42] have adhered to such a tenure. An independence of the three great departments of each other, as far as possible, and the responsibility of all to the will of the community seemed to be generally admitted as the true basis of a well constructed government.”)
Constitutional Convention Ping!
The only problem I have with this posting of the Convention is the more I learn of our founding the more I know How much I don’t know-and realize how much too many Americans are either ignorant of themselves-or otherwise distracted and therefore easier to lead or draw from the political house erected like silly women filled with diverse lusts.Not a day is read here without such knowledge that too often I cannot reconcile what was intended to what is now seen.T’anks for this is both a blessing and a curse.
The only problem I have with this posting of the Convention is the more I learn of our founding the more I know How much I don’t know-and realize how much too many Americans are either ignorant of themselves-or otherwise distracted and therefore easier to lead or draw from the political house erected like silly women filled with diverse lusts.Not a day is read here without such knowledge that too often I cannot reconcile what was intended to what is now seen.T’anks for this is both a blessing and a curse.
I am also struck by how the same issues and arguments are just as relevant today as then. Perhaps there should be a required course before high school graduation entitled original sources to study the formation of our government from these minutes, and the federalist & anti-federalist papers etc.