Journal of the Federal Convention August 8th 1787

Article IV Sections 1-5. Resident or Inhabitant. Representation in First House. King Speech on Slaves, Taxes, and Exports. Forty Thousand. Why Worry? Morris & Accursed Slavery.

Art: IV. Sect. I. [FN1], [FN2] -Mr. MERCER expressed his dislike of the whole plan, and his opinion that it never could succeed.

Mr. GHORUM. he had never seen any inconveniency [FN3] from allowing such as were not freeholders to vote, though it had long been tried. The elections in Phila. N. York & Boston where the Merchants, & Mechanics vote are at least as good as those made by freeholders only. The case in England was not accurately stated yesterday [by Mr. Madison] The Cities & large towns are not the seat of Crown influence & corruption. These prevail in the Boroughs, and not on account of the right which those who are not freeholders have to vote, but of the smallness of the number who vote. The people have been long accustomed to this right in various parts of America, and will never allow it to be abridged. We must consult their rooted prejudices if we expect their concurrence in our propositions.

Mr. MERCER did not object so much to an election by the people at large including such as were not freeholders, as to their being left to make their choice without any guidance. He hinted that Candidates ought to be nominated by the State Legislatures.

Col. MASON was for opening a wide door for emigrants; but did not chuse to let foreigners and adventurers make laws for us & govern us. Citizenship for three years was not enough for ensuring that local knowledge which ought to be possessed by the Representative. This was the principal ground of his objection to so short a term. It might also happen that a rich foreign Nation, for example Great Britain, might send over her tools who might bribe their way into the Legislature for insidious purposes. He moved that "seven" years instead of "three," be inserted.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS 2ded. the Motion, & on the question, all the States agreed to it except Connecticut.

Mr. SHERMAN moved to strike out the word "resident" and insert "inhabitant," as less liable to miscontruction.

Mr. MADISON 2ded. the motion, both were vague, but the latter least so in common acceptation, and would not exclude persons absent occasionally for a considerable time on public or private business. Great disputes had been raised in Virga. concerning the meaning of residence as a qualification of Representatives which were determined more according to the affection or dislike to the man in question, than to any fixt interpretation of the word.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS, was opposed to both and for requiring nothing more than a freehold. He quoted great disputes in N. York occasioned by these terms, which were decided by the arbitrary will of the majority. Such a regulation is not necessary. People rarely chuse a nonresident-It is improper as in the 1st. branch, the people at large, not the States, are represented.

Mr. RUTLIDGE urged & moved that a residence of 7 years shd. be required in the State Wherein the Member shd. be elected. An emigrant from N. England to S. C. or Georgia would know little of its affairs and could not be supposed to acquire a thorough knowledge in less time.

Mr. READ reminded him that we were now forming a Natil. Govt. and such a regulation would correspond little with the idea that we were one people.

Mr. MADISON suggested the case of new States in the West, which could have perhaps no representation on that plan.

Mr. MERCER. Such a regulation would present a greater alienship among the States [FN6] than existed under the old federal system. It would interweave local prejudices & State distinctions in the very Constitution which is meant to cure them. He mentioned instances of violent disputes raised in Maryland concerning the term "residence"

Mr. ELSEWORTH thought seven years of residence was by far too long a term: but that some fixt term of previous residence would be proper. He thought one year would be sufficient, but seemed to have no objection to three years.

Mr. DICKENSON proposed that it should read "inhabitant actually resident for ----- year. [FN7] This would render the meaning less indeterminate.

Mr. WILSON. If a short term should be inserted in the blank, so strict an expression might be construed to exclude the members of the Legislature, who could not be said to be actual residents in their States whilst at the Seat of the Genl. Government.

Mr. MERCER. It would certainly exclude men, who had once been inhabitants, and returning from residence elsewhere to resettle in their original State; although a want of the necessary knowledge could not in such case [FN8] be presumed.

Mr. MASON thought 7 years too long, but would never agree to part with the principle. It is a valuable principle. He thought it a defect in the plan that the Representatives would be too few to bring with them all the local knowledge necessary. If residence be not required, Rich men of neighbouring States, may employ with success the means of corruption in some particular district and thereby get into the public Councils after having failed in their own State. [FN9] This is the practice in the boroughs of England.

N. H. no. Mas. no. Ct. no. N. J. no. Pa. no. Del. no. Md. ay. Va. no. N. C. no. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [FN10]

On the question for inserting "inhabitant" in place of "resident" -agd. to nem. con.

Mr. WILLIAMSON liked the Report as it stood. He thought "resident" a good eno' term. He was agst. requiring any period of previous residence. New residents if elected will be most zealous to Conform to the will of their constituents, as their conduct will be watched with a more jealous eye.

Mr. BUTLER & Mr. RUTLIDGE moved "three years" instead of "one year" for previous inhabitancy

N. H. no. Mas. no. Ct. no. N. J. no. Pa. no. Del. no. Md. no. Va. no. N. C. no. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [FN11]

N. H. no -Mas. no. Ct. no. N. J. ay. Pa. no. Del. no. Md. divd. Va. no. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [FN12]

Genl. PINKNEY & Mr. PINKNEY moved that the number of representatives allotted to S. Carola. be "six" on the question, N. H. no. Mas. no. Ct. no. N. J. no. Pa. no. Delaware ay Md. no. Va. no. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [FN15]

Mr. WILLIAMSON moved to strike out "according to the provisions hereinafter after made" and to insert the words "according "to the rule hereafter to be provided for direct taxation" -See Art. VII. sect. 3. [FN16]

N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. no. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [FN17]

Mr. KING wished to know what influence the vote just passed was meant [FN18] have on the succeeding part of the Report, concerning the admission of slaves into the rule of Representation. He could not reconcile his mind to the article if it was to prevent objections to the latter part. The admission of slaves was a most grating circumstance to his mind, & he believed would be so to a great part of the people of America. He had not made a strenuous opposition to it heretofore because he had hoped that this concession would have produced a readiness which had not been manifested, to strengthen the Genl. Govt. and to mark a full confidence in it. The Report under consideration had by the tenor of it, put an end to all those hopes. In two great points the hands of the Legislature were absolutely tied. The importation of slaves could not be prohibited-exports could not be taxed. Is this reasonable? What are the great objects of the Genl. System? 1. [FN19] defence agst. foreign invasion. 2. [FN19] agst. internal sedition.

Shall all the States then be bound to defend each; & shall each be at liberty to introduce a weakness which will render defence more difficult? Shall one part of the U. S. be bound to defend another part, and that other part be at liberty not only to increase its own danger, but to withhold the compensation for the burden? If slaves are to be imported shall not the exports produced by their labor, supply a revenue the better to enable the Genl. Govt. to defend their masters? -There was so much inequality & unreasonableness in all this, that the people of the Northern States could never be reconciled to it. No candid man could undertake to justify it to them. He had hoped that some accomodation wd. have taken place on this subject; that at least a time wd. have been limited for the importation of slaves. He never could agree to let them be imported without limitation & then be represented in the Natl. Legislature. Indeed he could so little persuade himself of the rectitude of such a practice, that he was not sure he could assent to it under any circumstances. At all events, either slaves should not be represented, or exports should be taxable.

Mr. SHERMAN regarded the slave trade as iniquitous; but the point of representation having been settled after much difficulty & deliberation, he did not think himself bound to make opposition; especially as the present article as amended did not preclude any arrangement whatever on that point in another place of the Report.

Mr. MADISON objected to 1 for every 40,000, inhabitants as a perpetual rule. The future increase of population if the Union shd. be permanent, will render the number of Representatives excessive.

Mr. GHORUM. It is not to be supposed that the Govt. will last so long as to produce this effect. Can it be supposed that this vast Country including the Western territory will 150 years hence remain one nation?

Mr. ELSEWORTH. If the Govt. should continue so long, alterations may be made in the Constitution in the manner proposed in a subsequent article.

Mr. SHERMAN & Mr. MADISON moved to insert the words "not exceeding" before the words "1 for every 40,000, which was agreed to nem. con.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to insert "free" before the word inhabitants. Much he said would depend on this point. He never would concur in upholding domestic slavery. It was a nefarious institution. It was the curse of heaven on the States where it prevailed. Compare the free regions of the Middle States, where a rich & noble cultivation marks the prosperity & happiness of the people, with the misery & poverty which overspread the barren wastes of Va. Maryd. & the other States having slaves. Travel thro' ye. whole Continent & you behold the prospect continually varying with the appearance & disappearance of slavery. The moment you leave ye. E. Sts. & enter N. York, the effects of the institution become visible, passing thro' the Jerseys & entering Pa. every criterion of superior improvement witnesses the change. Proceed south wdly & every step you take thro' ye. great region of slaves presents a desert increasing, with ye. increasing proportion of these wretched beings.

Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they men? Then make them Citizens and let them vote. Are they property? Why then is no other property included? The Houses in this city [Philada.] are worth more than all the wretched slaves which cover the rice swamps of South Carolina. The admission of slaves into the Representation when fairly explained comes to this: that the inhabitant of Georgia and S. C. who goes to the Coast of Africa, and in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections & damns them to the most cruel bondages, [FN20] shall have more votes in a Govt. instituted for protection of the rights of mankind, than the Citizen of Pa. or N. Jersey who views with a laudable horror, so nefarious a practice.

He would add that Domestic slavery is the most prominent feature in the aristocratic countenance of the proposed Constitution. The vassalage of the poor has ever been the favorite offspring of Aristocracy. And What is the proposed compensation to the Northern States for a sacrifice of every principle of right, of every impulse of humanity. They are to bind themselves to march their militia for the defence of the S. States; for their defence agst. those very slaves of whom they complain. They must supply vessels & seamen in case of foreign Attack. The Legislature will have indefinite power to tax them by excises, and duties on imports: both of which will fall heavier on them than on the Southern inhabitants; for the bohea tea used by a Northern freeman, will pay more tax than the whole consumption of the miserable slave, which consists of nothing more than his physical subsistence and the rag that covers his nakedness. On the other side the Southern States are not to be restrained from importing fresh supplies of wretched Africans, at once to increase the danger of attack, and the difficulty of defence; nay they are to be encouraged to it by an assurance of having their votes in the Natl. Govt. increased in proportion, and are at the same time to have their exports & their slaves exempt from all contributions for the public service. Let it not be said that direct taxation is to be proportioned to representation. It is idle to suppose that the Genl. Govt. can stretch its hand directly into the pockets of the people scattered over so vast a Country. They can only do it through the medium of exports imports & excises. For what then are all these sacrifices to be made? He would sooner submit himself to a tax for paying for all the negroes in the U. States, than saddle posterity with such a Constitution.

Mr. DAYTON 2ded. the motion. He did it he said that his sentiments on the subject might appear whatever might be the fate of the amendment.

Mr. SHERMAN. did not regard the admission of the Negroes into the ratio of representation, as liable to such insuperable objections. It was the freemen of the Southn. States who were in fact to be represented according to the taxes paid by them, and the Negroes are only included in the Estimate of the taxes. This was his idea of the matter.

Mr. PINKNEY, considered the fisheries & the Western frontier as more burdensome to the U. S. than the slaves. He thought this could be demonstrated if the occasion were a proper one.

Mr. WILSON. thought the motion premature. An agreement to the clause would be no bar to the object of it.

N. H. no. Mas. no. Ct. no. N. J. ay. Pa. no. Del. no. Md. no. Va. no. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. no. [FN23]

On the suggestion of Mr. DICKENSON the words, "provided that each State. shall have one representative at least." -were added nem. con.

Mr. PINKNEY moved to strike out Sect. 5. As giving no peculiar advantage to the House of Representatives, and as clogging the Govt. If the Senate can be trusted with the many great powers proposed, it surely may be trusted with that of originating money bills.

Mr. GHORUM. was agst. allowing the Senate to originate; but [FN26] only to amend.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS. It is particularly proper that the Senate shd. have the right of originating money bills. They will sit constantly, will consist of a smaller number, and will be able to prepare such bills with due correctness; and so as to prevent delay of business in the other House.

Col. MASON was unwilling to travel over this ground again. To strike out the section, was to unhinge the compromise of which it made a part. The duration of the Senate made it improper. He does not object to that duration. On the Contrary he approved of it. But joined with the smallness of the number, it was an argument against adding this to the other great powers vested in that body. His idea of an Aristocracy was that it was the governt. of the few over the many. An aristocratic body, like the screw in mechanics, workig. its way by slow degrees, and holding fast whatever it gains, should ever be suspected of an encroaching tendency. The purse strings should never be put into its hands.

Mr. MERCER. considered the exclusive power of originating Money bills as so great an advantage, that it rendered the equality of votes in the Senate ideal & of no consequence.

Mr. ELSEWORTH did not think the clause of any consequence, but as it was thought of consequence by some members from the larger States, he was willing it should stand.

Mr. MADISON was for striking it out: considering it as of no advantage to the large States as fettering the Govt. and as a source of injurious altercations between the two Houses.

On the question for striking out "Sect. 5. Art. IV" N. H. no. Mas. no. Ct. no. N. J. ay. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. no. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [FN27]

FN10 In the transcript the vote reads: "Maryland, South Carolina, Georgia, aye-3; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, no-8."

FN11 In the transcript the vote reads: "South Carolina, Georgia, aye-2; New Hampshire, MAssachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, no-9."

FN12 In the transcript the vote reads: New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye-4; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, no-6; Maryland, divided."

FN15 In the transcript the vote reads: Delaware, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye-4; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, new Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, no-7."

FN17 In the transcript the vote reads: "New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye-9; New Jersey, Delaware, no-2."

FN19 The figures "1" and "2" are changed to "First" and "Secondly" in the transcript.

FN23 In the transcript the vote reads: New Jersey, aye-1; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, no-10."

FN27 In the transcript the vote reads: New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, aye-7; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, North Carolina, no-4."

Article IV Section 1 still under consideration.

“The members of the House of Representatives shall be chosen every second year, by the people of the several States comprehended within this Union. The qualifications of the electors shall be the same, from time to time, as those of the electors in the several States, of the most numerous branch of their own legislatures.”

John Mercer (MD) did not like the plan and did not think it could succeed.

(Mr. Mercer showed up late to the Convention and left early. He supposedly made a list of members he thought had been for an American King. Fellow Marylander, Mr. Carroll was on the list. Mr. Carroll had to fight the charges next year, 1788 as he stood for election to the first Constitutional Congress. Mercer eventually denied the list and Carroll went to Congress.)

Nathaniel Gorham (MA) said non-freeholders in Philadelphia, New York and Boston voted responsibly. The franchise was widespread. It would be dangerous to ratification to abridge it.

John Mercer (MD) had no problem with non-freeholder voting as long as they chose from a list of candidates created by the State Legislatures. (I suspect he was not missed when he left early.)

Article IV Section 1 passed unanimously. (The Committee of Detail did well.) Next, Article IV Section 2, “Every member of the House of Representatives shall be of the age of twenty five years at least; shall have been a citizen in the United States for at least three years before his election; and shall be, at the time of his election, a resident of the State in which he shall be chosen.”

George Mason (VA) thought the door was a little too wide open for immigrants and “adventurers” to make laws for us. Three years was too few to learn our traditions. He feared Great Britain would send “tools” with money to buy elections for insidious purposes. He motioned for seven years of citizenship.

Governeur Morris (PA) seconded and the motion carried by all with the exception of CN.

Roger Sherman (CN) moved to strike “resident” and insert “inhabitant.”

James Madison (VA) seconded; both terms were vague. Similarly vague residency requirements caused problems in VA where the issue usually went the way of the most liked.

James Wilson (PA) preferred “inhabitant.”

Governeur Morris (PA) opposed both and would require only a freehold. In New York such disputes were decided by the will of the majority. The people would rarely choose a non-resident to represent them.

John Rutlidge (SC) once again came up with a solution. He proffered and moved seven years v. three and leave the word “resident” alone. It would ensure that an immigrant to SC from MA would have time to learn the locality.

Judge George Read (DE) commented and James Wilson (PA) agreed that we were to become one people.

James Madison (VA) wondered what of representation in new Western States.

John Mercer (MD) babbled about creating greater alienation among the States. Violent disputes erupted in MD over residency requirements.

Judge Oliver Ellsworth (CN) thought seven years far too long. He thought one year sufficient, three would be acceptable.

John Dickinson (DE) muddied the waters further with a motion to substitute “inhabitant actually resident for ----- year.”

James Wilson (PA) saw a possible problem with reelection if a Representative spent too much time at the seat of Government.

John Mercer (MD) said it would exclude men who temporarily moved elsewhere and returned to their home State.

George Mason (VA) viewed seven years as too long, but valued the principle. Absent a residency requirement, he expected rich men to worm their way into districts they know nothing about.

On the question to postpone in order to consider Mr. Dickinson’s motion, it failed 8-3.

“Inhabitant” replaced “resident” unanimously.

Judge Oliver Ellsworth (CN) and George Mason (VA) moved to insert “one year.”

Hugh Williamson (NC) preferred the Report as it stood.

Pierce Butler (SC) and John Rutlidge (SC) moved “three years” v. “one year.”

On the question of three years, it failed 9-2.

On the question of one year, it failed 6-4.

Article IV Section 2 as amended (US citizen for seven years prior) passed without opposition.

Article IV Section 3 “The House of Representatives shall, at its first formation, and until the number of citizens and inhabitants shall be taken in the manner herein after described, consist of sixty five Members, of whom three shall be chosen in New-Hampshire, eight in Massachusetts, one in Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, five in Connecticut, six in New-York, four in New-Jersey, eight in Pennsylvania, one in Delaware, six in Maryland, ten in Virginia, five in North- Carolina, five in South-Carolina, and three in Georgia,” was taken up.

Both General and Charles Pinckney (SC) asked for six reps for SC. No chance.

Article IV Section 3 passed 7-4.

Next was Article IV Section 4, “As the proportions of numbers in different States will alter from time to time; as some of the States may hereafter be divided; as others may be enlarged by addition of territory; as two or more States may be united; as new States will be erected within the limits of the United States, the Legislature shall, in each of these cases, regulate the number of representatives by the number of inhabitants, according to the provisions herein after made, at the rate of one for every forty thousand.”.

Hugh Williamson (NC) moved to strike "according to the provisions hereinafter after made" and to insert the words "according "to the rule hereafter to be provided for direct taxation.” It passed 9-2.

Rufus King (MA) queried what the vote just taken would have on representation concerning slaves.

(After the large/small state compromise, it appears the complex issue of slavery/representation/taxes once again caused turmoil)

If I read him correctly, Mr. King opposed the 3/5 compromise, but went along with it in the expectation of a similar “give” from the Southern States. Selling the compromise in MA would be a difficult enough task. He asked what were the great objects of the National Government, and then answered his question with, “1. Defense against foreign invasion. 2. Defense against internal sedition.” States from one section will be required to spend money and manpower to defend other sections. Shouldn’t all contribute taxes toward the common defense? If so, the non-slave States are getting a raw deal. Not only could slaves be imported freely and without taxation, but the slaves output, i.e. Southern agricultural exports could not be taxed as well. (Article VII Section 4 “No tax or duty shall be laid by the Legislature on articles exported from any State; nor on the migration or importation of such persons as the several States shall think proper to admit; nor shall such migration or importation be prohibited.”)

Mr. King would compromise no more. Northern States would never approve. He could not agree to unlimited importation of slaves, which would then be represented in the House of Representatives, especially when coupled with non taxation of the product of their labor, agricultural exports. Either slaves should not be represented, or exports should be taxable.

Roger Sherman (CN) took on a more amiable tone. While he regarded the slave trade as “iniquitous,” the 3/5 rule had been settled. Taxation could be addressed later, and did not affect the current Article under discussion, Article IV Section 4.

James Madison (VA) objected to the 1:40,000 rule. The House of Reps would become huge as the nation expanded.

Nathaniel Gorham (MA) so much as told Mr. Madison, “Why worry? The US won’t be around long enough to worry about a crowded House.”

Judge Oliver Ellsworth (CN) said if the nation lasts, the provision could be changed by the amendment process.

Roger Sherman (CN) and James Madison (VA) motioned to insert, “not exceeding,” before the words “1 for every 40,000.” It passed without opposition.

Governeur Morris (PA) moved to insert “free” before the word “inhabitants,” (effectively killing the 3/5 Compromise) then let lose a broadside against slavery. He would never concur in upholding nefarious, accursed Slavery. Mr. Morris then compared the prosperity and happiness of non-Slave States with those which had the institution. (Excellent speech.)

Were Slaves men or Property? If men, let them vote; if not, count them as property. The homes in Philadelphia alone are worth more than all of the wretched Slaves in SC. It boiled down to this:

A Southerner sails to Africa, steals men from their families, damns them to cruel labor, and his reward is more representation in a Government dedicated to Unalienable Rights.

(So 3/5 of slaves applied toward representation, but had no actual voting rights. Their “votes” went to their Masters.) Morris criticized this as an Aristocracy. What will be the Northern States’ compensation for accepting slavery and both skewed representation and taxation? They get to march their militia to defend the lives of Masters when Slaves rebel. They will pay unlimited excise and import taxes. Oh, and direct taxation proportioned to representation will not happen; it will be too difficult. No, imposts and excises will be the National Government’s money sources.

(Very prescient of Mr. Morris, for outside of wars, the National government would do without direct taxation and live on excises and imposts until the 16th Amendment. As opposed to the more urban North, the rural, semi-feudal South would pay little in imposts and excises. To further prohibit taxes on exports and slaves would largely relieve the South of taxation. Mr. Rutledge and Governor Randolph of the Committee of Detail protected Southern interests very well.)

Jonathan Dayton (NJ) seconded Mr. Morris.

Roger Sherman (CN) (Made comments I am unsure of. Direct taxation and representation in the House depended on the number of freeman and 3/5 of slaves.)

Charles Pinckney (SC) (blew some smoke)

James Wilson (PA) thought the motion premature.

The motion to insert “free” before “inhabitants” in Article IV Section 4 was defeated 10-1.

John Dickinson (DE) motioned to add, “provided each state shall have one representative at least,” which was agreed to without opposition.”

Article IV Section 4 was ratified as amended without opposition.

Article IV Section 5, “All bills for raising or appropriating money, and for fixing the salaries of the officers of Government, shall originate in the House of Representatives, and shall not be altered or amended by the Senate. No money shall be drawn from the Public Treasury, but in pursuance of appropriations that shall originate in the House of Representatives.” was up next.

Charles Pinckney (SC) moved to strike the section entirely. There was no advantage to limiting the power to the House. Why not trust the Senate?

Nathaniel Gorham (MA) would allow the Senate to amend, but not originate money bills.

Governeur Morris (PA) explained why it was more appropriate for the Senate to originate money bills.

George Mason (VA) said the issue had been discussed and decided. It was part of a compromise (Equal State suffrage in the Senate). To grant another great power to the Senate was ill advised. It smacked of Aristocracy. Do not put the purse strings into its hands.

John Mercer (MD) considered origination of money bills to be a great advantage that rendered equality of votes in the Senate of no consequence.

Pierce Butler (SC) viewed the matter as previously settled.

James Wilson (PA) opposed the motion regardless of the compromise.

Judge Oliver Ellsworth (CN) did not see the great value of the clause but recognized that others did and would therefore support it.

James Madison (VA) was for striking the clause. (He opposed the original compromise of equal Senate suffrage.)

On a vote of 7-4, Section 5 of Article IV was struck.

Adjourned.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.