Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

The Ports and Trade Committee, composed on 25 Aug. of one delegate from each State, submitted its report.

(The Avalon source next cited the 4th Clause of the 7th Section, which did not make sense. I’m convinced the 4th Section of the 7th Article was intended.) Their submission, "Nor shall any regulation of commerce or revenue give preference to the ports of one State over those of another, or oblige vessels bound to or from any State to enter, clear or pay duties in another and all tonnage, duties, imposts & excises laid by the Legislature shall be uniform throughout the U. S," was tabled.

Next, by a 9-1 vote, "the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction," in order to avoid confusion, was inserted in place of, "it shall be appellate" in Article XI Section 3.

Article XI Section 4, “The trial of all criminal offences except in cases of impeachments shall be in the State where they shall be committed; and shall be by Jury,” was struck and replaced with,

"The trial of all crimes (except in cases of impeachment) shall be by jury, and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, then the trial shall be at such place or places as the Legislature may direct."

Charles Pinckney (SC) motioned to protect Habeas Corpus with, “that it should not be suspended but on the most urgent occasions, & then only for a limited time, not exceeding twelve months."

John Rutlidge (SC) would declare Habeas Corpus inviolable.

Governeur Morris (PA) motioned, "The privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended; unless where in cases of Rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

James Wilson (PA) questioned the necessity of the Clause; Judges had discretion as it was.

Mr. Morris’ motion passed 7-3.

Article XI Section 5 passed without opposition. “Judgment, in cases of Impeachment, shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honour, trust or profit, under the United States. But the party convicted shall, nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment according to law.” (Why was Alcee Hastings allowed to sit in Congress after impeachment and conviction for taking bribes as a judge?)

Article XII was next. “No State shall coin money; nor grant letters of marque and reprisal; nor enter into any Treaty, alliance, or confederation; nor grant any title of Nobility.”

James Wilson (PA) and Roger Sherman (CN) motioned to insert, "nor emit bills of credit, nor make any thing but gold & silver coin a tender in payment of debts," after “coin money.” The purpose was to remove any doubt (as to our Framer’s loathing of anything other than silver or gold tender and paper money.)

(I ask Freepers to explain how we ended up with a fiat currency.)

(As the following illustrates, there will always be calls for fiat money)

Nathaniel Gorham (MA) thought the wording in Article XIII sufficient to achieve the purpose without inciting paper money supporters.

Roger Sherman (CN) thought the current crisis perfect for the abolition of paper money. If there was a loophole, paper money people would certainly get their supporters elected to exploit it.

The question was divided. On the first, “nor emit bills of credit,” passed 8-1-1.

The remainder of Mr. Sherman’s and Mr. Wilson’s motion passed without opposition.

Rufus King (MA) (I suppose, wished to add this to Article XIII, the list of “No State shall”) wished to prohibit States from interference with private contracts.

Governeur Morris (PA) thought Mr. King went too far and gave his reasons for opposition.

Roger Sherman (CN) asked why prohibit bills of credit?

James Wilson (PA) favored the motion.

James Madison (VA) thought the positive aspects outnumbered the negative. The Legislative negative on State Laws would suffice.

George Mason (VA) thought the motion went too far; there would be occasions where such interference would be proper.

James Wilson (PA) suggested the ban be limited to after the fact.

James Madison (VA) immediately remarked that the “ex post facto” clause addressed the issue, which would oblige Judges to declare such interference “null and void.”

(Once again, the notion of Judicial Review appeared; rendering unconstitutional laws null and void.)

John Rutlidge (SC) motioned to replace Mr. King’s motion with, "nor pass bills of attainder nor ex post facto laws," which passed 7-3.

More of Article XII, No State shall coin money; nor emit bills of credit, nor make any thing but gold & silver coin a tender in payment of debts; nor grant letters of marque and reprisal; nor enter into any Treaty, alliance, or confederation; nor grant any title of Nobility; nor pass bills of attainder nor ex post facto laws.

James Madison (VA) motioned to insert, “nor lay embargoes,” after “reprisal.”

(It appears the States had some habits the delegates wished to terminate.)

Roger Sherman (CN) would leave this power to the States in order to prevent suffering to their poor. (I do not understand the logic of this.)

George Mason (VA) thought the amendment dangerous, since Congress would not always be in session and the States may need to impose sudden embargoes as was demonstrated during the war.

Governeur Morris (PA) (pointed out the obvious) noted that trade was to be regulated, so why push this prohibition? (Commerce, trade, embargoes all pertain to the movement of goods. There is nothing in this Convention to imply Congressional power to regulate manufactures, health, safety . . . etc. under the Commerce Clause.)

Mr. Madison’s motion to prevent State embargoes failed 8-3.

James Madison (VA) motioned, and Hugh Williamson (NC) seconded to move "nor lay imposts or duties on imports," from Article XIII to Article XII. He feared States could band together to impose that which was so troublesome under the Confederation. Under Article XIII, Congress could grant the impost power to States.

Article XIII: “No State, without the consent of the Legislature of the United States, shall emit bills of credit, or make any thing but specie a tender in payment of debts; nor lay imposts or duties on imports; nor keep troops or ships of war in time of peace; nor enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with any foreign power; nor engage in any war, unless it shall be actually invaded by enemies, or the danger of invasion be so imminent, as not to admit of delay, until the Legislature of the United States can be consulted.”

Roger Sherman (CN) was unconvinced, and tended toward leaving the Clause as it was.

George Mason (VA) mused on the occasions where import duties could be appropriate.

James Madison (VA) retorted to Mr. Mason that such duties would have to be against imports from other States as well as foreign countries, which would revive too many of the tribulations experienced under the Confederation.

On the question to move “nor lay imposts or duties on imports,” to Article XII from Article XIII, it failed 7-4.

Article XII as amended, passed without opposition, “No State shall coin money; nor emit bills of credit, nor make any thing but gold & silver coin a tender in payment of debts; nor grant letters of marque and reprisal; nor enter into any Treaty, alliance, or confederation; nor grant any title of Nobility; nor pass bills of attainder nor ex post facto laws.”

Rufus King (MA) motioned to add to Article XIII, “"or exports,” after “imports,” which passed 6-5.

Roger Sherman (CN) wished to add, "nor with such consent but for the use of the U. S," after "exports." So if approved by Congress, all import/export revenue would still go to the National Treasury.

James Madison (VA) thought well of the intent, but did not like the complexity the Convention gave to the nation’s commercial system.

Governeur Morris (PA) (BOOM, sectional rivalries again) did not wish to encourage taxation by the Atlantic States at the expense of the Western States. (Mississippi River navigation was closed to Americans by the Spanish at that time.)

George Clymer (PA) (Projected negative vibes, to say the least, as to the viability of the US) thought it suicide to embrace new Western States. He opposed Mr. Sherman’s motion, let the States regulate (via impost) their own manufactures.

Rufus King (MA) also thought the amendment interfered too much with the manufactures of the States. “Revenue he reminded the House was the object of the general Legislature.”

(Notice the use by Mr. Clymer and Mr. King of the word “manufactures.” It is clear they viewed manufactures as within the realm of State regulation.

Mr. Sherman’s motion passed 9-2.

Article XIII passed as amended.

Article XIV was next. “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.”

General Pinckney (SC) wanted a provision to favor property in slaves. (It sounds petty, but this was probably a reasonable fear if manumission might be accomplished by Congress declaring slaves to be citizens.)

(No debate. While slavery was troublesome to say the least, the goal of the Convention was to plan a government, not create Utopia.)

Article XIV passed 9-1.

Article XV was then taken up. “Any person charged with treason, felony or high misdemeanor in any State, who shall flee from justice, and shall be found in any other State, shall, on demand of the Executive power of the State from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to the State having jurisdiction of the offence.”

“High misdemeanor” was struck and replaced with “other crime.”

Pierce Butler (SC) and Charles Pinckney (SC) motioned to add, "to require fugitive slaves and servants to be delivered up like criminals."

James Wilson (PA) asked why one State should be saddled with the expense of retrieving property for another State.

Roger Sherman (CN) saw no more propriety in the public seizing and surrendering a slave or servant, than a horse.

Pierce Butler (SC) withdrew his motion in order to submit it later as a stand alone.

Article XV passed without opposition.


1 posted on 08/28/2011 5:26:43 AM PDT by Jacquerie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]

To: Lady Jag; Ev Reeman; familyof5; NewMediaJournal; pallis; Kartographer; SuperLuminal; unixfox; ...
Constitutional Convention Ping!
2 posted on 08/28/2011 5:28:17 AM PDT by Jacquerie (The First Fatass is an insult to the republic she despises.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Jacquerie
Thanks, Jacquerie.

"It is apparent from the whole context of the Constitution as well as the history of the time which gave birth to it, that it was the purpose of the Convention to establish a currency consisting of the precious metals. These were adopted by a permanent rule excluding the use of a perishable medium of exchange . . . or the still more pernicious expedient of paper currency." - President Andrew Jackson (1826), as quoted in "Our Ageless Constitution" (1987), p. 117.

Jackson's words appear in an essay by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., entitled, "Gold and Silver Coin - The Foundation of the Monetary System Created by the Constitution," the second of two essays on the subject in this 292-page volume on the essential principles of liberty underlying the U. S. Constitution. In Vieira's contribution beginning on P. 117, he outlines the background of the Founders' concerns for liberty as they considered the establishment of a monetary system for a free society. Then, he traces the actions which later generations have taken which have endangered liberty over the 200 years between 1787 and 1987 (Bicentennial). A sequel to that essay could reveal more deterioration of the Founders' intended protections for liberty.

The opening two paragraphs are of interest here:

"In 1787, the Founding Fathers wer deeply concerned with the role of government in this nation's monetary system not only because of their deep insights into political and economic theory and their familiarity with numerous historical examples of destruction wrought by governments of other countries which abused their monetary powers, but also from their own personal involvement in what was then a raging economic, social, and political crisis stemming from debauchery of money in the United States itself (See: Part III, Gold and Silver Coin).
"Themselves eye-witnesses to the catastrophic inflation that follwed the emission of "Bills of Credit" (paper money) by both the Continental Congress and the States during the War of Independence, and after lengthy debate in the Constitutional Convention, the Founding Fathers carefullyy structured the monetary powers of the Constitution to prevent repetition of such a calamity, by utterly outlawing what the Continental Congress and the Federalist Papers denounced as the "fallacious Medium" and "improper and wicked project" of paper money (See Part VIII, Notable Quotations, Paper Money).

Dr. Vieira is an attorney and well-known author of works on the subject, including, "Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution" (1983).

Thomas Jefferson: "Paper is liable to be abused, has been, is, and forever will be abused, in every country in which it is permitted."

". . . although the other nations of Europe have tried and trodden every path of force or folly in fruitless quest of the same object, yet we still expect to find in juggling tricks and banking dreams, that money can be made out of nothing. . . The misfortune is. . . we shall plunge ourselves in unextinguishable debt, and entail on our posterity an inheritance of external taxes, which will bring our government and people into the condition of those of England, an nation of pikes and gudgeons, the latter bred merely as food for the former."

"Stock dealers and banking companies, by the aid of a paper system [paper money] are enriching themselves to the ruin of our country, and swaying the government by their possession of the printing presses, which their wealth commands, and by other means, not always honorable to the character of our countrymen."

Then there is John Maynard Keynes observation in "The Economic Consequences of the Peace - 1920":

"Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. . . . Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. . . . (It) does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose."

3 posted on 08/28/2011 8:39:35 AM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson