Posted on 09/16/2011 4:50:58 AM PDT by Jacquerie
Sixty two year old George Mason was a Virginia delegate to the Constitutional Convention. This wealthy planter aristocrat had served in the House of Burgesses, authored the Fairfax Resolves of 1774, greatly influenced the Virginia Constitution of 1776, and was the principal author behind the Virginia Bill of Rights.
His opposition was no small matter; it made Virginia’s ratification of the Constitution a close run thing.
Constitutional Convention Ping!
Fascinating article, thanks for posting.
Happy Constitution Day, guys!
These men had an uncanny ability to see into the future. Without doubt some of the most intelligent men to ever walk this land.
He had excellent foresight on this matter. The Founders should have passed something akin to the Ayn Rand amendment to prevent this.
Wasn't this later changed so that only the House can originate appropriations?
The Connecticut Compromise was to give States equal representation in the Senate, which favored small states.
In exchange, money bills would originate in the large state dominated House of Reps. For a week or so, the Senate was prevented from modifying the bills, but could only vote up/down. That changed and became what we have today; House origination but the Senate can modify.
This is what Mason protested. He didn’t want the Senate to be able to modify money, i.e. appropriations bills.
We certainly could use them now.
FUBO GTFO! 492 Days until Noon Jan 20, 2013
Very good posting!
Tomorrow - the 17th - marks the first anniversary of my Dad’s death. We’re marking the day with his favorite breakfast, banana pancakes!
Today we are around 1:700,000. Every ten years apportionment goes to various courts where they contend with the Voting Rights Act and Marxist judges. It is typically a mess, with minorities screaming racism at every turn.
I think we should get a lot closer to 1:50,000 or so. It would mean truer representation. Let San Francisco send a dozen freaks, while my little rural area will send a single good ‘ol boy.
Those men saw into the future because they studied the past. They went to great lengths in studying for the new design, referring to governments such as the Achean and Lycian leagues as factors. How many of us have even heard of those nations?
The fact is that they studied; they weren’t watching American idol.
That’s a good idea. Along with no retirement.
Sometimes I wonder if gentlemen such as Mason, Patrick Henry, George Clinton, James Winthrop and all the other Anti-Federalists were correct. It is too bad that Thomas Jefferson was in Paris as the first US Ambassador to France at the time of the writing of the Constitution; his input could have made a great deal of difference.
It is not that the Constitution is flawed per se, it's just that there were so many compromises made, and so little of it dealt with the extraordinary rights of the people, and too much dealt with the rights and balances of power of the different branches of government.
If this was not so, there would not have been a need for the Bill of Rights, that is, the first 10 amendments, which several states insisted upon, and would not join the the Republic until they were added.
Therefore, of course, those amendments became part of the Constitution. And now, 220 years later, we have a federal judiciary that concludes the Commerce clause has more authority than the 10th amendment. Dang it, both are part of the Constitution, and since it was deemed necessary to AMEND the document with items such as the 10th, it should always be given more consideration, not less.
The biggest problem with the Constitution turns out to be just as Mason said—the men who “follow” it. They've made a mess out of it, and have to often got it wrong in giving power to the government rather than to the people and the states.
Roger that. In far smaller districts, an individual with little money could meet a lot of people. No retirement.
I like the provision in the Articles of Confederation where a delegate could not serve in Congress for more than three out of any six years. The Framers considered term limits, but obviously decided against them.
In my reading of the Convention debates, as well as a book on the State ratifications, it is fair to say the fundamental difference between the federalists and anti-federalists was how long each thought the republic would endure before sliding into tyranny.
Without making any hard estimates in terms of years, the anti-federalists thought despotic government was just around the corner. The federalists thought it much further off.
I am convinced none would have thought we would last so long, for a republic can only reflect the values of its people.
Interesting personal page. I see we shared the same barracks.
Thank you for posting this. I often wish that Thomas Jefferson had written letters stating that there was and should be a wall of separation between economics and state as he did with the letter about the “wall” between church and state and that it was given the same weight. I think the laws governing trade and production should be simple enough to fit on a few pages. It is unlawful to steal, to initiate physical force or to defraud. That’s it. Everything else involved with trade should be off limits to the government. If a product or production method harms someone such as with pollution and a real objective harm can be proved handle it in the courts, which are a legitimate function of a proper government. So many of the laws and agencies meant to solve problems are themselves much more damaging to lives and liberty than the original evil they were instituted to fight.
Where?
Its a shame Jefferson was not available to attend. Taking care of interstate and foreign commerce was one the specific reasons for calling the Convention in the first place.
That the innocuous commerce clause was abused to allow for just about any federal intrusion is a stain on the Supreme Court and illustrated seventy years ago to what lengths the Left will go.
Boy, you have that right. Of course the constitution is just an old piece of paper long when the people of the country don’t uphold it or vote for those who won’t. Wasn’t it also Jefferson who said the Constitution would only serve a moral people. Or something like that.
I agree with you totally. Just imagine if we could do away with all the laws and agencies brought about by the Supreme Courts re-interpretation of the commerce clause.
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.