Posted on 10/13/2009 7:09:33 PM PDT by Loud Mime
Personal Note: Again I present an article for its historical significance instead of the short (and valuable) quips from our founding fathers. As our liberty is being jeopardized by our growing government, I believe that knowing our history is becoming more important.
Written before the Declaration of Independence and penned by James Mason (IV), this was one of our nation’s original founding documents.
George Mason attended the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. Following the convention Mason became an anti-federalist. When he returned to Virginia he recommended that his State NOT ratify the new Constitution, complaining that it lacked a bill of rights.
Although James Madison initially disagreed with a bill of rights attached to the Constitution, he finally gave way and authored the BOR with Mason; yet few know that Mason was the principle author.
Mason’s becoming an anti-Federalist cost him some valuable friendships, most notably his with George Washington.
I did like Section 3!
The Virginia Declaration of Rights
First is the INTRODUCTION from the source at constitution.org:
On May 15, 1776, the Virginia Convention "resolved unanimously that the delegates appointed to represent this colony in General Congress be instructed to propose to that respectable body to declare the United Colonies free and independent states . . . [and] that a committee be appointed to prepare a DECLARATION OF RIGHTS and . . . plan of government." R. H. Lee's resolution of June 7, 1776, implemented the first of these resolutions and precipitated the appointment of the committee to draw up the Declaration of Independence; the second proposal was carried out by the framing of Virginia's first state constitution, of which this declaration was an integral part. It is notable for containing an authoritative definition of the term militia in Section 13.
As passed, the Virginia Declaration was largely the work of George Mason; the committee and the Convention made some verbal changes and added Sections 10 and 14. This declaration served as a model for bills of rights in several other state constitutions and was a source of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, though its degree of influence upon the latter document is a highly controversial question. The reference to "property" in Section I may be compared with the use of the word by John Locke, its omission by Thomas Jefferson from the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, and its use in the Constitution, Amendments V and XIV.
George Mason (1725-92), one of Virginia's wealthiest planters, a neighbor and friend of Washington, is best remembered for his part in drafting the Virginia constitution of 1776. In 1787 he was a leader in the Federal Convention. Refusing to sign the completed document, Mason, along with Patrick Henry and others, opposed its ratification in the Virginia Convention of 1788.]
A declaration of rights made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention; which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government.
SECTION I. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
SEC. 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them.
SEC. 3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.
SEC. 4. That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge to be hereditary.
SEC. 5. That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judiciary; and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burdens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections, in wh ich all, or any part, of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct.
SEC. 6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented for the public good.
SEC. 7. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised.
SEC. 8. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of twelve men of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty, except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.
SEC. 9. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
SEC. 10. That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.
SEC. 11. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other and ought to be held sacred.
SEC. 12. That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.
SEC. 13. That a well-regulated militia, or composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
SEC. 14. That the people have a right to uniform government; and, therefore, that no government separate from or independent of the government of Virginia ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.
SEC. 15. That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.
SEC. 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.
PING!
Language like this will get you on the DHS terrorist list very quickly.
If my recent taglines have not gotten me into trouble, nothing will!
> that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.
Our forefathers never had to meet the ACLU or Marxists.
They’re biding their time.
Are those typos in Sec. 3 or do I need to look up words like weal?
Democracy is the disease; socialism is just a symptom..
No democracy has ever yet been democratic..
Democracy was, is now, and will be Mob Rule..by mobsters..
---------------------------
Democracy is the road to socialism. -Karl Marx
Democracy is indispensable to socialism. The goal of socialism is communism. -V.I. Lenin
The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism .-Karl Marx
Karl Marx
Mason was a hero. So was Patrick Henry. The Constitution was a horrific mistake. The Federalist Papers are a monument to stupidity. As long as we live under the Constitution, we are screwed.
The American people have failed on pretty much every score. Sad.
I believe the Constitution was far better than the Articles of Confederation, and necessary as well. From what I’ve read, our nation would not have survived without the new government. There were settlements to the West that posed problems without a national authority and many good businessmen were being hurt by the absence of a currency that crossed State lines.
I’ve said this before, and will stick to it: the problems we now endure are not from the original Constitution.
-----
The above link is a great resource for figuring out the original intent of the Founder's words.
Such as the federal offices that are forced upon (and into) the interiors of the States?
Face it...most Americans wouldn't understand the concept of 'separation of powers' if it bit them on the arse.
[sigh]
It can be argued that the Articles of Confederation were insufficient. However, it's a fallacy to pretend that there were only two choices--the Articles or the Constitution.
From what I’ve read, our nation would not have survived without the new government.
Again, the nation might not have survived without changes to the Articles. That hardly justifies what we got as an alternative.
I’ve said this before, and will stick to it: the problems we now endure are not from the original Constitution.
Again, I disagree. All of our current problems stem from the Constitution. It's ridiculous to complain,as most conservatives do, that the Constitution would work fine if only...
If only what? Sometimes they blame the supreme court. You mean the supreme court created by The Constitution? They blame activist judges. You mean like John Marshall---a framer of the Constitution, a George Washington appointee, who was the original activist judge? They blame our leaders for not adhering to its limits. You mean like James Madison, the "father of the Constitution", who, after having opposed a national bank as unconstitutional in the First Congress, chartered one of his own as president to pay for war debts, and to finance a standing army--which he had also opposed?
It's difficult to argue my position, in the same way it's difficult to argue against TARP, and the stimulus programs. The defenders will say it would have been much worse without them! And how can I prove whether that is true or false?
Same here. You can argue it would have been much worse without the Constitution. But I can envision an alternate history, where the few deficiencies of the confederacy are rememdied without creating a national government that is supreme in every way.
History proves me right, and the only defense against my arguments is to blame people. But to me that's absurd. What other danger is there from a government besides people? Is an inanimate system of government a threat in any other way? Isn't THE threat of any government the mischief that people might do with it? And isn't it pure folly to assume that those that seek power wouldn't engage in mischief? If freedom is so rare and precious, wouldn't one want to be extra careful?
The framers themselves were already hard at work abusing the more regrettable aspects of the Constitution within a few years. Shall I supply a short list of the most egregious errors?
"Provide for the general welfare." "Regulate interstate commerce." "Make all laws necessary and proper." "The supreme law of the land...any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Etc.
The basic fact is that, without the authorization of the Continental Congress, the framers created a NATIONAL government, and that is the source of ALL our woes today. They could have addresses the problems in the Articles without doing so, but, the framers were dominated by Federalists, who wanted a powerful central government. They got what they wanted, and history has shown the effects of their decision.
That's true, but I don't blame the people entirely. The Constitution created an absurd system, that was attempting to be at once federal and national. It was clear at the time to opponents of the Constitution that that couldn't last--that in practice it would be an entirely national government. Madison was out of his gord trying to explain it. He was either lying or insane.
You make some very good points.
I would argue that the main aims of the Constitution are threefold (in no particular order):
1. To preserve the confederacy of states from foreign conquest.
2. To preserve the nation from incessant civil wars arising from factional power-struggles.
3. To demonstrate that the people are indeed capable of self-rule, thus obviating the need for a ruling class of aristocrats or monarchs.
That the Articles of Confederation were inadequate to task #1 was demonstrated clearly during the War of Independence - thus one reason for the convention in 1787.
Task #2 would’ve been at the forefront of the mind of anyone aware of European history. The framers put in place limits on the power of the branches of national government and on the states themselves, and mechanisms for resolving disputes democratically.
The Constitution notwithstanding, the bulk of task #3 would, of necessity, be left to the people themselves. This was an experiment, after all, and each generation would take part in it. The rest of the world was watching. No doubt many, whose position and power rested upon the claim that people cannot rule themselves, watched in the hope that America would self-destruct.
Say what we will about Lincoln, he endeavored to prove the naysayers wrong, and to preserve this example of liberty and self-government, by ensuring that “government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
If the Constitution is flawed, it’s only because no republican constitution can save people from themselves. Self-government doesn’t mean being governed by a constitution; it means being governed by ourselves. The Constitution is a law, and as such can be violated. It’s therefore a framework for government which we can either follow or reject. It cannot and will not of its own force preserve a nation - for the simple fact that we ARE self-governing.
The only law or constitution which cannot be rejected is the one which is backed by force - such force as would render the description “self-governing” inappropriate. Such a force would be tyranny.
If we, in our time, fail in this experiment of self-governance, such a tyranny will be the inheritance we bequeath to our children. And that’s precisely the case in America at present.
“That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”
Unless they are not white Protestants.
Every element of the super-sized government that we now suffer has its foundation in the 17th Amendment and the nature of man. I argue that the Amendment enabled popular opinion to take root in a chamber that was not to have popular opinions. The states lost their ability to check the growth of government from the chamber; the popular forces seized their power. From there the tyranny metastasized, affecting all laws, budgets, appointments of officers, and, worst of all, appointments to the courts.
You bring up good arguments, just as the Anti-Federalists did. But they provided no firm alternative, just arguments and condescension. So, the people had to pick A or B. They ratified the Constitution, so it is justified.
Madison is an interesting study. I often wonder how he thought, knowing that he re-wrote many of his papers. Granted, he was using a quill and parchment in those days. So, was he correcting the record or was he correcting his opinions? I don't know.
Did he change his mind after he studied matters to a greater extent? I lean toward "yes."
As far as the establishment of a national bank is concerned, it was only a matter of time before it was founded. Since the nation could tax and spend, they would have to manage the money or suffer the favoritism of chartering some private bank to do the work. In this area there was no win/win; everything had a dark side so it had to be limited in some way.
As I read these old documents my blood pressure rises. Sometimes this thread is so frustrating!
That's simply not true. All they were supposed to do was correct the Articles, not create a new national government. They could have rejected the Constitution and then resumed the work that the "framers" were tasked to do--improve the Articles.
As for the 17th, I don't see that as significant at all. I've never understood why people think that makes any difference to the big picture.
Maybe so, but insodoing, it affirms the notion of "implied powers", that are "necessary and proper." And hence we discover yet another gaping hole in what was supposed to be a limited national government. The people who say "where is such and such in the Constitution" don't know what they're talking about. The Constitution has very few limits, and even the framers themselves governed that way.
Not if you take into consideration the usage of the word 'national' was intended to be our national aspect's relationship between us and the rest of the world, NOT to give the general government any kind of authority over what went on inside the States.
The commerce clause is a perfect example. Congress has authority to regulate commerce among the several States, but only that concerns only the transactions done by the governmental entity of the State, not any of the People exercising their right to private contract.
IMHO, the Constitution is an exceptional document, the the prostitution of society's language and any understanding of a natural order have caused it to be summarily ignored.
I know what you mean! :-)
It's frustration trying to explain what used to be common sensical concepts. Just a few words spoke volumes with the Founders. They knew exactly where the line was between the individual and the good of the Republic.
----
The fact our federal government has gone flat-out Ber-ZERK....doesn't help anyones' nerves either.
I've found myself having to take brakes away from FR for a change.
That's not correct. It was part national/part federal, meaning that the people acted through the federal government both directly (national) and indirectly through their respective states (federal.) The Constitution created a government that was a mixture of both. The clearest example of this is the Congress, which contained both a national body of the people--The House, and an indirectly elected body of the States--the Senate. This national government acts directly on the people--taxing, raising armies, etc. And on the states--regulating commerce, judicial system, etc.
From the first legal treatise written after radification-
But a contract of this nature actually existed in a visible form, between the citizens of each state, respectively, in their several constitutions; it might therefore he deemed somewhat extraordinary, that in the establishment of a federal republic, it should have been thought necessary to extend it's operation to the persons of individuals, as well as to the states, composing the confederacy. It was apprehended by many, that this innovation would be construed to change the nature of the union, from a confederacy, to a consolidation of the states; that as the tenor of the instrument imported it to be the act of the people, the construction might be made accordingly: an interpretation that would tend to the annihilation of the states, and their authority.
View of the Constitution of the United States Volume 1 — Appendix / Note D
This concept was repeated by Joseph Story
Joseph Story , Commentaries on the Constitution
§ 312. It is, also, to a certain extent, a social compact. In the act of association, in virtue of which a multitude of men form together a state or nation, each individual is supposed to have entered into engagements with all, to procure the common welfare; and all are supposed to have entered into engagements with each other, to facilitate the means of supplying the necessities of each individual, and to protect and defend him.[5] And this is what is ordinarily meant by the original contract of society. But a contract of this nature actually existed in a visible form between the citizens of each state in their several constitutions. It might, therefore, be deemed somewhat extraordinary, that in the establishment of a federal republic, it should have been thought necessary to extend its operation to the persons of individuals, as well as to the states composing the confederacy.
It was originally explained by Madison in
Federalist, no. 39 16 Jan. 1788
Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States, would bind the minority; in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes; or by considering the will of a majority of the States, as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules has been adopted. Each State in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation then the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal and not a national Constitution.
-----
The federal government was to act on the States, not the People. It was part of the seperation of powers meant to protect the People from an overreaching government.
"When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821
From Fed 39 at the very end:
The proposed Constitution, therefore, [even when tested by the rules laid down by its antagonists,][1] is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national.
Do you seriously believe that the Founders intended to put the onerous system of a national government that overlapped and overrode the authority of the civil States and called it 'Liberty'?
Not hardly.
"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."
--Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.
The road to hell is paved with....you guessed it--good intentions. I'm not judging their intent. I'm judging to what extent their product--The Constitution--met their intent, and to what extent it didn't.
As for the Jefferson quote, you've got to leave him out of it. He was out of the country. He was not a participant in the Constitutional Convention, and he was not a participant in the Virginia ratification debate.
It's somewhat strange that so integral a figure as Jefferson was totally out of the loop, but he was. He wrote a few letters back and forth during that period, but the mail was pretty slow.
Had it actually been followed as intended and kept the laws of government and the Laws of Nature seperate, I believe it would have worked exceptionally well.
-----
As for the Jefferson quote, you've got to leave him out of it. He was out of the country. He was not a participant in the Constitutional Convention, and he was not a participant in the Virginia ratification debate. Actually, all these letters were written after he'd served as President.
I wasn't aware we operating under the rule that all quotes posted must be from only those participants in the Virginia ratification debate.
If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, and give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; And the sixteen being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they do now, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; But be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains around the necks of our fellow sufferers; And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second, that second for a third, and so on 'til the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering...and the forehorse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.
Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval
June 12, 1816
-----
It's somewhat strange that so integral a figure as Jefferson was totally out of the loop, but he was.
True, but others were there
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875, Farrand's Records, Volume 1
MADISON
Thursday May 31, Page 54
The clause an exertion of the force of the whole agist. a delinquent State came next into consideration.
Mr. Madison , observed that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually.--
A Union of the States seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agist. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.
He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this recourse unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed.
The federal government was created to be limited, just because people won't bother to understand or adhere to the Constitution doesn't make it a 'bad' document.
Documents can't 'do' anything...it's up to the People to uphold them.
Yet another "if only." You don't create a federal/national monstrosity and then sit back and hope it will be ok.
As Madison himself said:
"In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. "
Madison's auxiliary precautions were a total failure, and were mocked as such at the time by opponents of FEDZILLA. Here's what Patrick Henry had to say about the checks and balances:
"What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances."
So, the results are in. I think we know who was right and who was wrong.
Where are your checks in this government? Your strongholds will be in the hands of your enemies. It is on a supposition that your American governors shall be honest, that all the good qualities of this government are founded; but its defective and imperfect construction puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs, should they be bad men; and, sir, would not all the world, from the eastern to the western hemisphere, blame our distracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad? Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt."
Patrick Henry, THURSDAY, June 5, 1788, Virginia Ratification debate
"We will next inquire into what is implied in the authority to pass all laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry this power into execution.
It is, perhaps, utterly impossible fully to define this power. The authority granted in the first clause can only be understood in its full extent, by descending to all the particular cases in which a revenue can be raised; the number and variety of these cases are so endless, and as it were infinite, that no man living has, as yet, been able to reckon them up. The greatest geniuses in the world have been for ages employed in the research, and when mankind had supposed that the subject was exhausted they have been astonished with the refined improvements that have been made in modern times ' and especially in the English nation on the subject.
If then the objects of this power cannot be comprehended, how is it possible to understand the extent of that power which can pass all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying it into executions It is truly incomprehensible. A case cannot be conceived of, which is not included in this power. "
Antifederalist No. 32
*
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.