Posted on 06/21/2010 7:49:27 AM PDT by Publius
" in vain therefore will be all interference of the legislatures, courts, or magistrates of any of the states on the subject; for they will be subordinate to the general government, and engaged by oath to support it, and will be constitutionally bound to submit to their decisions."
This is why I say the 10th amendment is a dead letter, and the states whooping it up with resolutions are wasting their time.
The STATES are prohibited from emiting bills of credit, not the national government.
If anything, one would say the Articles of Confederation were ultra-lean. And the Constitution is ultra-flabby. Perhaps there was/is a middle ground in there somewhere.
The American spirit has fled from hence: it has gone to regions where it has never been expected; it has gone to the people of France, in search of a splendid government — a strong, energetic government. Shall we imitate the example of those nations who have gone from a simple to a splendid government? Are those nations more worthy of our imitation? What can make an adequate satisfaction to them for the loss they have suffered in attaining such a government — for the loss of their liberty? If we admit this consolidated government, it will be because we like a great, splendid one. Some way or other we must be a great and mighty empire; we must have an army, and a navy, and a number of things.When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: liberty, sir, was then the primary object. We are descended from a people whose government was founded on liberty: our glorious forefathers of Great Britain made liberty the foundation of every thing. That country is become a great, mighty, and splendid nation; not because their government is strong and energetic, but, sir, because liberty is its direct end and foundation. We drew the spirit of liberty from our British ancestors: by that spirit we have triumphed over every difficulty.
But now, sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country into a powerful and mighty empire. If you make the citizens of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your government will not have sufficient energy to keep them together. Such a government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism. There will be no checks, no real balances, in this government. What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances? But, sir, we are not feared by foreigners; we do not make nations tremble. Would this constitute happiness, or secure liberty? I trust, sir, our political hemisphere will ever direct their operations to the security of those objects.
Patrick Henry, June 5th, 1788
It was properly understood at the time where the national powers would lead:
They [the judicial] will be able to extend the limits of the general government gradually, and by insensible degrees, and to accommodate themselves to the temper of the people. Their decisions on the meaning of the constitution will commonly take place in cases which arise between individuals, with which the public will not be generally acquainted. One adjudication will form a precedent to the next, and this to a following one. These cases will immediately affect individuals only, so that a series of determinations will probably take place before even the people will be informed of them. In the meantime all the art and address of those who wish for the change will be employed to make converts to their opinion.
This, from a different Brutus essay, is a pretty fair description of national accrual of power through the judicial branch. There are other excesses, but the critique of the judicial branch is damning and accurate. It's a fatal flaw.
The awful Articles were ratified in the closing months of the war.
We won in spite of the Articles.
If the Articles were so great, why did Virginia resort to a dictator?
Article II of Articles of Anarchy:
“Each state retains its sovereignty . . . and right which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”
You should better understand that which you defend.
You gotta be kidding! Compare Article III of the Constitution to the following mess of Article IX in the Articles of Anarchy:
The United States in Congress assembled shall also be the last resort on appeal in all disputes and differences now subsisting or that hereafter may arise between two or more States concerning boundary, jurisdiction or any other causes whatever; which authority shall always be exercised in the manner following. Whenever the legislative or executive authority or lawful agent of any State in controversy with another shall present a petition to Congress stating the matter in question and praying for a hearing, notice thereof shall be given by order of Congress to the legislative or executive authority of the other State in controversy, and a day assigned for the appearance of the parties by their lawful agents, who shall then be directed to appoint by joint consent, commissioners or judges to constitute a court for hearing and determining the matter in question: but if they cannot agree, Congress shall name three persons out of each of the United States, and from the list of such persons each party shall alternately strike out one, the petitioners beginning, until the number shall be reduced to thirteen; and from that number not less than seven, nor more than nine names as Congress shall direct, shall in the presence of Congress be drawn out by lot, and the persons whose names shall be so drawn or any five of them, shall be commissioners or judges, to hear and finally determine the controversy, so always as a major part of the judges who shall hear the cause shall agree in the determination: and if either party shall neglect to attend at the day appointed, without showing reasons, which Congress shall judge sufficient, or being present shall refuse to strike, the Congress shall proceed to nominate three persons out of each State, and the secretary of Congress shall strike in behalf of such party absent or refusing; and the judgement and sentence of the court to be appointed, in the manner before prescribed, shall be final and conclusive; and if any of the parties shall refuse to submit to the authority of such court, or to appear or defend their claim or cause, the court shall nevertheless proceed to pronounce sentence, or judgement, which shall in like manner be final and decisive, the judgement or sentence and other proceedings being in either case transmitted to Congress, and lodged among the acts of Congress for the security of the parties concerned: provided that every commissioner, before he sits in judgement, shall take an oath to be administered by one of the judges of the supreme or superior court of the State, where the cause shall be tried, 'well and truly to hear and determine the matter in question, according to the best of his judgement, without favor, affection or hope of reward': provided also, that no State shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States.
All controversies concerning the private right of soil claimed under different grants of two or more States, whose jurisdictions as they may respect such lands, and the States which passed such grants are adjusted, the said grants or either of them being at the same time claimed to have originated antecedent to such settlement of jurisdiction, shall on the petition of either party to the Congress of the United States, be finally determined as near as may be in the same manner as is before presecribed for deciding disputes respecting territorial jurisdiction between different States.
The Constitution of 1787 died in the 1930s. It was killed by FDR and his Congresses.
That is why Aristotle, Montesquieu and our Framers pounded on the need for a virtuous citizenry in a constitutional republic.
And if pounding for one made it manifest, we'd have one. Meanwhile back in the real world...
Your Henry quote at #24 seems to be in accord with Hayek’s view from the vantage point of history.
I am not a familiar with Henry’s attitude after ratification had occured and Washington was elected. I know he didn’t live a lot longer, but what was his attitude toward Washington upon taking office?
During Washington's years in office, he migrated over to the Federalist Party and reversed his earlier stances. He opposed the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions as seditious.
He had a complete change of heart after the debate was over.
He warned that civil war was threatened because Virginia, "had quitted the sphere in which she had been placed by the Constitution, and, in daring to pronounce upon the validity of federal laws, had gone out of her jurisdiction in a manner not warranted by any authority, and in the highest degree alarming to every considerate man; that such opposition, on the part of Virginia, to the acts of the general government, must beget their enforcement by military power; that this would probably produce civil war, civil war foreign alliances, and that foreign alliances must necessarily end in subjugation to the powers called in."
We know he was correct. The VA and KY resolutions led to Calhounism, which led to war.
It’s actually comical to see Madison scurrying around, trying to undo what he and his federalist buddies had done. Henry could well have said, “I tried to warn you. This is what the Constitution creates. You can’t undo it now. And now you want to invite the wrath of the national government on VA? No thanks. He was correct.
?
“I will close this catalogue of the evils of the dissolution of the Union by recalling to your mind what passed in the year 1781. Such was the situation of our affairs then, that the power of dictator was given to the commander-in-chief, to save us from destruction. This shows the situation of the country to have been such as to make it ready to embrace an actual dictator. At some future period, will not our distresses impel us to do what the Dutch have done — throw all power into the hands of a stadtholder?”
VA dumped representative government and appointed a dictator to deal with Cornwallis and Tarleton ravishing the state in 1781. The governor was given dictatorial powers. Of what service were the newly ratified Articles? Oh, and Patrick Henry was offered the dictatorship. He was such a strong supporter of the Articles, he refused. That is understandable since no one believes their baby is ugly. Henry put his ideology ahead protecting the lives of his people. See http://www.newrivernotes.com/va/varev8.htm
I wish I had been at the VA ratifying convention on 2 June to see Patrick Henry get slapped down.
He contested the legitimacy of the Constitutional convention. It got nowhere. He was politely told to sit down and shut up.
Thank you.
Of course he was correct on that as well.
Of course he was correct on that as well.
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.