Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: inquest
I'm mot sure I buy that. I can tell you that there was virtually no discussion of that language on Article VI during the Federal Convention.

Got a reference out of Farrand?
16 posted on 09/26/2003 2:50:22 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (California! See how low WE can go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: Carry_Okie
Actually, the reference I have pertains to the treaty-making power (which has a similar provision), not the impeachment power. So I can't say for sure that the same reasoning applies in both cases, but I can only assume that it does. Anyway, this is from Hamilton's Federalist #75:
To require a fixed proportion of the whole body would not, in all probability, contribute to the advantages of a numerous agency, better then merely to require a proportion of the attending members. The former, by making a determinate number at all times requisite to a resolution, diminishes the motives to punctual attendance. The latter, by making the capacity of the body to depend on a proportion which may be varied by the absence or presence of a single member, has the contrary effect. And as, by promoting punctuality, it tends to keep the body complete, there is great likelihood that its resolutions would generally be dictated by as great a number in this case as in the other; while there would be much fewer occasions of delay.

18 posted on 09/26/2003 2:59:47 PM PDT by inquest (World socialism: the ultimate multinational corporation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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