Background on three more constitutional framers

John Dickinson

- Click here for the article.

Dickinson was born[note 1] at Croisadore, his family's tobacco plantation near the village of Trappe in Talbot County, Province of Maryland.[2] He was the great-grandson of Walter Dickinson who emigrated from England to Virginia in 1654 and, having joined the Society of Friends, came with several co-religionists to Talbot County on the Eastern Shore of the Chesapeake Bay in 1659.

. . . Dickinson was educated at home, by his parents and by recent immigrants employed for that purpose. Among them was the Presbyterian minister Francis Alison, who later established New London Academy in Chester County, Pennsylvania.[5] Most important was his tutor, William Killen, who became a lifelong friend and who later became Delaware’s first Chief Justice and Chancellor. Dickinson was precocious and energetic, and in spite of his love of Poplar Hall and his family, was drawn to Philadelphia.

At 18 he began studying the law under John Moland in Philadelphia. There he made friends with fellow students George Read and Samuel Wharton, among others. By 1753, John went to London for three years of study at the Middle Temple. He spent those years studying the works of Edward Coke and Francis Bacon at the Inns of Court, following in the footsteps of his lifelong friend, Pennsylvania Attorney General Benjamin Chew, and in 1757 was admitted to the Pennsylvania Bar beginning his career as barrister and solicitor.


Elbridge Gerry

- Click here for the article.

Born into a wealthy merchant family, Gerry vocally opposed British colonial policy in the 1760s and was active in the early stages of organizing the resistance in the American Revolutionary War. Elected to the Second Continental Congress, Gerry signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. He was one of three men who attended the Constitutional Convention in 1787 who refused to sign the United States Constitution because it did not then include a Bill of Rights. After its ratification he was elected to the inaugural United States Congress, where he was actively involved in drafting and passage of the Bill of Rights as an advocate of individual and state liberties.

. . . Elbridge Gerry was born on July 17, 1744, in Marblehead, Massachusetts. His father, Thomas Gerry, was a merchant operating ships out of Marblehead, and his mother, Elizabeth (Greenleaf) Gerry, was the daughter of a successful Boston merchant.[1] Gerry's first name came from John Elbridge, one of his mother's ancestors.[2] Gerry's parents had 11 children in all, although only five survived to adulthood. Of these, Elbridge was the third.[3] He was first educated by private tutors and entered Harvard College shortly before turning 14. After receiving an AB in 1762 and an AM in 1765, he entered his father's merchant business. By the 1770s the Gerrys numbered among the wealthiest Massachusetts merchants, with trading connections in Spain, the West Indies, and along the North American coast.[1][4] Gerry's father, who had emigrated from England in 1730, was active in local politics and had a leading role in the local militia


Edmund Randolph

- Click here for the article.

Randolph was born on August 10, 1753 to the influential Randolph family in Williamsburg in the Colony of Virginia. He was educated at the College of William and Mary. After graduation he began reading law with his father John Randolph and uncle, Peyton Randolph. In 1775, with the start of the American Revolution, Randolph's father remained a Loyalist and returned to Britain; Edmund Randolph remained in America where he joined the Continental Army as an aide-de-camp to General George Washington.[1]

Upon the death of his uncle Peyton Randolph in October 1775, Randolph returned to Virginia to act as executor of the estate, and while there was elected as a representative to the Fourth Virginia Convention. He was later mayor of Williamsburg, and then Attorney general of Virginia, a post he held until 1786.[1] He was married on August 29, 1776 to Elizabeth Nicholas (daughter of Robert C. Nicholas), and had a total of six children, including Peyton Randolph, Governor of Virginia from 1811 to 1812.

Day 3 of the Constitutional Convention: Tuesday, May 29

More debate on the rules.

John Dickerson and Elbridge Gerry (of gerrymander fame) joined the convention.

Opening statement by Edmund Randolph.

He presents the  Virginia Plan.

- Click here for detail.

The first part of Randolph's Comments:

He expressed his regret, that it should fall to him, rather than those who were of longer standing in life and political experience, to open the great subject of their mission. But as the Convention had originated from Virginia, and his colleagues supposed that some proposition was expected from them, they had imposed this task on him.

He then commented on the difficulty of the crisis, and the necessity of preventing the fulfilment of the prophecies of the American downfall.

He observed, that, in revising the federal system we ought to inquire, first, into the properties which such a government ought to possess; secondly, the defects of the Confederation; thirdly, the danger of our situation; and fourthly, the remedy.

1. The character of such a government ought to secure, first, against foreign invasion; secondly, against dissensions between members of the Union, or seditions in particular States; thirdly, to procure to the several States various blessings of which an isolated situation was incapable; fourthly, it should be able to defend itself against encroachment; and fifthly, to be paramount to the State Constitutions.

2. In speaking of the defects of the Confederation, he professed a high respect for its authors, and considered them as having done all that patriots could do, in the then infancy of the science of constitutions, and of confederacies; when the inefficiency of requisitions was unknown — no commercial discord had arisen among any States — no rebellion had appeared, as in Massachusetts — foreign debts had not become urgent — the havoc of paper-money had not been foreseen — treaties had not been violated — and perhaps nothing better could be obtained, from the jealousy of the States with regard to their sovereignty.

He then proceeded to enumerate the defects: — First, that the Confederation produced no security against foreign invasion; Congress not being permitted to prevent a war, nor to support it by their own authority. Of this he cited many examples; most of which tended to show, that they could not cause infractions of treaties, or of the law of nations, to be punished; that particular States might by their conduct provoke war without control; and that, neither militia nor drafts being fit for defence on such occasions, enlistments only could be successful, and these could not be executed without money.

Secondly, that the Federal Government could not check the quarrel between States, nor a rebellion in any, not having constitutional power nor means to interpose according to the exigency.

Thirdly, that there were many advantages which the United States might acquire, which were not attainable under the Confederation — such as a productive impost — counteraction of the commercial regulations of other nations — pushing of commerce ad libitum, &c. &c.

Fourthly, that the Federal Government could not defend itself against encroachments from the States.

Fifthly, that it was not even paramount to the State Constitutions, ratified as it was in many of the States.

Day Two Constitutional Convention: May 28, 1787

- Click here.

The rules governing the convention were determined. Click on the link  to go over them.

These stuck out to me:

“Every member, rising to speak, shall address the President; and, whilst he shall be speaking, none shall pass between them, or hold discourse with another, or read a book, pamphlet, or paper, printed or manuscript. And of two members rising to speak at the same time, the President shall name him who shall be first heard.

. . . “A member may be called to order by any other member, as well as by the President; and may be allowed to explain his conduct, or expressions, supposed to be reprehensible. And all questions of order shall be decided by the President, without appeal or debate.


. . . A letter from sundry persons of the State of Rhode Island, addressed to the Chairman of the General Convention, was presented to the Chair by Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS; and, being read, was ordered to lie on the table for further consideration

. . . Mr. BUTLER moved that the House provide against interruption of business by absence of members, and against licentious publications of their proceedings.

Here's more about Gouverner Morris:

Morris' father, Lewis Morris, was a wealthy landowner and judge. Gouverneur Morris was born on the family estate, Morrisania, on the north side of the Harlem river, which was at the time in Westchester County, but is now part of the Bronx. Morris, a gifted scholar, enrolled at King's College, now Columbia University in New York City, at age 12. He graduated in 1768 and received a Master's degree in 1771. He studied law with Judge William Smith and attained admission to the bar in 1775.

. . . In 1779, he was defeated for re-election to Congress, largely because his advocacy of a strong central government was at odds with the decentralist views prevalent in New York. Defeated in his home state, he moved to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to work as a lawyer and merchant.

. . . It is said by some that Morris was "an aristocrat to the core," who believed that "there never was, nor ever will be a civilized Society without an Aristocracy".[9] It is also alleged that he thought that common people were incapable of self-government because he feared that the poor would sell their votes to the rich and that voting should be restricted to property owners. Duff Cooper wrote of Morris that although he "had warmly espoused the cause of the colonists in the American War of Independence, he retained a cynically aristocratic view of life and a profound contempt for democratic theories."

Here's more about Pierce Butler:

Pierce Butler was born on July 11, 1744, in Garryhundon, County Carlow, Ireland. He was the third son of Sir Richard Butler, 5th Baronet, of Cloughgrenan (1699–1771) and his wife Henrietta Percy.

. . . As one of the largest slaveholders in the United States, he defended American slavery for both political and personal motives, even though he had private misgivings about the institution and particularly about the African slave trade. He introduced the Fugitive Slave Clause into a draft of the U.S. Constitution, which gave a federal guarantee to the property rights of slaveholders. He supported counting the full slave population in state totals for the purposes of Congressional apportionment. The Constitution's Three-Fifths Compromise counted only three-fifths of the slave population in state totals, but still led to Southern states having disproportionate power in the U.S. Congress.

. . . Military operations in the final months of the Revolutionary War left Butler a poor man. Many of his plantations and ships were destroyed, and the international trade on which the majority of his income depended was in shambles. He traveled to Europe when the war ended in an effort to secure loans and establish new markets. He enrolled his son Thomas in a London school run by Weeden Butler, and engaged a new minister from among the British clergy for his Episcopal church in South Carolina.[1][2]

In late 1785 Butler returned to the United States. He became an outspoken advocate of reconciliation with former Loyalists and of equal representation for the residents of the backcountry. Testifying to his growing political influence, the South Carolina legislature asked Butler to represent the state at the Constitutional Convention that met in Philadelphia in 1787.[1] At the convention, he urged that the president be given the power to initiate war; however, he did not receive a second proponent for his motion and all the other delegates overwhelmingly rejected his proposal.[3][4]

Butler's experiences as a soldier and planter-legislator led to his forceful support for a strong union of the states. At the same time, he looked to the special interests of his region. He introduced the Fugitive Slave Clause (Article 4, Section 2), which established protection for slavery in the Constitution. In addition, while privately criticizing the international trade in African slaves, he supported the passage in the Constitution that prohibited regulation of the trade for 20 years. He advocated counting the full slave population in the states' totals for the purposes of Congressional apportionment, but had to be satisfied with the compromise to count three-fifths of the slaves toward that end. It ensured that the Southern planter elite exerted a strong influence in national politics for decades.

Butler displayed inconsistencies that troubled his associates. He favored ratification of the Constitution, yet did not attend the South Carolina convention that ratified it. Later, he was elected by the South Carolina state legislature to three separate terms in the United States Senate, but changed his party allegiance: beginning as a Federalist, he switched to the Jeffersonian party in 1795. In 1804 he declared himself a political independent.

Vice President Aaron Burr was Butler's guest at his St. Simons plantations in September 1804. Burr was, at the time, lying low after shooting Alexander Hamilton in the July 1804 duel. The states of New York and New Jersey had each indicted the Vice President for murder in the wake of the post-duel controversy. Burr had traveled during August, to Butler's plantation under the pseudonym Roswell King, which was Butler's overseer's name. During Burr's stay in early September, one of the worst hurricanes in history hit the area, and Burr's first-hand description documents both his stay and this event. Butler's politics and public involvement mirror the political rise and fall of his friend Burr.

Day One Constitutional Convention: May 25, 1787

- Click here.

"Mr. ROBERT MORRIS informed the members assembled, that, by the instruction and in behalf of the deputation of Pennsylvania, he proposed GEORGE WASHINGTON, Esquire, late Commander-in-Chief, for President of the Convention.1 Mr. JOHN RUTLEDGE seconded the motion, expressing his confidence that the choice would be unanimous; and observing, that the presence of General WASHINGTON forbade any observations on the occasion which might otherwise be proper. General WASHINGTON was accordingly unanimously elected by ballot, and conducted to the Chair by Mr. R. MORRIS and Mr. RUTLEDGE; from which, in a very emphatic manner, he thanked the Convention for the honor they had conferred on him; reminded them of the novelty of the scene of business in which he was to act, lamented his want of better qualifications, and claimed the indulgence of the House towards the involuntary errors which his inexperience might occasion. Mr. WILSON moved that a Secretary be appointed, and nominated Mr. Temple Franklin. Colonel HAMILTON nominated Major Jackson. On the ballot Major Jackson had five votes, and Mr. Franklin two votes. On reading the credentials of the Deputies, it was noticed that those from Delaware were prohibited from changing the Article in the Confederation establishing an equality of votes among the States. The appointment of a Committee, on the motion of Mr. C. PINCKNEY, consisting of Messrs. WYTHE, HAMILTON, and C. PINCKNEY, to prepare standing rules and orders, was the only remaining step taken on this day."

1 The nomination came with particular grace from Pennsylvania, as Doctor Franklin alone could have been thought of as a competitor. The Doctor was himself to have made the nomination of General Washington, but the state of the weather and of his health confined him to his house. 

Who are these people?

Robert Morris: Wikipedia.

"Greenway arranged for Morris to become an apprentice at the shipping and banking firm of Philadelphia merchant Charles Willing. In 1750, Robert Morris, Sr. died from an infected wound, leaving much of his substantial estate to his son.[4] Morris impressed Willing and rose from a teenage trainee to become a key agent in Willing's firm. Morris traveled to Caribbean ports to expand the firm's business, and he gained a knowledge of trading and the various currencies used to exchange goods. He also befriended Thomas Willing, the oldest son of Charles Willing who was two years older than Morris and who, like Morris, had split his life between England and British North America. Charles Willing died in 1754, and in 1757 Thomas made Morris a full partner in the newly-renamed firm of Willing Morris & Company.[5]

Morris's shipping firm was just one of many such firms operating in Philadelphia, but Willing Morris & Company pursued several innovative strategies. The firm pooled with other shipping firms to insure vessels, aggressively expanded trade with India, and underwrote government projects through bonds and promissory notes.[6] Ships of the firm traded with India, the Levant, the West Indies, Spanish Cuba, Spain, and Italy. The firm's business of import, export, and general agency made it one of the most prosperous in Pennsylvania. In 1784, Morris, with other investors, underwrote the voyage of the ship Empress of China, the first American vessel to visit the Chinese mainland."

From the Heritage Foundation: Guarantee Clause

Added this link to the slides for 2306's section on State Constitutions and the Texas Constitution. It provides insight into the meaning of the part of the U.S. Constitution that guarantees to the states a republican government. Apparently there was debate over what exactly that meant. Here's info you might find useful.

- Click here for the post.

Participants in the Constitutional debate of 1787–1788 expressed varying views over exactly what constituted the "Republican Form" of government. However, there was a consensus as to three criteria of republicanism, the lack of any of which would render a government un-republican.

The first of these criteria was popular rule. The Founders believed that for government to be republican, political decisions had to be made by a majority (or in some cases, a plurality) of voting citizens. The citizenry might act either directly or through elected representatives. Either way, republican government was government accountable to the citizenry. To a generation immersed in Latin learning and looking to pre-imperial Rome for inspiration, a republic was very much res publica—the people's affair.

The second required element of republican government was that there be no monarch. The participants in the constitutional debates believed that monarchy, even constitutional monarchy, was inconsistent with republican government. In fact, when Alexander Hamilton proposed a President with lifetime tenure, the delegates so disagreed that they did not even take the time to respond.

The third criterion for a republic was the rule of law. Ex post facto laws, bills of attainder, extreme debtor-relief measures—most kinds of retroactive legislation, for example, were deemed inconsistent with the rule of law, and therefore un-republican.

Many participants in the post-Convention debates (such as James Iredell of North Carolina) suggested an additional criterion of republicanism: absence of a titled aristocracy. This criterion was not part of the consensus; other participants observed that some previous republics (e.g., pre-imperial Rome) and some contemporary republics (e.g., Holland) featured titled aristocracies. Indeed, the most influential contemporary foreign political writer, Baron de Montesquieu, had divided republics into aristocratic and democratic varieties. To assure, therefore, that the American states remained more purely democratic republics, the drafters of the Constitution inserted Article I, Section 10, which forbids states from conferring titles of nobility.

From TribTalk: Greg Abbott's right about one thing: We should amend the Constitution

The author says up from that he agrees with very little of what Governor Abbott has to say, but seems to think that his proposals for modifying the Constitution are worth while, and that a nation-wide discussion of if and how the document should be changed is a good thing.

- Click here for the article.  

The only way to make sense of Abbott’s remarks is to view them as acknowledgment that the Constitution we have, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, may not be the Constitution we want to structure our politics in the future. I couldn’t agree more with the governor — with whom I usually agree on very little — in this case. We are long overdue for a serious discussion about the adequacy of a very old Constitution drafted for a very different country and world. Where Abbott and I almost certainly disagree is on what the particular defects of the Constitution are.

My own favorite presidential campaign was that of 1912, when all four candidates — Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Eugene Debs, and William Howard Taft — offered serious suggestions about constitutional reform or, as in the case of Taft, defenses of the constitutional status quo. Perhaps as a result, the ensuing decade featured four genuinely important amendments, even though one of them (the 18th Amendment, which introduced Prohibition) was later judged to be a failure and repealed. But that decade exemplified the view, as explicated by Publius in the very first Federalist, that Americans were in fact capable of engaging in genuine “reflection and choice” about how we wished to be governed.

The ensuing century, alas, has seen a diminution of that faith. Most of us seem scared to death (sometimes for legitimate reasons) of the viewpoints and political preferences of those who disagree with us, and the idea of a new constitutional convention, as I have learned over the last decade while advocating one, is likely to provoke horror. But to fear such change is, ultimately, to believe that the promise of a truly democratic politics is impossible because “We the People” are no longer capable of engaging in sufficient “reflection and choice.”

I'd like to point out that the last sentence points to the precise reason why the state of Texas wants its students to take two classes in government. It allows - hopefully - for the knowledge necessary to engage in reflection and choice.

Read up on the author - Sanford Levison - here.

From the Congressional Research Service: The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Contemporary Issues for Congress

These guys look at everything. This may be the most authoritative place to get information about the various legal and constitutional issues associated with the proposed convention - which I now know is referred to as an "Article V Convention.

- Click here for the report.

Here's its summary:

Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides two ways of amending the nation’s fundamental charter. Congress, by a two-thirds vote of both houses, may propose amendments to the states for ratification, a procedure used for all 27 current amendments. Alternatively, if the legislatures of two-thirds of the states apply, 34 at present, Congress “shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments.... ” This alternative, known as an Article V Convention, has yet to be implemented. This report examines the Article V Convention, focusing on contemporary issues for Congress. CRS Report R42592, The Article V Convention for Proposing Constitutional Amendments: Historical Perspectives for Congress examines the procedure’s constitutional origins and history and provides an analysis of related state procedures.

Significant developments in this issue have occurred recently: in March 2014, the Georgia Legislature applied for a convention to consider a balanced federal budget amendment, revoking its rescission of an earlier application; in April 2014, Tennessee took similar action. While both applications are valid, they may revive questions as to the constitutionality of rescissions of state applications for an Article V Convention and whether convention applications are valid indefinitely. Either issue could have an impact on the prospects for a convention. In other recent actions, the legislatures of Ohio, in November 2013, and Michigan, in March 2014, applied to Congress for an Article V Convention to consider a balanced federal budget amendment; these are the first new state applications since 1982 and are also the 33rd and 34th applications for the balanced budget amendment convention. If all 32 previous related state applications are valid, it is arguable that the constitutional requirement for requests from two-thirds of the states has been met, and that Congress should consider calling a convention.

Internet- and social media-driven public policy campaigns have also embraced the Article V Convention as an alternative to perceived policy deadlock at the federal level. In 2011, the “Conference on a Constitutional Convention,” drew participants ranging from conservative libertarians to progressives together to discuss and promote a convention. In December 2013, a meeting of state legislators advocated a convention, while the “Convention of States” called for a convention to offer amendments to “impose fiscal restraints and limit the power of the federal government.” Also in 2013, the advocacy group Compact for America proposed the “Compact for a Balanced Budget,” an interstate compact that would provide a “turn-key” application, by which, with a single vote, states could join the compact; call for a convention; agree to its format, membership, and duration; adopt and propose a specific balanced budget amendment; and prospectively commit themselves to ratify the amendment.

Congress would face a range of questions if an Article V Convention seemed likely, including the following. What constitutes a legitimate state application? Does Congress have discretion as to whether it must call a convention? What vehicle does it use to call a convention? Could a convention consider any issue, or must it be limited to a specific issue? Could a “runaway” convention propose amendments outside its mandate? Could Congress choose not to propose a convention-approved amendment to the states? What role would Congress have in defining a convention, including issues such as rules of procedure and voting, number and apportionment of delegates, funding and duration, service by Members of Congress, and other questions. Under these circumstances, Congress could consult a range of information resources in fashioning its response. These include the record of the founders’ original intent, scholarly works cited in this report and elsewhere, historical examples and precedents, and relevant hearings, reports, and bills produced by Congress from the 1970s through the 1990s. 

From Slate: Give Me Amendments or Give Me Death: Inside the secretive campaign by state legislators to pass conservative amendments in 34 states and rewrite the Constitution.

It's been brewing for a while. I'll post separately on the constitution in exile movement, a controversial term that refers to the various efforts made to roll back the expansion of national government - and the objectives of that expansion - that began in the New Deal and continued during the Great Society. The election of Barack Obama promised to continue this expansion, so this gave an impetus to some to determine how to effectively roll it all back, and they came to the conclusion that a state convention - which is authorized in Article V - was the best way to do it.

Here's a look at an early meeting proposing the approach. I want to highlight the mention of the American Legislative Exchange Council and Mark Levin. The former is an increasingly influential interest group that represents primarily business groups and tries to limit national involvement in business affairs. The latter is an influential radio host who has promoted such a convention on his show and in books.

- Click here for the article.

The newest movement to save the republic began this past Saturday on the grounds of George Washington’s old estate. Shortly before 9 a.m., nearly 100 state legislators from 32 states filed into the library that sits above the museums of Mount Vernon. It was state legislators only; supporters (and reporters) learned that the hard way, as they called for details or were stopped at the security gates.

Inside, the legislators said a prayer, recited the Pledge of Allegiance, and got to work talking about how to form a convention of states that could amend the Constitution–without interference from Congress. They’d been brought to Mount Vernon by a team of five Republican legislators, who’d circulated the invitation back on Oct. 22. “Article V of the U.S. Constitution gives states equal standing with Congress to propose constitutional amendments,” they wrote. “In light of the federal government’s struggle to effectively execute the will of the people,” they’d create a bipartisan and “politically pure” environment to figure this out.

Article Five of the U.S. Constitution

Since calls for a national convention are increasing, its worth looking at Article Five of the U.S. Constitution. It'll give us context as well as an indication of whether Abbott's proposals are likely to pass.

Here is the article in its entirety:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

The article mentions "the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article" - it cannot be amended prior to 1808. Here are those two clauses:

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

For background:

- The Founders' Constitution: Article 5.
- Legal Information Institute: Article 5 Annotations.


The National Archives provides additional information on the Constitutional Amendment Process here. It points out that "None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention," so the governor and his compatriots are charting new ground. Never the less, at some point proposals have to be cleared by 3/4ths of the states, which is a very high hurdle to clear. If 13 states disagree with any of the proposals, they die.

Governor Abbott joins list of politicians calling for a convention to amend the United States Constitution

Looks like good material for the spring semester.

The Texas Tribune writes up his call here: Abbott Calls on States to Amend U.S. Constitution.
Here's a direct link to his full proposal: Restoring the Rule of Law with States Leading the Way.

He calls it the Texas Plan and its intended to reign in what he deems excessive activity by the national government, laws and regulations that interfere with the states. On page 4 of the document he proposes offering nine constitutional amendments.

I. Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.

II. Require Congress to balance its budget.

III. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.

IV. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law.

V. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

VI. Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.

VII. Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.

VIII. Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.

IX. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.

These will be worth considering independently over the course of the semester. I've also intended - at some point - to summarize the lawsuits Abbott filed against the national government when he was Attorney General. I have a hunch there is a strong relationship between the subject of those lawsuits and these proposed amendments.

Not everyone is on board - including some fellow Republicans. The Texas Tribune article concludes with some cautionary notes:

Critics of the convention approach say the constitutional rules governing a meeting of the states could allow for a "runaway convention," in which an unlimited number of amendments could be offered, potentially creating drastic changes to the U.S. Constitution. Tea Party groups opposed Perry's 2011 proposal on similar grounds.

Konni Burton, now a Republican state senator from Colleyville, told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that year that such a convention could allow "anyone to offer up any number of amendments... based on their own ideology and interests, which could ultimately radically change our Constitution." At the time, she was speaking on behalf of the NE Tarrant Tea Party.

Abbott insists those fears are unfounded. His policy paper argues the Constitution "leaves it to the states to limit the scope of the convention." And even if additional amendments were offered, he writes, "none of the delegates' efforts would become law without approval from three-fourths of the states."

It concludes with a quote from Senator Cruz that ties this effort into an originalistic view of the Constitution. I'm working on written assignments that will dig into the different ways that the Constitution is interpreted.

As Abbott was preparing to unveil his proposal on Friday, his protégé in the attorney general’s office, presidential contender Ted Cruz, was pledging to push for “quite a few” constitutional amendments of his own if elected. Speaking with reporters while campaigning in Iowa, the U.S. senator from Texas said a balanced budget amendment is among the add-ons the country most critically needs.

Cruz, the former solicitor general of Texas, went on to reiterate his calls for constitutional amendments that would impose term limits for members of Congress and justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. He has also proposed a constitutional amendment that would leave it to state legislatures to define marriage.

“There are many more amendments we need, in part because the federal government and the courts have gotten so far away from the original text and the original understanding of our Constitution,” Cruz told reporters after a stop in Webster City, Iowa.

From the Salt Lake Tribune: Lawmakers meet in Utah to draw blueprint for constitutional convention

This could be interesting. 

- Click here for the story.

For decades, but increasingly in recent years, state lawmakers have been pushing for a convention to add amendments to the U.S. Constitution, only to run into opposition from groups warning that such a meeting could devolve into the wholesale rewriting of the nation's charter.

This week, an estimated 100 bipartisan legislators from 30 states will be in Utah, attempting to put in rules and procedures they hope could act to keep such a constitutional convention on track, should legislatures from 34 states demand such a gathering.

"We're not focused on a specific amendment, so we're not advocating for a balanced budget or any other amendment that is being proposed out there in the world of the Internet, and there are many of them," said Utah Senate President Wayne Niederhauser, R-Sandy, a member of the Assembly of State Legislatures' executive committee. "What we're focused on is establishing the rules and procedures under which a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution could be held."

Article V of the U.S. Constitution requires Congress to convene a constitutional convention to consider amending the document if 34 states adopt resolutions requesting an amendment.

Twenty-seven states have passed resolutions seeking a convention to consider a balanced-budget amendment and Niederhauser said the 34-state threshold could be crossed within the next year, as other legislatures consider the amendment.

Proponents of the amendment are targeting 13 state legislatures in the upcoming year and would need seven to sign on to trigger a convention.

But an Article V convention has never been held in the nation's history, and the Constitution doesn't lay out any rules for how the convention should be conducted.
For example, how many delegates will attend? How will they be chosen? And will populous states send more or will each state get a set number?

Who will preside over the convention? What rules of procedure will be in place? And could the convention be limited to considering specific amendments, or would it be open to whatever amendments might be proposed?

Others have attempted to answer those questions, but there has been no definitive conclusion.

That is a concern to some — both liberal and conservative — who fear that once meeting, the convention delegates could go wild and do wholesale rewrites on the Constitution.

The Constitutional Convention: May 30th and 31st

On May 30th the convention resolved itself into a committee of the whole, which effectively turns the entire group into one big committee so they can discuss whatever is at hand. In this case the content of the Virginia Plan. It would meet this way for two weeks.

On May 30th it was decided that the national government woudl be divided into the three chambers and then discussed whether whether representation should be based on a state's population or financial contributions to the national government.

On May 31st a bicameral legislature was agreed to, and that the legislature would be elected by the people. The proposal that the "second branch" would be elected by the "first branch" was defeated. Each house would be able to initiate legislation and Congress was given power over areas where the states were incompetent, and would be able to negate state laws.

On this day in US Constitutional History: The Virginia Plan is introduced

On May 25th, the convention meet its quorum requirement and was then able to do business. Click here for James Madison's notes on the day's events. Robert Morris nominated George Washington to be president of the convention, this would be seconded by John Rutledge, and he would be selected unanimously. Morris was one of the small group of people involved in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He was wealthy and lived in Philadelphia so he offered his home to Washington. Rutledge would later be appointed to the Supreme Court by Washington. Morris would be Washington's first choice for Treasury Secretary - he had previously served as Superintendent of Finance of the United States under the Articles of Confederation. When he declined the offer, Washington selected Hamilton. Morris served as a Senator and supported the Federalist Party.

Three members were also appointed to prepare standing rules and orders for the convention.

On May 28th, the Committee on Rules issued its report and 16 rules were adopted.

On May 29th, 5 additional rules would be adopted including the requirement that the proceedings be secret. Edmund Randolph then introduces the Virginia Plan, which was written primarily by James Madison. Randolph would later serve as the first Attorney General of the US and the second Secretary of States. Madison took the notes of Randolph's comments, which included a list of the defects of the government established in the Articles of Confederation.

This day in history: The constitutional convention was scheduled to begin

But only eight delegates showed up, so no business could be conducted. Nothing would happen until May 25, when a quorum was met, offocers were elected and rules were prepared.

Gerry on the Excesses of Democracy

I'm working on my online notes for the Constitutional Convention and ran into this quote from Elbridge Gerry, which made me think about the anti-government attitudes that have been rampant for several decades and have become especially potent since the tea parties.

This comes fr0m Madison's notes:

Gerry: The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want virtue, but are the dupes of pretended patriots. In Massachusetts it had been fully confirmed by experience, that they are daily misled into the most baneful measures and opinions, by the false reports circulated by designing men, and which no one on the spot can refute. One principal evil arises from the want of due provision for those employed in the administration of government. It would seem to be a maxim of democracy to starve the public servants. He mentioned the popular clamor in Massachusetts for the reduction of salaries, and the attack made on that of the Governor, though secured by the spirit of the Constitution itself. He had, he said, been too republican heretofore: he was still, however, republican; but had been taught by experience the danger of the leveling spirit.

He makes it sound like anti-government attitudes, at least in his day, develop illegitimately because people are misled by pretended patriots. Is democracy incompatible with good government since people are duped into starving the beast?

Worth a healthy discussion I think.