Liveblogging Madison and Jefferson: The Confederation Congress and the Constitution

By -
As I've noted before, I've found the argument that the U.S. Constitution was illegal as it did not conform to the Articles of Confederation a little curious when put forward by fans of the Articles. After all, the Articles themselves were pretty darned illegal per the previous constitution under which the colonies existed.

But what did the Confederation Congress make of this "illegal" constitution making activity? Let's see:

"A heated debate took place in Congress before it was agreed that no amendments would be added to the text of the Constitution. Congress would remain neutral [as to the value of the 1787 constitution as presented to it]... and send the Constitution on to the states without directly endorsing it... the congressional resolution... expressed unanimous agreement to that procedure." -- Madison and Jefferson, p. 165

So, the Confederation Congress, the governing body of the Confederation under the Articles, was absolutely fine letting the states themselves consider whether or not they wanted to adopt a new constitution: they were unanimous in agreeing to pass the document on to the states for consideration, as it had emerged from the convention, which, of course, pretty much committed them to abiding by the decision of the states.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more