'The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution' is a five-volume collection of the U.S. Constitutional debates held at Philadelphia in 1787, compiled and arranged by Jonathan Elliot in 1836.
From the 'Library of Congress' —
The volumes remain the best source for materials about the national government's transitional period between the closing of the Constitutional Convention in September 1787 and the opening of the First Federal Congress in March 1789. On September 17, 1787, the Continental Congress accepted the recommendation of the Constitutional Convention and agreed to distribute the proposed constitution to the states; each state was then to elect delegates to a state convention to approve or disapprove the new constitution. The Constitution would take effect upon ratification by the conventions of nine of the thirteen states.Here is a quote from James Madison, beginning on page 536 of volume 3 of 'The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution', where Madison states that no form of government can render us secure if the people do not 'have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom' to serve in government —
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1907#Elliot_1314-03_1143
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/madison-the-debates-on-the-adoption-of-the-federal-constitution-vol-5
...
I have observed that gentlemen suppose that the general legislature will do every thing mischievous they possibly can, and that they will omit to do every thing good which they are authorized to do. If this were a reasonable supposition, their objections would be good. I consider it reasonable to conclude that they will as readily do their duty as deviate from it; nor do I go on the grounds mentioned by gentlemen on the other side — that we are to place unlimited confidence in them, and expect nothing but the most exalted integrity and sublime virtue. But I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom. Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched [537] situation. No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men; so that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.
...
If it wasn't clear when Madison made this claim, it should be clear by now that the overwhelming majority of people do not 'have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom'. We are much closer to a 'wretched situation' from a lack of virtue than Madison thought.
If the 2016 U.S. Presidential debates do not convince you of that, consider the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and its relationship to the prior amendments in the 'Bill of Rights' —
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview
https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/13thamendment.html
https://memory.loc.gov/mss/mal/mal3/436/4361100/001.jpg
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mal&fileName=mal3/436/4361100/malpage.db&recNum=0
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Also notice that the 13th Amendment initially failed to receive the required two-thirds majority vote. Here is a portion of Abraham Lincoln's Fourth Annual Message to Congress, from the Congressional Globe, from December 6, 1864 —
https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/13thamendment.html
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=069/llcg069.db&recNum=696
"At the last session of Congress a proposed amendment of the Constitution, abolishing slavery throughout the United States, passed the Senate, but failed for lack of the requisite two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives. Although the present is the same Congress, and nearly the same members, and without questioning the wisdom or patriotism of those who stood in opposition, I venture to recommend the reconsideration and passage of the measure at the present session."
Now consider the 4th and 5th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution —
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The 13th Amendment makes absolutely no sense in comparison to the 4th and 5th Amendments, and helps to undercut the notion that the U.S. Constitution grants a limited set of powers to government, such that the Constitution should not contain an exhaustive list of protected rights — this is the point of the 10th Amendment.
A common fear when the 10th Amendment was written was probably not nearly common enough — despite the 10th Amendment, the overwhelming majority of Americans view the Constitution as a list of restrictions, rather than a list of granted powers, such that government can do anything (even defend slavery), if the U.S. Constitution does not specifically prohibit it by name.
That is, the 13th Amendment is redundant, in that it simply emphasizes what the U.S. Constitution already said about depriving a citizen of life, liberty, or property. The institution of slavery was absurd on its face, and no Constitutional amendment would have been required, had the overwhelming majority of Americans took Constitutional protections seriously.
Notice the high bar placed on the U.S. Government by the 4th and 5th Amendments, for restricting when government can interfere with the lives of private citizens. Never mind the 5th Amendment's requirement that 'due process of law' is a prerequisite for citizens being 'deprived of life, liberty, or property', the 4th Amendment requires government to issue a warrant simply to search a private citizen.
Given these restrictions, one has to do incredibly contorted mental gymnastics to come to the conclusion that, in the absence of the 13th Amendment, it is Constitutional for one private citizen to own another.
The 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution may as well read —
'Uh, you know that stuff about being secure in your person, and not being deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law? Well, we really mean it this time.'Given how little respect most Americans gave for Constitutional protections in the past, it is not clear why anyone would think an overwhelming majority of Americans would respect those protections now.
Obviously, many do not.
Here are massively uninformed Hillary supporters who do not understand that the question being asked was invented to highlight voter ignorance. And ironically, the typical Democrat views Trump as the danger —
I predict that some will accuse me of defending slavery, because I argue here that the U.S. Constitution did not permit slavery, with or without the 13th Amendment. If you are familiar with social media (or now, really news in general), and so-called 'social justice warriors' (SJWs), you are familiar with that kind of dishonesty (insane spin to fit a particular agenda).
No comments:
Post a Comment