Chapter 7 2. Troubles and problems

In order to clarify the problem, we have to talk about the situation in the United States again. We know that the American political system is quite different.Until now, she is not a country like ours where the whole country is united and the local governments obey the central government.Not at the time of the constitutional convention.The "United States of America" ​​at that time was not even "one" country, but a union of 13 "semi-countries", that is, the "Confederacy".She is united by contract by these independent "semi-states".Although this federation was later changed from a confederation to a federation, the concept of "union" has not changed, nor has the method of association (through a contract).It's just that the "contract" has changed from the Articles of Confederation to the Federal Constitution.Moreover, because she is a union, Americans never call it "the United States", but to build it, it is also called the "United States" or "Federation" (US), such as the federal government, the federal courts, and the FBI.

What's more, the United States of America at the time of the Constitutional Convention was not even a "Federation", but a Confederation, that is, a union (union) of 13 "confederations".Of course, there is no "national government" or "central government" in it. There is only a "Congress of the Confederacy" that evolved from a "Continental Congress" that has no legislative power at all. In fact, it is still just a Political Consultative Conference.This council does not have any authority. Generally, they sit together for meetings when they have something to do, and then go home after the meeting.The resolutions of the parliament are implemented by the states if they want to implement them, and they will not be implemented if they do not want to implement them.Madison gave an "infamous" example at the meeting of June 19 - the New Jersey legislature passed a piece of legislation categorically rejecting the resolution of the Confederate Congress to apportion money, and told their delegates to the Confederate Congress that even There is no need to vote against it, and all bills cannot be passed.Madison was talking about New Jersey, of course, because New Jersey took the lead in opposing the Virginia plan (we will talk about this later).Therefore, when Connecticut also sang a different tune, Madison gave another example of Connecticut in his speech on June 30.Like New Jersey, Connecticut not only flatly rejected the resolution of the Confederate Congress, but also submitted a voting list to the Confederate Congress, clearly challenging the Confederacy.Madison has his reasons for criticizing New Jersey and Connecticut.But anyway, what he said was true.

Of course not.The Confederacy is so unlike a country, the Congress so disreputable, and unseemly next to nothing, that no one is in charge is a nuisance.For example, the repayment of national debt is a problem.We know that wars cost money, and so did the Revolutionary War.During the Revolutionary War, the Confederate Congress issued bonds to finance the war.As a rule, this should be regarded as a "national debt", and once the war is over, it should be returned to everyone with interest.But according to Hamilton's report, at the end of the war, outstanding debts amounted to more than $76 million.The amount is huge, but the trouble is that there is no one responsible for repaying the loan.Because according to the Articles of Confederation, the so-called "central government of the United States" has only one unicameral legislature.There is no executive body and no judiciary.This is not a central government at all.It has neither the right to restrict business activities nor the right to directly levy taxes across the country.Asking this "government" to pay the principal and interest of the bondholders is really "no money, no life", because none of the members of the Confederation Congress represent the center and the country.

This trouble is not small, because those "creditors" are not fuel-efficient lamps, and some of them are even senior military officers during the War of Independence.In the eyes of these people, it is unfair for them to shed blood and die for the country, but fail to receive military subsidies in full and on time.If the country does not even repay the debts it owes, it is really "intolerable".Regarding this point, in fact, their commander-in-chief Washington has opinions.Before the Constitutional Convention, Washington had written to friends complaining that he had had to sell the bonds Congress had given him at a 50 percent discount to pay off his debts.Even so, Washington still has more than $7,566 in Confederate debt.

The fact that Washington can sacrifice itself to take care of the overall situation does not mean that everyone else is willing to do such a loss-making business.Those "creditors" who were unwilling to fight chickens and eggs, and watched the huge amount of bonds in their hands disappear, soon formed a community of interests that Madison called a "creditor group".This interest group is clearly aware that the key to their inability to guarantee their private property is the absence of a strong central government.To establish a strong central government, the "Articles of Confederation" must be abolished and a separate constitution must be established.Those veterans among them even launched an organization called "Cincinnati Society", threatening that if the system is not reformed as soon as possible, a revolution by force will be launched, and all states will be formed into a new state headed by General Washington, with kingship and all privileges. State, a kingdom of creditors.

In fact, not only creditors have such requirements, but also debtors.Because in order to repay the public debt, some states have to pass the burden on to their own citizens (such as using their land to mortgage the debt), thus making more citizens debtors.The "Shays Rebellion" in Massachusetts, and the riots in New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and the northern states, were the revolts of "desperate debtors." It can be seen that just a national debt problem will force a supreme government in the country, not to mention that there are so many unsatisfactory aspects of the current state of the Confederacy.After the Shays Uprising, Massachusetts appealed to the Confederacy for help, but Congress was slow to respond.Of course there is no way.The Confederate Congress was so impotent and without prestige that its president in 1785, John Hancock, did not bother to go to New York to preside over its work, while its president in 1786, David Ramsay, had to pay some of the Confederates himself. The leaders of the United States wrote a letter, imploring them to send representatives to attend the meeting as soon as possible.Because when the meeting was held, only representatives from 7 of the 13 states came.David Ramsay has warned that if states continue to hold Parliament in contempt "our Confederation" will be strangled and that "anarchy and endless civil war" will ensue until there is One day a future Julius Caesar will rob us of our liberties, or we ourselves will be reduced to the playthings of European politics.

Can the "maintenance meeting" of the Confederation Congress continue? Therefore, it is obviously not without reason that the constitutional assembly passed a resolution to establish the "supreme government in the country" within two days of its opening.The problem is, in this way, the movement will be big. We know that establishing a "supreme national government" means establishing a supreme power center.According to the resolution of this meeting on May 30, this power center should be "separation of powers".Therefore, there must be a supreme legislative body, a supreme executive body, and a supreme judicial body.This contradicts the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation prohibit the establishment of courts and there is no executive officer.why?For the Confederacy is nothing but a contractual union of independent states "in good will."Between each other, it is about honesty and voluntariness.If there is a dispute, it can only be arbitrated, not judged.This is why the Confederacy has no courts.Similarly, among the allies, the states are equal, at most there is a "leader", and there cannot be a monarch.This is the reason why the Confederacy does not have a chief executive.Although the Confederation Assembly had a chairman, it was not the head of state who maintained order at that time.Because the United States of America is a confederation of 13 states, not a unified country, so where does the head of state come from?Obviously, to solve the two problems of "supreme executive body" and "supreme judicial body", the political system must be fundamentally changed, and the confederal system can no longer be maintained.This is not something that can be done by tinkering with the Articles of Confederation.

The same goes for creating a supreme legislative body. On the surface, the highest legislative body is not a big problem, just expand the power of the Federal Assembly or enhance its status.But in practice, there are many problems.For example, it is a question whether the highest legislative body should be unicameral or bicameral.Of course, 12 of the 13 states are bicameral, and only Pennsylvania is unicameral.Although there is a majority in the bicameral system, the Confederate Congress is a single house.Therefore, if the unicameral system is continued, the "national" and "local" will not be unified; if the bicameral system is adopted, surgery will be performed on the Confederation Congress.This is a problem.

To make things even more troublesome, the resolutions of the Confederation Assembly were not actually binding on the states.This is far from the requirements of the "supreme legislative body".Why is it not binding?Because the Congress of the Confederation was established by the Articles of Confederation, and the Articles of Confederation were formulated by the "Continental Congress" which had no legislative power.It is not ratified and mandated like many state constitutions, so it does not supersede the state constitutions. The "Articles of Confederation" is not higher than the constitutions of the states, and the Confederation Assembly established according to the "Articles of Confederation" cannot be higher than the state assemblies.It was evident that, for the new Parliament to be the supreme legislative body, a new Act, superseding the constitutions of the states, was necessary.Since this regulation is "higher" than the constitutions of the states, it can no longer be a "statute", but can only be a "constitution" - "Constitution of the United States of America"

In the century, as long as it is to "establish the highest government in the country", whether it is the establishment of the highest legislative body, or the establishment of the highest executive body and the highest judicial body, a constitution is needed, so as not to be able to represent the supreme law authorized by the people.We know that there are various ways to gain supreme power, such as palace coups and armed struggles.The former can be described as a clever trick, and the latter can be described as a plunder.But none of the delegates at the Philadelphia conference seemed to have that in mind.The problem they want to solve is not to seize power, but to empower.Even if you want to seize power, you will only seize the power of the states and delegate it to the highest government in the country.This cannot be done by war or coup, only by legislation, although some people (such as historians John Burgess and Bruce Ackerman) later sarcastically said that if the actions of the representatives of the Philadelphia Congress were at the hands of Julius or Napoleon , they will definitely announce a coup d'etat; and the so-called "constitution-making" is just that we are not allowed to regard it as a counter-revolutionary armed coup (please refer to Lu Zhoulai's "Myth and Truth about the American Constitution").But in any case, the replacement of the old Confederate Assembly by a new national government required a new legislation.

Therefore, when this meeting has taken the step of "should establish the supreme government of the country", he cannot stop taking the second step - turning himself from a meeting for amending regulations into a constitutional meeting. The question is, does it have the right to do so?