Chapter 10 1. To amend the constitution or make a constitution

On June 9, Paterson spoke for the first time. As expected of a lawyer, Paterson has a clear mind and is experienced in doing things.His speech did not dwell on trivial details, but directly hit Madison's vital point-is it legal to make a constitution without authorization?Paterson pointed out that the convening of this meeting was based on a resolution of the Confederation Assembly and the authorization of the state assemblies, and the attitude of the resolution of the Confederation Assembly and the authorization of each state is very clear, which is to repair and improve the Confederation.The Articles of Confederation are therefore the proper basis for the entire agenda of this meeting.We should stick to these limits, or our constituents will accuse us of usurping power.In the end, Paterson pointed out righteously: the American people are waiting to see, and no one can be deceived!

No one responded directly to Paterson's accusation.They only answered other questions he asked.Obviously, the Madisons were unwilling to challenge Paterson on this issue, but would rather fight back and contend with actual constitutional actions.Under the control and promotion of those mainstream factions, the meeting even put forward a "whole committee report" on June 13.This report consists of 19 articles, covering various aspects of legislation, administration and justice, and many key points of the future constitution have been established.Most importantly, this report proposes that the distribution of seats in the House and Senate of the National Assembly will no longer follow the principle established in the Articles of Confederation (that is, one vote per state).A new constitution that basically meets the wishes of Madison and Randolph is about to be released.

Paterson had to shoot again. On June 14, just after the meeting began, Paterson suggested that several delegations, especially the New Jersey delegation, would like to be given more time to consider the report of the Committee of the Whole in order to compile a Report "exactly matched" scenarios.Randolph then proposed that the meeting be adjourned, a proposal which was reconsidered by Paterson.Paterson also filed a motion to defer discussion of the full committee report until tomorrow.The motion was also seconded by Randolph.It seems that both sides of the war want a temporary truce in order to prepare their troops for a decisive battle.

On June 15, a new plan (historically known as the "New Jersey Plan"), negotiated by delegations from Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Delaware (with the possible participation of Luther Martin of Maryland), was submitted by Paterson constitutional convention.The General Assembly decided to submit the "Petersen Plan" (New Jersey Plan) to the full committee.At the same time, for the sake of fairness, another plan, the "Randolph Plan" (Virginia Plan), was also resubmitted to the Committee of the Whole.This decision was no small victory for Paterson and the others.Because this is tantamount to abolishing the "Report of the Committee of the Whole" that Madison and the others worked so hard to produce.The meeting was back to square one, and turned into a head-to-head confrontation between the two proposals.

So, on June 16, another swordsman, Lan Xin, made his move. Lan Xin was the representative of the New York delegation, and New York was the most opposed state to this meeting outside of Rhode Island.If New Jersey is the "leader" of the "third world" (small state), then New York can be said to be the careerist of the "second world" (medium state) (sixth in population and fourth in land area).At the moment, she is ambitious to become the "Spring and Autumn Five Hegemons", so she is not interested in establishing a strong "National Supreme Government". On February 21, 1787, the Confederate Congress made a resolution to convene the Philadelphia Conference, and New York reluctantly agreed to send representatives as late as May.When discussing whether to establish a national supreme government, the New York delegation was in favor of a half-and-half vote against it (Hamilton was in favor, Robert Yates was against), which amounted to an abstention.That was because Lan Xin didn't come. If Lan Xin attended the meeting, the New York delegation would vote against it.

The 33-year-old Lan Xin is the mayor of Albany, the capital of New York State, and one of the "Four Diamonds" who insisted on opposing the constitution (the other three are Yates in New York, Luther Martin and Francis Murray in Maryland). plug).But unlike Yaats, he does not speak, only votes against.He is unforgiving.He was the first to speak in full support of Paterson when the Virginia and New Jersey proposals were discussed in the committee of the whole.Lan Xin's reason is simple: this meeting has no right to propose and discuss a plan like Randolph's, and there is no possibility that this plan will be adopted.Because the resolutions of the Confederation Congress, the mandates of the states, and the general intention of the state assemblies when they sent representatives were all to amend the Articles of Confederation, not to formulate the Federal Constitution.Crossing this limit is ultra vires.This is neither necessary nor appropriate.If New York had known in advance that things would turn out like this, it would never have cooperated like this, filming what kind of delegation came to the meeting!

Of course, Paterson and Lan Xin had other things to say in their speeches, but with just one punch, the Madisons were already killed.In fact, Madison's most guilty conscience is that the constitution is illegal.So Pennsylvania representative Wilson had to come out to smooth things over.His statement: The meeting was indeed not mandated to make any conclusions, but was free to make any recommendations.This is a clever defense, but also a weak one.So Lan Xin pushed him back easily.In her speech on June 20, Lan Xin said: Mr. Wilson said that the Constitutional Convention is just a recommendation, and you can recommend whatever you like. I don’t think so. This meeting is so respected. huge impact.If unsuccessful, a crash will result.This means that the Constitutional Convention is not an academic seminar, so how can you say whatever you like? ?

In the same statement, Lanxin also refuted Randolph's claims.Randolph said worries about the crisis that year outweighed doubts about whether the convention had enough mandate.Lan Xin disagreed with this.He thinks this worry is at least as important as this doubt.This is of course irrefutable.Because everyone knows that using "illegal" means to "save the nation" is tantamount to drinking poison to quench thirst and pouring fuel to put out the fire.It seems that both Wilson's "recommendation without authorization" and Randolph's "salvation overrides authorization" are not convincing.

What is really convincing is the defense of Hamilton, Madison and Mason.Although Hamilton is also a representative of New York, he is completely opposite to Lan Xin and Yates.The theoretical basis for his defense of the Constitutional Convention can be described as "the theory of ends over means." On June 18, Hamilton said in a speech that the states have sent us here in the hope that we can bring the United States out of trouble.If we cling to a plan that cannot save the crisis, or reject a plan that can save the crisis, just because we are unclear about our authority, then we are sacrificing the end for the means.In other words, although the authorization of each state is important, the purpose of authorization is more important (that is, the spirit of legislation is more important than the text of the law).This of course makes perfect sense.

Madison's speech was more forceful and to the point.In his speech on June 19, Madison said that some people (referring to Paterson) proposed that the Confederacy was established by unanimous consent and could only be dissolved by unanimous consent. He did not know the legal basis for this statement.So he wanted to ask this gentleman, do you think of the Articles of Confederation as a contract, or as a treaty?If it is regarded as a contract (that is, a universal convention for all citizens in the country), then, according to the principle of domestic law that the minority is subordinate to the majority, the majority can completely abolish the old contract, sign a new contract, and even formulate a new constitution for all members of society.In that case, the gentleman from New Jersey would, unfortunately, be among the last to be admitted.If it is regarded as a treaty (that is, an alliance between countries), then, according to the international law principle of free association, if any party violates any of the terms, the alliance can be regarded as dissolved, and the other parties have also obtained freedom, unless they Choose to use extraordinary means to force the breaching party to make corrections.Unfortunately, there is no provision in the Articles of Confederation that can use force to bring violating states into compliance, and examples of violations of the Articles of Confederation are numerous and egregious.One of the most notorious examples of this is a piece of legislation in New Jersey.According to this legislation, the role of New Jersey's representative in the Congress of the Confederacy seems to be exclusively antithetical (see Chapter II, Section 2 of this book).Madison's meaning is also very clear, don't you keep saying that you want to maintain the Confederacy?Didn't you say that the Articles of Confederation are sacred and inviolable, that they cannot be moved?However, it is you who took the lead in violating and breaking the regulations!

Of course Paterson was speechless.Only Lan Xin repeated the old saying on June 20 that the conference has no right to make a constitution.So Mason (Virginia) said unceremoniously, I never thought that even today, there are still people who use this point of view to mess around!To be honest, whether this conference has the power to formulate and approve the constitution is not up to the people, but to the people.In fact, when the country is in crisis, the only way out is to break through the mandate.Back then, when we negotiated with Great Britain, it was precisely because the negotiators boldly broke through the short-sighted shackles of the Confederation Congress that they won a decent and happy peace for the country and made themselves a monument that will last longer than a bronze statue.The implication is clear: constitution-making, like independence, is a revolution.Revolution is not about treating guests to dinner, you can't be so mother-in-law.What authorization does not authorize, in revolutionary times and critical moments, authorization can also be broken through! Would Paterson and Lan Xin agree with this statement?I'm afraid not. In fact, this is an inconclusive debate.Neither the Conference nor the Commission voted on the question of the nature of the session.It is practice of meeting to conclude.As the meeting moved toward its goals, a new regulation gradually surfaced.When it finally took shape, everyone understood that it was a Constitution. As for empowerment, the Madisons employed a brilliant (and arguably cunning) tactic -- "in the name of the people." The preamble to the Constitution of the Confederation reads: We, the people of the United States, do hereby enact this Constitution for the United States of America, to establish a more perfect union, to establish justice, to secure domestic tranquility, to provide for the common defense, to promote the common good, and to enable ourselves and our posterity to enjoy liberty and happiness. The preamble to the Articles of Confederation reads: Acts of Permanent Union of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia This is clear: the Articles of Confederation are the mandates of the states, and the Federal Constitution is the mandate of the people.In other words, among the 13 states that enacted the Articles of Confederation, it was the "people of the United States" that enacted the Federal Constitution.This fundamentally subverts the foundations of the Confederacy and the Articles of Confederation, using the people (people), a political group that is both real and abstract, as the founders of the new country and the authorizers of the new government, and in their name the national transformation of nature.