Richard Henry Law Quotes
As we have been a long time poring upon the defective parts of the Constitution, I think it would not be amiss to pay some attention to its excellences.
Richard Henry Law, 1773-1806, Delegate to the Continental Congress (CT), Chief Justice, Connecticut Superior Court, Connecticut Constitutional Ratification Debate, January 1788
Sourced by: Eigen's Political and Historical Quotations
The political battles over the ratification of the Constitution were vicious and brutal even by modern standards.
The 10th Amendment was created to take care of this objection which Jefferson and many others had.
Patrick Henry, a political opponent of Madison's, spread rumors in Madison's Virginia home district that Madison was perfectly satisfied with the Constitution as it was drafted. Madison felt the need to set the record straight, and this letter was widely circulated by his friends.
When the Constitution was presented for ratification there were many who demanded changes before ratification to insure the rights of individuals and States. Others, agreeing that amendments were necessary, argued for passage after ratification. As soon as the Constitution was ratified, the first 10 Amendments—The Bill of Rights—were also passed.
This proposed Constitutional Amendment was debated just before Abraham Lincoln would take office. The South wanted to tie his hands on the Slavery issue, and wanted to end what had become a constant polarized Congressional debate over slavery. Of course, their idea of ending the debate was to Constitutionally prohibit further attempts to outlaw or otherwise interfere with slavery in the Southern states. A number of Northern members of Congress voted for it realizing that there was little or no chance of obtaining the ratifications of ¾ of the states and they wanted to buy some time for the Southerners to calm down over their fear of Lincoln and his upstart Republican party. The Amendment never obtained the needed votes though a few states did ratify it. Secession and the Civil War mad the amendment moot. The Southern position was so rigid, that they would compromise in no way on the slavery issue, and ended up of course losing more than they ever thought was possible by succeeding. Another reason this proposed amendment is historically important, is that it is yet another strong piece of evidence that the issue of the Civil War was slavery and not differences in political and economic philosophies as many Southerners have claimed since then. If States Rights in general were the great concern, would have been no reason to single out slavery if it were not the major issue. Yet the last phrase, “including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State” does just. Similar evidence is given by the Secession Resolutions of the Southern States and the debates around them. It is clear that slavery was the issue that the South fought over.
The Chinese had a custom of binding the feet of female young children so that they would never grow large. Small feet were considered beautiful. However, the woman was almost crippled by the process and could barely walk.
Note the language used for abolitionists in the years leading up to the Civil War. American voters at that time had always lived with the institution of slavery in America and many thought of it as an institutional pillar of the American nation. Those who wanted to bring down an American institution were “fanatics”. Generally this world is used to describe true fanatics and reformers who want to change anything that has been in existence a long while. To paraphrase Edwin Newman, What words shall we use to describe the zealot who wants to destroy the country when every person who wants to improve and change a facet of our system is called a “fanatic.”
She was referring to the slander that was commonly used by her fellow Republican, Senator Joseph P. McCarthy in his demagoguery. She was the first member of the Senate to Condemn McCarthy for his abuse and lies. Led by her example, the other senators got over their fear of McCarthy attacking them and the Senate Censured the Demagogue.
This is a classic type of fallacious political logic. The author claims that there are no powers in the constitution to make laws in a number of important areas of our society. What is true, is that there is no explicitly and uniquely specified statements in the Constitution regarding the areas he specified (and some he didn’t like education). However the power to make laws in these areas comes from the “Commerce Clause” where the Federal Government was given the power to regulate Interstate Commerce. And that is what the Federal Government does make laws about. Food that is sold in the state where it is grown is regulated by the states. But interstate agriculture is. Medicines and weapons are also sold and transported in interstate commerce. Even housing is in part covered as financing and mortgages, building materials, working conditions of the building companies are part of Interstate Commerce. A succession of Congresses have recognized this and so has every Supreme Court in our history. McManus however believes that all these legislators and judges have been wrong and worse, part of a conspiracy to subvert the Constitution. See {630683} for his tendency to see conspiracies in politics.
The committee was discussing gun control legislation. Cruz, in national office for only a few weeks, opposed any form of Gun Control, and proceeded to lecture Senator Feinstein on the meaning of the 2nd and other Amendments to the Constitutions. Cruz had never even had a legislative proposal voted upon and his explanation was sophomoric—especially to Senator Feinstein who was the Chair of the Judiciary Committee with great experience and expertise in Constitutional issues and had passed many pieces of major legislation and countless others that she sponsored. Her rejoinder was a classic put down. See {631720} for a columnist’s characterization of Cruz.
The Grammar Curmudgeon. This is one side of a fundamental argument within America as to the Constitution. The other side argues that the original intent of the Founding Fathers should prevail. That their principles are what has made America great, and we do not want to deviate from those. In determining Constitutionality, it is the original intent that should prevail even if the issues are ones of which the founding fathers had no inkling such as the ability of a nuclear power to destroy much of the nation before Congress could be called into session or that police could use geo-positioning devices to track the movement of citizens. Or that women could prove themselves the equal of (or superior to) in intellectual pursuits and would want to participate in politics and policy making.
