[gutzmank]

Article VII says that ratification will be by the states, not by one American people acting in 13 separate locations.

When the First Congress convened, there were no representatives from North Carolina or Rhode Island because North Carolina and Rhode Island had not yet ratified the Constitution. Had they never ratified, they would never have been represented in Congress.

In the Virginia Ratification Convention, Federalist speakers were at great pains to say that Virginia was one of thirteen parties to a compact. For full details of these assurances, and of the significance that Federalists attributed to them, see JAMES MADISON AND THE MAKING OF AMERICA and/or VIRGINIA’S AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

In sum, John Marshall’s position in McCulloch v. Maryland is completely at odds with the original understanding.

[gutzmank]

You’re entirely welcome.

[gutzmank]

This is a political matter in the first instance, and a constitutional one in the second. Repeal of the laws would require a congressional majority and presidential consent or a congressional supermajority over presidential veto; the laws could be struck down by the federal courts on the ground of unconstitutionality. Both ought to happen, but both are very, very unlikely.

[gutzmank]

You’re right: you’ll need the consent of New Jersey and of Congress. Good luck.

[gutzmank]

Marshall DeRosa’s book on the Confederate Constitution notes that in the C.S.A., state legislatures could impeach Confederate officials (e.g., judges) within their territories. This would be a powerful check on federal overreaching.

[gutzmank]

It was remedied several weeks back. I’m sorry I didn’t post this news here when the problem was rectified, and I hope you enjoy the lectures.

[gutzmank]

Tom understood me precisely.

[gutzmank]

Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality? is a fabulous book, not outdated at all. In fact, I’ve assigned it to my introductory students this semester, as on several previous occasions.

Besides that one, Sowell’s Preferential Policies: An International Perspective also obliterates the argument — I should say “assertion” — that discrimination accounts for differences in group achievement. That one is a bit dated, but still characterized by the author’s trademark cogency.

[gutzmank]

Born to the Purple, I hope you’ve been able to use all of Lecture 26 by now.

[gutzmank]

It is erroneous to assert that judicial review was not named by Federalists of the ratification campaign as one of the features of the Constitution. Indeed, given that Article VI calls the Constitution “the supreme law of the land,” it’s hard to see what one might hope a judge would do in case a statute conflicted with the Constitution other than strike down the statute–that is, exercise judicial review.

The locus classicus of ratification-era Federalist argument in this regard is of course Federalist #78. What’s interesting is that Antifederalists disagreed about the desirability of judicial review, with Brutus decrying it as unrepublican in New York and Patrick Henry saying he wished federal judges would exercise it, but doubted they would, in Virginia.

[gutzmank]

I’m not sure what exactly you want. Are you asking for readings produced during the ratification campaign in which Federalists said the Federal Government would have limited powers? If so, start with The Federalist, then look at Friends of the Constitution, and take a look at the ratification chapters of my Madison biography and my Virginia’s American Revolution. See Dr. McClanahan’s The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution. In general, this was the chief point that the Federalists made, in every state.

[gutzmank]

The president’s pardon power has always been understood to be plenary. Thomas Jefferson pardoned all of the Sedition Act convicts, Andrew Johnson pardoned many, many people in the wake of the Civil War, and Jimmy Carter pardoned all of the Vietnam draft evaders in the 1970s, all without eliciting the objection that this exceeded their pardon power’s limits.

[gutzmank]

The right to decentralized government — to decide most political questions through local legislative elections — is part of the Bill of Rights. Refer people to the 10th Amendment. This was, after all, the cause of the Revolution.

[gutzmank]

By “certain colonies,” you mean “all of the colonies except Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware.”

[gutzmank]

James Wilson said so in his speech at the Philadelphia Statehouse a couple of weeks after the Philadelphia Convention. James Madison, George Nicholas, and Governor Edmund Randolph repeatedly said so in Virginia, as I detail in JAMES MADISON AND THE MAKING OF AMERICA and VIRGINIA’S AMERICAN REVOLUTION. Hamilton said so in THE FEDERALIST. Cushing said so in an unpublished editorial in Massachusetts. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney said so in a public address in South Carolina. James Iredell said so in North Carolina. I could go on, but the point is that Dr. McClanahan is right, and the evidence is overwhelming. In fact, I’d argue that this was the Federalists’ chief claim.

[Author]

Posts