Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention and what a new Constitutional Convention Could mean

....................................................................................
John Jay was a statesman, diplomat, first Chief Justice of the U.S. President of Continental Congress, minister to Spain, secretary of foreign affairs, and author of the Federalist Papers (with Madison and Hamilton)
Quote: New York 25 July 1787 Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Some possibilities a new Constitutional convention could produce.

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787

1787 Constitutional Convention:

(At the same time, the term of the President was debated; the delegates toyed with many ideas, including a seven year, non-reelectable term, a three-year reelectable term, and a term which was essentially life, or on good behavior. But there was little consensus here either.)
......................................................................................

So the distinct possibility of writng a new Constitution with a term for a President for life is possible. This would mean a dictatorship and totally legal under the new Constitution. Remember if a new Constitutional Convention is called it will can make up its own rules including not giving the states a chance to ratify the new "Constitution". Think about this possibility!

Also the US Senate could be changed or abolished!
Also the US House could be changed or abolished.

The Supreme Court could be changed or abolished!

In the Convention, each state--regardless of its number of delegates-- had one vote, so a state evenly split could not register a vote for adoption. Each state could send as many delegates as they wished but only the majority of that states delegate vote counted.

Keep in mind this was the rule in 1787. A new Constitutional Convention could make up any rule about ratifying the new document or as was said no ratification by the states as necessary for the adoption of the new document.

slaves would count as three-fifths persons.

The new Convention could make us all just count as three-fifths persons again. This would mean we would not be considered a human to vote. This is also a possibility!

Today, the Bill of Rights is one of the most recognizable parts of the U.S. Constitution; but the Framers, for the most part, felt one was not necessary.

A new Convention could modify or delete the bill of rights. This is a real possibility because as I said anything is possible with a new Constitutional Convention. habeas corpus, unlawful restraint could be modified of not included in a new Constitution.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The Constitutional Convention of 1787

By 1786, Americans recognized that the Articles of Confederation, the foundation document for the new United States adopted in 1777, had to be substantially modified. The Articles gave Congress virtually no power to regulate domestic affairs--no power to tax, no power to regulate commerce. Without coercive power, Congress had to depend on financial contributions from the states, and they often time turned down requests. Congress had neither the money to pay soldiers for their service in the Revolutionary War or to repay foreign loans granted to support the war effort. In 1786, the United States was bankrupt. Moreover, the young nation faced many other challenges and threats. States engaged in an endless war of economic discrimination against commerce from other states. Southern states battled northern states for economic advantage. The country was ill-equipped to fight a war--and other nations wondered whether treaties with the United States were worth the paper they were written on. On top of all else, Americans suffered from injured pride, as European nations dismissed the United States as "a third-rate republic."

America's creditor class had other worries. In Rhode Island (called by elites "Rogue Island"), a state legislature dominated by the debtor class passed legislation essentially forgiving all debts as it considered a measure that would redistribute property every thirteen years. The final straw for many came in western Massachusetts where angry farmers, led by Daniel Shays, took up arms and engaged in active rebellion in an effort to gain debt relief.

Troubles with the existing Confederation of States finally convinced the Continental Congress, in February 1787, to call for a convention of delegates to meet in May in Philadelphia "to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union."

Across the country, the cry "Liberty!" filled the air. But what liberty? Few people claim to be anti-liberty, but the word "liberty" has many meanings. Should the delegates be most concerned with protected liberty of conscience, liberty of contract (meaning, for many at the time, the right of creditors to collect debts owed under their contracts), or the liberty to hold property (debtors complained that this liberty was being taken by banks and other creditors)? Moreover, the cry for liberty could mean two very different things with respect to the slave issue--for some, the liberty to own slaves needed protection, while for others (those more able to see through black eyes), liberty meant ending the slavery.

On May 25, 1787, a week later than scheduled, delegates from the various states met in the Pennsylvania State House in Philadelphia. Among the first orders of business was electing George Washington president of the Convention and establishing the rules--including complete secrecy concerning its deliberations--that would guide the proceedings. (Several delegates, most notably James Madison, took extensive notes, but these were not published until decades later.)

The main business of the Convention began four days later when Governor Edmund Randolph of Virginia presented and defended a plan for new structure of government (called the "Virginia Plan") that had been chiefly drafted by fellow Virginia delegate, James Madison. The Virginia Plan called for a strong national government with both branches of the legislative branch apportioned by population. The plan gave the national government the power to legislate "in all cases in which the separate States are incompetent" and even gave a proposed national Council of Revision a veto power over state legislatures.

Delegates from smaller states, and states less sympathetic to broad federal powers, opposed many of the provisions in the Virginia Plan. Charles Pinckney of South Carolina asked whether proponents of the plan "meant to abolish the State Governments altogether." On June 14, a competing plan, called the "New Jersey Plan," was presented by delegate William Paterson of New Jersey. The New Jersey Plan kept federal powers rather limited and created no new Congress. Instead, the plan enlarged some of the powers then held by the Continental Congress. Paterson made plain the adamant opposition of delegates from many of the smaller states to any new plan that would deprive them of equal voting power ("equal suffrage") in the legislative branch.

Over the course of the next three months, delegates worked out a series of compromises between the competing plans. New powers were granted to Congress to regulate the economy, currency, and the national defense, but provisions which would give the national government a veto power over new state laws was rejected. At the insistence of delegates from southern states, Congress was denied the power to limit the slave trade for a minimum of twenty years and slaves--although denied the vote and not recognized as citizens by those states--were allowed to be counted as 3/5 persons for the purpose of apportioning representatives and determining electoral votes. Most importantly, perhaps, delegates compromised on the thorny issue of apportioning members of Congress, an issue that had bitterly divided the larger and smaller states. Under a plan put forward by delegate Roger Sherman of Connecticut ("the Connecticut Compromise"), representation in the House of Representatives would be based on population while each state would be guaranteed an equal two senators in the new Senate.

By September, the final compromises were made, the final clauses polished, and it came time to vote. In the Convention, each state--regardless of its number of delegates-- had one vote, so a state evenly split could not register a vote for adoption. In the end, thirty-nine of the fifty-five delegates supported adoption of the new Constitution, barely enough to win support from each of the twelve attending state delegations. (Rhode Island, which had opposed the Convention, sent no delegation.) Following a signing ceremony on September 17, most of the delegates repaired to the City Tavern on Second Street near Walnut where, according to George Washington, they "dined together and took cordial leave of each other."

....................................................................................
Who were the the 55 Delegates to the Convention?

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention did not represent a cross-section of 1787 America. The Convention included no women, no slaves, no Native Americans or racial minorites, no laborers. As one historian noted, it was a "Convention of the well-bred, the well-fed, the well-read, and the well-wed." The delegates included some very well-known figures from American history, such as George Washington, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton. Other prominent Americans of the time, who might be expected to have been in Philadelphia, did not attend for various reasons. Prominent non-attendees include John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. The links below offer more information on the delegates.

....................................................................................
No diversity or political correctness. Obama says these people had flawed thinking because they did not spread the wealth around. I say Obama is but a PC,PR empty suit that is only interested in power and self interests. Compared to these Constitutional Convention members he is less that a 3/5 intelect!