Passed May 16, 1769 Resolved, That it is the Opinion of this Committee, that the sole Right of imposing Taxes on the Inhabitants of this his Majesty’ s Colony and Dominion of Virginia, is now, and ever hath been, legally and constitutionally vested in the House of Burgesses, lawfully convened according to the ancient and establish Practice, with the Consent of the Council, and of his Majesty, the King of Great-Britain, or his Governor, for the Time being. Resolved, That it is the Opinion of this Committee, that it is the undoubted Privilege of the Inhabitants of this Colony, to petition their Sovereign for Redress of Grievances; and that it is lawful and expedient to procure the Concurrence of his Majesty’s other Colonies, in dutiful Addresses, praying the royal Interposition in Favour of the Violated Rights of America. Resolved, That it is the Opinion of this Committee, that all Trials for Treason, Misprison of Treason, or for any Felony or Crime whatsoever, committed and done in this his Majesty’s said Colony and Dominion, by any Person or Persons, residing in this Colony, suspected of any Crime whatsoever, committed therein, and sending such Person, or Persons, to Places beyond the Sea, to be tried, is highly derogatory of the Rights of BritishSubjects; as thereby the inestimable Privilege of being tried by a Jury from the Vicinage, as well as the Liberty of summoning and producing Witnesses on such Trial, will be taken away from the Party accused. Resolved, That it is the Opinion of this Committee, that an humble, dutiful, and loyal Address, be presented to his Majesty, to assure him of our inviolable Attachment to his sacred Person and Government; and to beseech his royal Interposition, as the Father of all his people, however remote from the Seat of his Empire, to quiet the Minds of his loyal Subjects of this Colony, and to avert from them, those Dangers and Miseries which will ensue, from the seizing and carrying beyond Sea, any Person residing in America, suspected of any Crime whatsoever, to be tried in any other Manner, than by the ancient and long established Course of Proceeding.

Virginia Nonimportation Resolutions, 1769 (Virginia Association) WILLIAMSBURG. WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MAY, 1769. About 12 o’Clock his Excellency the Governor was pleased, by his Messenger, to command the Attendance of the House of Burgesses in the Council Chamber, whereupon, in Obedience to his Lordship’s Command, the House, with their Speaker, immediately waited upon his Excellency, when he thought fit to dissolve the General Assembly. The late Representatives of the People then judging it necessary that some Measures should be taken in their distressed Situation, for pre-serving the true and essential Interests of the Colony, resolved upon a Meeting for that very salutary Purpose, and therefore immediately, with the greatest Order and Decorum, repaired to the House of Mr. Anthony Hay in this City, where being assembled, it was first proposed, for the more decent and regular Discussion of such Matters as might be taken into Consideration, that a Moderator should be appointed, and, on the Question being put, Peyton Randolph, Esq; late Speaker of the House of Burgesses, was unanimously elected. The true State of the Colony being then opened and fully explained, and it being proposed that a regular Association should be formed, a Committee was appointed to prepare the necessary and most proper Regulations for that Purpose, and they were ordered to make their Report to the General Meeting the next Day at 10 o’Clock. THURSDAY, MAY 18. At A farther Meeting, according to Adjournment, the Committee appointed Yesterday, made their Report, which being read, seriously considered, and approved, was signed by a great Number of the principal Gentlemen of the Colony then present, and is as follows: We his Majesty’s most dutiful Subjects, the late Representatives of all the Freeholders of the Colony of Virginia, avowing our inviolable and unshaken Fidelity and Loyalty to our most gracious Sovereign, our Affection for all our Fellow Subjects of Great-Britain; protesting against every Act or Thing, which may have the most distant Tendency to interrupt, or in any wise disturb his Majesty’s Peace, and the good Order of his Government in this Colony, which we are resolved, at the Risque of our Lives and Fortune, to maintain and defend; but, at the same Time, being deeply affected with the Grievances and Distresses, with which his Majesty’s American Subjects are oppressed, and dreading the Evils which threaten the Ruin of ourselves and our Posterity, by reducing us from a free and happy People to a wretched and miserable State of Slavery; and having taken into our most serious Consideration the present State of the Trade of this Colony, and of the American Commerce in general, observe with Anxiety, that the Debt due to Great-Britain for Goods imported from thence is very great, and that the Means of paying this Debt, in the present Situation of Affairs, are likely to become more and more precarious; that the Difficulties, under which we now labour, are owing to the Restrictions, Prohibitions, and ill advised Regulations, in several late Acts of Parliament of Great-Britain, in particular, that the late unconstitutional Act, imposing Duties on Tea, Paper, Glass, &c. for the sole Purpose of raising a Revenue in America, is injurious to Property, and destructive to Liberty, hath a necessary Tendency to prevent the Payment of the Debt due from this Colony to Great-Britain, and is, of Consequence, ruinous to Trade; that, notwithstanding the many earnest Applications already made, there is little Reason to expect a Redress of those Grievances; Therefore, in Justice to ourselves and our Posterity, as well as to the Traders of Great-Britain concerned in the American Commerce, we, the Subscribers, have voluntarily and unanimously entered into the following Resolutions, in Hopes that our Example will induce the good People of this Colony to be frugal in the Use and Consumption of British Manufactures, and that the Merchants and Manufacturers of Great-Britain may, from Motives of Interest, Friendship, and Justice, be engaged to exert themselves to obtain for us a Redress of those Grievances, under which the Trade and Inhabitants of America at present labour; We do therefore most earnestly recommend this our Association to the serious Attention of all Gentlemen, Merchants, Traders, and other Inhabitants of this Colony, in Hopes, that they will very readily and cordially accede thereto. First, It is unanimously agreed on and resolved this 18th Day of May, 1769, that the Subscribers, as well by their own Example, as all other legal Ways and Means in their Power, will promote and encourage Industry and Frugality, and discourage all Manner of Luxury and Extravagance. Secondly, That they will not at any Time hereafter, directly or indirectly import, or cause to be imported, any Manner of Goods, Merchandize, or Manufactures, which are, or shall hereafter be taxed by Act of Parliament, for the Purpose of raising a Revenue in America (except Paper, not exceeding Eight Shillings Sterling per Ream, and except such Articles only, as Orders have been already sent for) nor purchase any such after the First Day of September next, of any Person whatsoever, but that they will always consider such Taxation, in every Respect, as an absolute Prohibition, and in all future Orders, direct their Correspondents to ship them no Goods whatever, taxed as aforesaid, except as is above excepted. Thirdly, That the Subscribers will not hereafter, directly or indirectly, import or cause to be imported from Great-Britain, or any Part of Europe (except such Articles of the Produce or Manufacture of Ireland as may be immediately and legally brought from thence, and except also all such Goods as Orders have been already sent for) any of the Goods herein after enumerated, viz. Spirits, Wine, Cyder, Perry, Beer, Ale, Malt, Barley, Pease, Beef, Pork, Fish, Butter, Cheese, Tallow, Candles, Oil, Fruit, Sugar, Pickles, Confectionary, Pewter, Hoes, Axes, Watches, Clocks, Tables, Chairs, Looking Glasses, Carriages, Joiner’s and Cabinet Work of all Sorts, Upholstery of all Sorts, Trinkets and Jewellery, Plate and Gold, and Silversmith’s Work of all Sorts, Ribbon and Millinery of all Sorts, Lace of all Sorts, India Goods of all Sorts, except Spices, Silks of all Sorts, except Sewing Silk, Cambrick, Lawn, Muslin, Gauze, except Boulting Cloths, Callico or Cotton Stuffs of more than Two Shillings per Yard, Linens of more than Two Shillings per Yard, Woollens, Worsted Stuffs of all Sorts of more than One Shilling and Six Pence per Yard, Broad Cloths of all Kinds at more than Eight Shillings per Yard, Narrow Cloths of all Kinds at more than Three Shillings per Yard, Hats, Stockings (Plaid and Irish Hose excepted) Shoes and Boots, Saddles, and all Manufactures of Leather and Skins of all Kinds, until the late Acts of Parliament imposing Duties on Tea, Paper, Glass, &c. for the Purpose of raising a Revenue in America, are repealed, and that they will not, after the First of September next, purchase any of the above enumerated Goods of any Person whatsoever, unless the above mentioned Acts of Parliament are repealed. Fourthly, That in all Orders, which any of the Subscribers may hereafter send to Great-Britain, they shall, and will expressly direct their Correspondents not to ship them any of the before enumerated Goods, until the before mentioned Acts of Parliament are repealed; and if any Goods are shipped to them contrary to the Tenor of this Agreement, they will refuse to take the same, or make themselves chargeable therewith. Fifthly, That they will not import any Slaves, or purchase any imported, after the First Day of November next, until the said Acts of Parliament are repealed. Sixthly, That they will not import any Wines of any Kind whatever, or purchase the same from any Person whatever, after the First Day of September next, except such Wines as are already ordered, until the Acts of Parliament imposing Duties thereon are repealed. Seventhly, For the better Preservation of the Breed of Sheep, That they will not kill, or suffer to be killed, any Lambs, that shall be yeaned before the First Day of May, in any Year, nor dispose of such to any Butcher or other Person, whom they may have Reason to expect, intends to kill the same. Eighthly and Lastly, That these Resolves shall be binding on all and each of the Subscribers, who do hereby each and every Person for himself, upon his Word and Honour, agree that he will strictly and firmly adhere to and abide by every Article in this Agreement, from the Time of his signing the same, for and during the Continuance of the before mentioned Acts of Parliament, or until a general Meeting of the Subscribers, after one Month’s public Notice, shall determine otherwise, the second Article of this Agreement still and for ever continuing in full Power and Force. Peyton Randolph,Thomson Mason,David Mason,Robert Carter Nicholas,Josias Payne, jun.William Macon, jun.Burwell Basset,Hugh Innes,Richard Bland,Richard Anderson,Bolling Stark,Archibald Cary,James Scott, jun.Robert Bolling,Richard Henry Lee,John Green,Paul Carrington,Charles Carter, Lancaster.Wilson Miles Cary,Thomas Walker,Gabriel Jones,William Cabell, jun.George Washington,Willis Riddick,Nathaniel Edwards, jun.Carter Braxton,Thomas Glascock,Severn Eyre,John Woodson,Robert Rutherford,Richard Randolph,Benjamin Howard,Thomas Barbour,Patrick Henry, jun.Isaac Read,Charles Lynch,Peter Johnston,Foushee Tebbs,James Hamilton,Henry Lee,Edward Osborne,John Wilson, Augusta.Nathaniel Terry,Francis Peyton,William Clayton,Thomas Whiting,Abraham Hite,Robert Munford, Mecklenburg.Thomas Jefferson,James Wood,Thomas Nelson, jun.Richard Baker,Thomas Bailey,James Walker,Edwin Gray,Thomas Scott,John Alexander,Robert Munford, Amelia.Lewis Burwell,Champion Travis,John Harmanson,George Ball,Henry Taylor,Thomas Parramore,Thomas Harrison,Joseph Cabell,John Donelson,Thomas Claiborne,Alexander Tren[t],Cornelius Thomas,John Blair, jun.John Mayo,Thomas Johnson, John Lewis, jun.Edward Hack Moseley, junPhilip Ludwell Grymes,William Roane,William A[crill]John Ackiss,Charles Carter, King George.Hartwell Cocke,James Bridger,John Talbot,David Meade,Richard Starke, Clerk to the association.Richard Lee,Southy Simpson,Joseph Hutchings,Peter Poythress,The Business being finished, the following toasts were drank, and the Gentlemen retired. The King. The Queen and Royal Family. His Excellency Lord Botetourt, and Prosperity to Virginia. A speedy and lasting Union between Great-Britain and her Colonies. The constitutional British Liberty in America, and all true Patriots, the Supporters thereof. Duke of Richmond.The late SpeakerEarl of ShelburneThe Treasurer of the colonyCol. BarreThe Farmer and MonitorIN compliance with the foregoing Invitation, we do most cordially accede and agree to the Association so laudably proposed; and in Testimony thereof have subscribed our Names this Day of 1769. William MatthisSamuel TatemRichard MeltonJas. LaneN: EllzeyWm. StanhopeTho. Gist.Travers NashWm. WalrondWm. GeorgeIsaac DavisSamuel BakerGeorge HeadonDaniel KincheloeJ. GwatkinAmos DavisJohn TerryRd. MiltonThos. Bird Source: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-01-02-0019

October 29, 1765 WHEREAS the just rights of his majesty’s subjects of this province, derived to them from the British constitution as well as the royal charter, have been lately drawn into question: In order to ascertain the same, this house do unanimously come into the following resolves. I. Resolved, — That there are certain essential rights of the British constitution of government, which are founded in the law of God and nature, and are the common rights of mankind; —therefore, II. Resolved, — That the inhabitants of this province are unalienable entitled to those essential rights in common with all men: and that no law of society can, consistent with the law of God and nature, divest them of those rights. III. Resolved, — That no man can justly take the property of another without his consent; and that upon this original principle the right of representation in the same body, which exercises the power of making laws for levying taxes, which is one of the main pillars of the British constitution, is evidently founded. IV. Resolved, — That this inherent right, together with all other essential rights, liberties, privileges, and immunities of the people of Great Britain, have been fully confirmed to them by Magna Charta, and by former and later acts of parliament. V. Resolved, — That his majesty’s subjects in America are, in reason and common sense, entitled to the same extent of liberty with his majesty’s subjects in Britain. VI. Resolved, — That by the declaration of the royal charter of this province, the inhabitants are entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural subjects of Great Britain, to all intents, purposes, and constructions whatever. VII. Resolved, — That the inhabitants of this province appear to be entitled to all the rights aforementioned, by an act of parliament, 13th of Gee. II. VIII. Resolved, — That those rights do belong to the inhabitants of this province, upon principles of common justice; their ancestors having settled this country at their sole expense, and their posterity having approved themselves most loyal and faithful subjects of Great Britain. IX. Resolved, — That every individual in the colonies is as advantageous to Great Britain, as if he were in Great Britain, and held to pay his full proportion of taxes there; and as the inhabitants of this province pay their full proportion of taxes for the support of his majesty’s government here, it is unreasonable for them to be called upon to pay any part of the charges of the government there. X. Resolved, — That the inhabitants of this province are not, and never have been, represented in the parliament of Great Britain; and that such a representation there as the subjects in Britain do actually and rightfully enjoy, is impracticable for the subjects in America; —and further, that in the opinion of this house, the several subordinate powers of legislation in America were constituted upon the apprehensions of this impracticability. XI. Resolved, — That the only method whereby the constitutional rights of the subjects of this province can be secure, consistent with a subordination to the supreme power of Great Britain, is by the continued exercise of such powers of government as are granted in the royal charter, and firm adherence to the privileges of the same. XII. Resolved, as a just conclusion from some of the foregoing resolves, That all acts made by any power whatever other than the general assembly of this province, imposing taxes on the inhabitants, are infringements of our inherent and unalienable rights, as men and British subjects, and render void the most valuable declarations of our charter. XIII. Resolved, — That the extension of the powers of the court of admiralty within this province, is a most violent infraction of the right of trials by juries—a right which this house, upon the principles of their British ancestors, hold most dear and sacred; it being the only security of the lives, liberties, and properties of his majesty’s subjects here. XIV. Resolved, — That this house owe the strictest allegiance to his most sacred majesty king George the third; that they have the greatest veneration for the parliament; and that they will, after the example of all their predecessors, from the settlement of this country, exert themselves to their utmost in supporting his majesty’s authority in the province, in promoting the true happiness of his subjects, and in enlarging the extent of his dominion. Ordered, — That all the foregoing resolves be kept in the records of this house, that a just sense of liberty, and the firm sentiments of loyalty, may be transmitted to posterity. Source: https://www.americanhistorycentral.com/entries/massachusetts-stamp-act-resolves-1765/

June 5th, 1788 THIS, sir, is the language of democracy–that a majority of the community have a right to alter government when found to be oppressive. But how different is the genius of your new Constitution from this! How different from the sentiments of freemen that a contemptible minority can prevent the good of the majority! If, then, gentlemen standing on this ground are come to that point, that they are willing to bind themselves and their posterity to be oppressed, I am amazed and inexpressibly astonished. If this be the opinion of the majority, I must submit; but to me, sir, it appears perilous and destructive. I can not help thinking so. Perhaps it may be the result of my age. These may be feelings natural to a man of my years, when the American spirit has left him, and his mental powers, like the members of the body, are decayed. If, sir, amendments are left to the twentieth, or tenth part of the people of America, your liberty is gone for ever. We have heard that there is a great deal of bribery practised in the House of Commons of England, and that many of the members raise themselves to preferments by selling the rights of the whole of the people. But, sir, the tenth part of that body can not continue oppressions on the rest of the people. English liberty is, in this case, on a firmer foundation than American liberty. It will be easily contrived to procure the opposition of the one-tenth of the people to any alteration, however judicious. The honorable gentleman who presides told us that, to prevent abuses in our government, we will assemble in convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. Oh, sir! we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors can not assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America. A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? In what situation are we to be? The clause before you gives a power of direct taxation, unbounded and unlimited–an exclusive power of legislation, in all cases whatsoever, for ten miles square, and over all places purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, etc. What resistance could be made? The attempt would be madness. You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies; their garrisons will naturally be the strongest places in the country. Your militia is given up to Congress, also, in another part of this plan; they will therefore act as they think proper; all power will be in their own possession. You can not force them to receive their punishment: of what service would militia be to you, when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the State? For, us arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them. The honorable gentleman then went on to the figure we make with foreign nations; the contemptible one we make in France and Holland, which, according to the substance of the notes, he attributes to the present feeble government. An opinion has gone forth, we find, that we are contemptible people; the time has been when we were thought otherwise. Under the same despised government we commanded the respect of all Europe; wherefore are we now reckoned otherwise? The American spirit has fled from hence: it has gone to regions where it has never been expected; it has gone to the people of France in search of a splendid government, a strong, energetic government. Shall we imitate the example of those nations who have gone from a simple to a splendid government? Are those nations more worthy of our imitation? What can make an adequate satisfaction to them for the loss they have suffered in attaining such a government–for the loss of their liberty? If we admit this consolidated government, it will be because we like a great, splendid one. Some way or other we must be a great and mighty empire; we must have an army, and a navy, and a number of things. When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different; liberty, sir, was then the primary object. We are descended from a people whose government was founded on liberty; our glorious forefathers of Great Britain made liberty the foundation of everything. That country is become a great, mighty, and splendid nation; not because their government is strong and energetic, but, sir, because liberty is its direct end and foundation. We drew the spirit of liberty from our British ancestors; by that spirit we have triumphed over every difficulty. But now, sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country into a powerful and mighty empire. If you make the citizens of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your government will not have sufficient energy to keep them together. Such a government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism. There will be no checks, no real balances, in this government. What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances? But, sir, “we are not feared by foreigners; we do not make nations tremble.” Would this constitute happiness or secure liberty? I trust, sir, our political hemisphere will ever direct their operations to the security of those objects. Consider our situation, sir; go to the poor man and ask him what he does. He will inform you that he enjoys the fruits of his labor, under his own fig tree, with his wife and children around him, in peace and security. Go to every other member of society; you will find the same tranquil ease and content; you will find no alarms or disturbances. Why, then, tell us of danger, to terrify us into an adoption of this new form of government? And yet who knows the dangers that this new system may produce? They are out of sight of the common people; they can not foresee latent consequences. I dread the operation of it on the middling and lower classes of people; it is for them I fear the adoption of this system. I fear I tire the patience of the committee, but I beg to be indulged with a few more observations. When I thus profess myself an advocate for the liberty of the people, I shall be told I am a designing man, that I am to be a great man, that I am to be a demagog; and many similar illiberal insinuations will be thrown out; but, sir, conscious rectitude outweighs those things with me. I see great jeopardy in this new government. I see none from our present one. I hope some gentleman or other will bring forth, in full array, those dangers, if there be any, that we may see and touch them. I have said that I thought this a consolidated government; I will now prove it. Will the great rights of the people be secured by this government? Suppose it should prove oppressive, how can it be altered? Our Bill of Rights declares that “a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.” The voice of tradition, I trust, will inform posterity of our struggles for freedom. If our descendants be worthy the name of Americans they will preserve and hand down to their latest posterity the transactions of the present times; and tho I confess my exclamations are not worthy the hearing, they will see that I have done my utmost to preserve their liberty, for I never will give up the power of direct taxation but for a scourge. I am willing to give it conditionally–that is, after non-compliance with requisitions. I will do more, sir, and what I hope will convince the most skeptical man that I am a lover of the American Union; that, in case Virginia shall not make punctual payment, the control of our customhouses and the whole regulation of trade shall be given to Congress, and that Virginia shall depend on Congress even for passports, till Virginia shall have paid the last farthing and furnished the last soldier. Nay, sir, there is another alternative to which I would consent; even that they should strike us out of the Union and take away from us all federal privileges till we comply with federal requisitions; but let it depend upon our own pleasure to pay our money in the most easy manner for our people. Were all the States, more terrible than the mother country, to join against us, I hope Virginia could defend herself; but, sir, the dissolution of the Union is most abhorrent to my mind. The first thing I have at heart is American liberty; the second thing is American union; and I hope the people of Virginia will endeavor to preserve that union. The increasing population of the Southern States is far greater than that of New England; consequently, in a short time, they will be far more numerous than the people of that country. Consider this and you will find this State more particularly interested to support American liberty and not bind our posterity by an improvident relinquishment of our rights. I would give the best security for a punctual compliance with requisitions; but I beseech gentlemen, at all hazards, not to give up this unlimited power of taxation. The honorable gentleman has told us that these powers given to Congress are accompanied by a judiciary which will correct all. On examination you will find this very judiciary oppressively constructed, your jury trial destroyed, and the judges dependent on Congress. This Constitution is said to have beautiful features; but when I come to examine these features, sir, they appear to me horribly frightful. Among other deformities, it has an awful squinting; it squints toward monarchy, and does not this raise indignation in the breast of every true American? Your president may easily become king. Your Senate is so imperfectly constructed that your dearest rights may be sacrificed to what may be a small minority; and a very small minority may continue for ever unchangeably this government, altho horridly defective. Where are your checks in this government? Your strongholds will be in the hands of your enemies. It is on a supposition that your American governors shall be honest that all the good qualities of this government are founded; but its defective and imperfect construction puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs should they be bad men; and, sir, would not all the world, blame our distracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or gad? Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt. If your American chief be a man of ambition and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute! The army is in his hands, and if he be a man of address, it will be attached to him, and it will be the subject of long meditation with him to seize the first auspicious moment to accomplish his design, and, sir, will the American spirit solely relieve you when this happens? I would rather infinitely–and I am sure most of this Convention are of the same opinion–have a king, lords, and commons, than a government so replete with such insupportable evils. If we make a king we may prescribe the rules by which he shall rule his people, and interpose such checks as shall prevent him from infringing them; but the president, in the field, at the head of his army, can prescribe the terms on which he shall reign master, so far that it will puzzle any American ever to get his neck from under the galling yoke. I can not with patience think of this idea. If ever he violate the laws, one of two things will happen: he will come at the head of the army to carry everything before him, or he will give bail, or do what Mr. Chief Justice will order him. If he be guilty, will not the recollection of his crimes teach him to make one bold push for the American throne? Will not the immense difference between being master of everything and being ignominiously tried and punished powerfully excite him to make this bold push? But, sir, where is the existing force to punish him? Can he not, at the head of his army, beat down every opposition? Away with your president! we shall have a king: the army will salute him monarch; your militia will leave you, and assist in making him king, and fight against you: and what have you to oppose this force? What will then become of you and your rights? Will not absolute despotism ensue? Source: https://www.redhill.org/primary-sources/liberty-or-empire/

June 4th, 1788 Mr. Chairman, the public mind, as well as my own, is extremely uneasy at the proposed change of government. Give me leave to form one of the number of those who wish to be thoroughly acquainted with the reasons of this perilous and uneasy situation, and why we are brought hither to decide on this great national question. I consider myself as the servant of the people of this commonwealth, as a sentinel over their rights, liberty, and happiness. I represent their feelings when I say that they are exceedingly uneasy at being brought from that state of full security, which they enjoyed, to the present delusive appearance of things. A year ago, the minds of our citizens were at perfect repose. Before the meeting of the late federal Convention at Philadelphia, a general peace and a universal tranquillity prevailed in this country; but, since that period, they are exceedingly uneasy and disquieted. When I wished for an appointment to this Convention, my mind was extremely agitated for the situation of public affairs. I conceived the republic to be in extreme danger. If our situation be thus uneasy, whence has arisen this fearful jeopardy? It arises from this fatal system; it arises from a proposal to change our government–a proposal that goes to the utter annihilation of the most solemn engagements of the states–a proposal of establishing nine states into a confederacy, to the eventual exclusion of four states. It goes to the annihilation of those solemn treaties we have formed with foreign nations. The present circumstances of France–the good offices rendered us by that kingdom–require our most faithful and most punctual adherence to our treaty with her. We are in alliance with the Spaniards, the Dutch, the Prussians; those treaties bound us as thirteen states confederated together. Yet here is a proposal to sever that confederacy. Is it possible that we shall abandon all our treaties and national engagements?–and for what? I expected to hear the reasons for an event so unexpected to my mind and many others. Was our civil polity, or public justice, endangered or sapped? Was the real existence of the country threatened, or was this preceded by a mournful progression of events? This proposal of altering our federal government is of a most alarming nature! Make the best of this new government–say it is composed by any thing but inspiration–you ought to be extremely cautious, watchful, jealous of your liberty; for, instead of securing your rights, you may lose them forever. If a wrong step be now made, the republic may be lost forever. If this new government will not come up to the expectation of the people, and they shall be disappointed, their liberty will be lost, and tyranny must and will arise. I repeat it again, and I beg gentlemen to consider, that a wrong step, made now, will plunge us into misery, and our republic will be lost. It will be necessary for this Convention to have a faithful historical detail of the facts that preceded the session of the federal Convention, and the reasons that actuated its members in proposing an entire alteration of government, and to demonstrate the dangers that awaited us. If they were of such awful magnitude as to warrant a proposal so extremely perilous as this, I must assert, that this Convention has an absolute right to a thorough discovery of every circumstance relative to this great event. And here I would make this inquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late federal Convention. I am sure they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great consolidated government, instead of a confederation. That this is a consolidated government is demonstrably clear; and the danger of such a government is, to my mind, very striking. I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states. I have the highest respect for those gentlemen who formed the Convention, and, were some of them not here, I would express some testimonial of esteem for them. America had, on a former occasion, put the utmost confidence in them–a confidence which was well placed; and I am sure, sir, I would give up any thing to them; I would cheerfully confide in them as my representatives. But, sir, on this great occasion, I would demand the cause of their conduct. Even from that illustrious man who saved us by his valor [George Washington], I would have a reason for his conduct: that liberty which he has given us by his valor, tells me to ask this reason; and sure I am, were he here, he would give us that reason. But there are other gentlemen here, who can give us this information. The people gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear. It is not mere curiosity that actuates me: I wish to hear the real, actual, existing danger, which should lead us to take those steps, so dangerous in my conception. Disorders have arisen in other parts of America; but here, sir, no dangers, no insurrection or tumult have happened; every thing has been calm and tranquil. But, notwithstanding this, we are wandering on the great ocean of human affairs. I see no landmark to guide us. We are running we know not whither. Difference of opinion has gone to a degree of inflammatory resentment in different parts of the country, which has been occasioned by this perilous innovation. The federal Convention ought to have amended the old system; for this purpose they were solely delegated; the object of their mission extended to no other consideration. You must, therefore, forgive the solicitation of one unworthy member to know what danger could have arisen under the present Confederation, and what are the causes of this proposal to change our government. Source: https://www.redhill.org/primary-sources/we-the-people-or-we-the-states/

Supreme Reforms By Mark Shubert The Supreme Court is an institution that very few talk about reforming other than the National Constitution Center which I encourage you guys to check out. The court was established when our constitution was ratified in 1788 but its enumerated structure and power didn’t include much to it and so Congress passed the Judiciary Acts during the Washington administration which determined the number of justices, what they did, and also establishes lower federal courts including the circuit and district courts. Apart from the number of justices, the Supreme Court has not changed since then which is interesting because you would expect the vague parts of the constitution to be the most interpretable and therefore the most reformed part. Despite this lack of considering different judicial systems in the general discord of politics, I propose reforms regarding the size and election of Supreme Court Justices. Concepts to consider when amending this position: The leg & exec branches’ elections are not contingent on the other branches Senate and Presidency politicize the Supreme Court Prevent lobbying by ensuring a life appointment in the circuit courts they originate from Age floor and ceiling Term limits Replacement process Increasing the size of the Court and the number of Circuit Courts Elections on the circuit court level for supreme court justices Judicial Review Process To start, we should increase the number of justices to 13 while only requiring nine justices to hear a case. If only 9 justices per case participate then this will increase the number of cases heard by 40% since the number of combinations of nine justices increases. Cases can be heard by courts of 9, 11, or 13 justices, the justices decide how many will hear a case based on availability and interest. If only 9 wish to hear a case then they can and the other 4 do not have to. Those four who do not hear the case cannot participate in the official decision of the court. If ten wish to hear a case they will either have to convince one of the disinterested three to hear the case or one will have to recuse themselves. We should increase the number of circuit courts to 13. Currently there are 11, not including DC, and here is the current and a proposed map of 13 circuit courts. Current Proposed Have each circuit court, either from the state legislatures or the people, elect supreme court justices instead of the president while the senate is not needed to approve or deny them. DC will still have its own circuit court but will not send someone to the Supreme Court. At the start of this change, justices will be elected by the state legislatures of all of the states in the respective circuit. The state legislatures of each circuit can change this electoral process with unanimity to a general election within the circuit court. Each state in the circuit can nominate justices and this process should be determined by the states in the circuit. For example, states can nominate the same number or by population so the more populous states nominate more justices. The campaigns of those nominated will be entirely funded by the state that nominates them and no donations from people or businesses are allowed to go to the candidate; the state legislature will run the campaign and each of the circuit court nominees will receive equal funds agreed upon by all the states in the circuit. Each circuit will send two people, a justice and a replacement (suffect justice), the suffect justice will not be able to act as judge until the justice resigns or expires and they will no longer be suffect once the term is over. The justices and their suffects sent must have passed the BAR and have served in any kind of court as a judge for at least one full year, and never had their law license or judge license suspended or removed. Tenure for each justice and their replacement is 13 years, once a circuit court elects a justice they cannot be recalled. Only an impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial held by the Senate can remove justices if convicted. Minimum age for Justices should be 40 and the oldest age for someone to start their term as justice is whatever the minimum age of federally recognized retirement is (currently 62). Term limit of just one term, after serving they will be allowed a seat on their respective circuit court for life on good behavior so they do not have to worry about finding work after their term on the supreme court ends. There will be a cycle where one circuit court will be up for electing a justice every year in order of the circuit courts. By removing the President and Senate from the process of adding new justices this will help depoliticize the position and also the two other branches will not be distracted from the process of choosing new justices which often takes an irresponsible amount of time and effort away from their other duties. It also gives states and the people more say in who is sent to the Supreme Court which is, in turn, more representative. Regarding Judicial Review I believe that when justices make a decision against a statute then that ruling should be sent to Congress for review in a Joint Committee to decide what to do next, either nothing, amend the statute to make it constitutional, or repeal it since they know that the court will just side with any defendant of the law. The Chief Suffect (Suffect of the Chief Justice) should be the one to send these decisions to Congress. The specific statutes in review don’t have to be the entire act but just a severed section or even just a clause which the court has deemed to be unconstitutional. My thought process about making judicial review more procedural is that both Executive and Judicial branches are supposed to be a check on the legislative, a check means to be a negative or to be a force that blocks legislative actions. The president is a proactive negative since they can veto a bill before it becomes law, while I view the Supreme Court to be a reactive negative since they have to wait for someone to sue the government about the statute in order to determine whether or not it is constitutional. Just as the presidential veto can be overturned by congress with ⅔ support from both houses, so too should judicial review against a statute be overturned with ¾ support from both houses, and the president should not get involved with the judicial review just as the court does not get involved with the presidential veto. There are also some aesthetic changes including the name that I propose. Rename the Supreme Court to the Constitutional Court or the Federal Court or the National Court of Appeals or another suggestion that is agreed upon by Congress. Outside of the Supreme Court should be a statue of Justia or Lady Justice with the motto Pari Iustitia Sub Lege (Equal Justice Under Law) , current motto of the Supreme Court but in latin.

The Constitution of the United States of America currently consists of many parts that no longer apply either because they were repealed via amendment or expired. I annotated the Constitution to show what it would look like if those parts which no longer applies were removed and what it might look like if all of the amendments were placed in the main body of the text as opposed to being placed in a separate section. I used the Shubert Style in this annotation which is the same style that mock bills on the Forum are written. The Shubert Style consists of multiple versions of the same document which shows the original text and the contemporary status of the document. The contemporary status shows only the parts that are active today and it excludes the parts that have been repealed or expired. This cuts out any unnecessary text. The contemporary status also includes all amendments within the main body of the text as opposed to being in a separate section. For example, any amendments concerning the office of the president have been added to Article II since that article is what establishes the office of the president. The Bill of Rights has been added to its own section labeled Article VIII and it includes any part of the original or amended constitution which discusses individual rights. The original text section colorized shows the full original constitution but with certain sections colorized to show the reader what was done with clauses. The original text without color is exactly what the name suggests. Below is the link to the annotated Constitution, enjoy. https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vSRXsY1t-v8gfsR0ojCNtbPiTDi_HS8eqpNO9xFwskAOd_N5VJgtUg5xIGeIJApnp8xBjYEoHOy7fLs/pub

Springfield, Illinois, June 26, 1857 FELLOW CITIZENS: – I am here to-night, partly by the invitation of some of you, and partly by my own inclination. Two weeks ago Judge Douglas spoke here on the several subjects of Kansas, the Dred Scott decision, and Utah. I listened to the speech at the time, and have read the report of it since. It was intended to controvert opinions which I think just, and to assail (politically, not personally,) those men who, in common with me, entertain those opinions. For this reason I wished then, and still wished then, and still wish, to make some answer to it, which I now take the opportunity of doing. I begin with Utah. If it prove to be true, as is probable, that the people of Utah are in open rebellion in the United States, then Judge Douglas is in favor of repealing their territorial organization, and attaching them to the adjoining States for judicial purposes. I say, too, if they are in rebellion, they ought to be somehow coerced to obedience; and I am not now prepared to admit or deny that the Judge’s mode of coercing them is not as good as any. The Republicans can fall in with it without taking back anything they have ever said. To be sure, it would be a considerable backing down by Judge Douglas from his much vaunted doctrine of self-government for the territories; but this is only additional proof of what was very plain from the beginning, that that doctrine was a mere deceitful pretense for the benefit of slavery. Those who could not see that much in the Nebraska act itself, which forced Governors, and Secretaries, and Judges on the people of the territories, without their choice or consent, could not be made to see, though one should rise from the dead to testify. But in all this, it is very plain the Judge evades the only question the Republicans have ever pressed upon the Democracy in regard to Utah. That question the Judge well knows to be this: ‘If the people of Utah shall peacefully form a State Constitution tolerating polygamy, will the Democracy admit them into the Union?’ There is nothing in the United States Constitution or law against polygamy; and why is it not a part of the Judge’s ‘sacred right of self-government’ for that people to have it, or rather to keep it, if they choose? These questions, so far as I know, the Judge never answers. It might involve the Democracy to answer them either way, and they go unanswered. As to Kansas. The substances of the Judge’s speech on Kansas is an effort to put the free State men in the wrong for not voting at the election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention. He says: ‘There is every reason to hope and believe that the law will be fairly interpreted and impartially executed, so as to insure to every bona fide inhabitant the free and quiet exercise of the elective franchise.’ It appears extraordinary that Judge Douglas should make such a statement. He knew that, by the law, no one can vote who has not been registered; and he knows that the free State men place their refusal to vote on the ground that but few of them have been registered. It ispossible this is not true, but Judge Douglas knows it is asserted to be true, but Judge Douglas knows it is asserted to be true in letters, newspapers and public speeches, and borne by every mail, and blown by every breeze to the eyes and ears of the world. He knows it is boldly declared that the people of many whole counties, and many whole neighborhoods in others, are left unregistered; yet, he does not venture to contradict the declaration, nor to point out how they can vote without being registered; but he just slips along, not seeming to know there is any such question of fact, and complacently declares: ‘There is every reason to hope and believe that the law will be fairly and impartially executed, so as to insure to every bona fide inhabitant the free and quiet exercise of the elective franchise.’ I readily agree that if all had a chance to vote, they ought to have voted. If, on the contrary, as they allege, and Judge Douglas ventures not to particularly contradict, few only of the free State men had a chance to vote, they were perfectly right in staying from the polls in a body. By the way since the Judge spoke, the Kansas election has come off. The Judge expressed his confidence that all the Democrats in Kansas would do their duty – including ‘free state Democrats’ of course. The returns received here as yet are very incomplete; but so far as they go, they indicate that only about one sixth of the registered voters, have really voted; and this too, when not more, perhaps, than on half of the rightful voters have been registered, thus showing the thing to have been altogether the most exquisite farce ever enacted. I am watching with considerable interest, to ascertain what figure ‘the free state Democrats’ cut in the concern. Of course they voted – all democrats do their duty – and of course they did not vote for slave-state candidates. We soon shall know how many delegates they elected, how many candidates they had, pledged for a free state; and how many votes were cast for them. Allow me to barely whisper my suspicion that there were no such things in Kansas ‘as free state Democrats’ – that they were altogether mythical, good only to figure in newspapers and speeches in the free states. If there should prove to be one real living free state Democrat in Kansas, I suggest that it might be well to catch him, and stuff and preserve his skin, as an interesting specimen of that soon to be extinct variety of the genus, Democrat. An now as to the Dred Scott decision. That decision declares two propositions – first, that a negro cannot sue in the U.S. Courts; and secondly, that Congress cannot prohibit slavery in the Territories. It was made by a divided court – dividing differently on the different points. Judge Douglas does not discuss the merits of the decision; and, in that respect, I shall follow his example, believing I could no more improve on McLean and Curtis, than he could on Taney. He denounces all who question the correctness of that decision, as offering violent resistance to it. But who resists it? Who has, in spite of the decision, declared Dred Scott free, and resisted the authority of his master over him? Judicial decisions have two uses – first, to absolutely determine the case decided, and secondly, to indicate to the public how other similar cases will be decided when they arise. For the latter use, they are called ‘precedents’ and ‘authorities.’ We believe, as much as Judge Douglas, (perhaps more) in obedience to, and respect for the judicial department of government. We think its decisions on Constitutional questions, when fully settled, should control, not only the particular cases decided, but the general policy of the country, subject to be disturbed only by amendment of the Constitution as provided in that instrument itself. More than this would be revolution. But we think the Dred Scott decision is erroneous. We know the court that made it, has often over-ruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it to over-rule this. We offer no resistance to it. Judicial decisions are of greater or less authority as precedents, according to circumstances. That this should be so, accords both with common sense, and customary understanding of the legal profession. If this important decision had been made by the unanimous concurrence of the judges, and without any apparent partisan bias, and in accordance with legal public expectation, and with the steady practice of the departments throughout our history, and had been in no part, based on assumed historical facts which are not really true; or, if wanting in some of these, it had been before the court more than once, and had there been affirmed and re-affirmed through a course of years, it then might be, perhaps would be, factious, nay, even revolutionary, to not acquiesce in it as a precedent. But when, as it is true we find it wanting in all these claims to the public confidence, it is not resistance, it is not factious, it is not even disrespectful, to treat it as not having yet quite established a settled doctrine for the country – But Judge Douglas considers this view awful. Hear him: ‘The courts are the tribunals prescribed by the Constitution and created by the authority of the people to determine, expound and enforce the law. Hence, whoever resists the final decision of the highest judicial tribunal, aims a deadly blow to our whole Republican system of government – a blow to our who Republican system of government – a blow, which if successful would place all our rights and liberties at the mercy of passion, anarchy and violence. I repeat, therefore, that if resistance to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, in a matter like the points decided in the Dred Scott case, clearly within their jurisdiction as defined by the Constitution, shall be forced upon the country as a political issues, it will become a distinct and naked issue between the friends and the enemies of the Constitution – the friends and the enemies of the supremacy of the laws.’ Why this same Supreme court once decided a national bank to be constitutional; but Gen. Jackson, as President of the United States, disregarded the decision, and vetoed a bill for a re-charter, partly on constitutional ground, declaring that each public functionary must support the Constitution, ‘as he understand it.’ But hear the General’s own words. Here they are, taken from his veto message: ‘It is maintained by the advocates of the bank, that its constitutionality, in all its features, ought to be considered as settled by precedent, and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To the conclusion I cannot assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority, and should not be regarded as deciding question of constitutional power, except where the acquiescence of the people and the States can be considered as well settled. So far from this being the case on this subject, an argument against the bank might be based on precedent. One Congress in 1791, decided in favor of a bank; another in 1811, decided against it. One Congress in 1815 decided against a bank; another in 1816 decided in its favor. Prior to the present Congress, therefore the precedents drawn from that source were equal. If we resort to the States, the expressions of legislative, judicial and executive opinions against the bank have been probably to those in its favor as four to one. There is nothing in precedent, therefore, which if its authority were admitted, ought to weigh in favor of the act before me.’ I drop the quotations merely to remark that all there ever was, in the way of precedent up to the Dred Scott decision on the points therein decided, had been against that decision. But hear Gen. Jackson further– ‘If the opinion of the Supreme court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the co-ordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the executive and the court, must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer, who takes an oath to support the Constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others.’ Again and again have I heard Judge Douglas denounce that bank decision, and applaud Gen. Jackson for disregarding it. It would be interesting for him to look over his recent speech, and see how exactly his fierce philippics against us for resisting Supreme Court decisions, fall upon his own head. It will call to his mind a long and fierce political war in this country, upon an issue which, in his own language, and, of course, in his own changeless estimation, was ‘a distinct and naked issue between the friends and the enemies of the Constitution,’ and in which war he fought in the ranks of the enemies of the Constitution. I have said, in substance, that the Dred Scott decision was, in part; based on assumed historical facts which were not really true; and I ought not to leave the subject without giving some reasons for saying this; I therefore give an instance or two, which I think fully sustain me. Chief Justice Taney, in delivering the opinion of the majority of the Court, insists at great length that negroes were not part of the people who made, or for whom was made, the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution of the United States. On the contrary, Judge Curtis, in his dissenting opinion, shows that in five of the then thirteen states, to wit, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and North Carolina, free negroes were voters, and, in proportion to their numbers, had the same part in making the Constitution that the white people had. He shows this with so much particularity as to leave no doubt of its truth; and, as a sort of conclusion on that point, holds the following language: ‘The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States, through the action, in each State, of those persons who were qualified by its laws to act thereon in behalf of themselves and all other citizens of the State. In some of the States, as we have seen, colored persons were among those qualified by law to act on the subject. These colored persons were not only included in the body of ‘the people of the United States,’ by whom the Constitution was ordained and established; but in at least five of the States they had the power to act, and doubtless, did act, by their suffrages, upon the question of its adoption.’ Again, Chief Justice Taney says: ‘It is difficult, at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted.’ And again, after quoting from the Declaration, he says: ‘The general words above quoted would seem to include the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day, would be so understood.’ In these the Chief Justice does not directly assert, but plainly assumes, as a fact, that the public estimate of the black man is more favorable now than it was in the days of the Revolution. This assumption is a mistake. In some trifling particulars, the condition of that race has been ameliorated; but, as a whole, in this country, the change between then and now is decidedly the other way; and their ultimate destiny has never appeared so hopeless as in the last three or four years. In two of the five States – New Jersey and North Carolina – that then gave the free negro the right of voting, the right has since been taken away; and in a third – New York – it has been greatly abridged; while it has not been extended, so far as I know, to a single additional State, thought the number of the States has more than doubled. In those days, Legislatures held the unquestioned power to abolish slavery in their respective States; but now it is becoming quite fashionable for State Constitutions to withhold that power from the Legislatures. In those days, by common consent, the spread of the black man’s bondage to new countries was prohibited; but now, Congress, decides that it will not continue the prohibition, and the Supreme Court decides that it could not if it would. In those days, our Declaration of the Independence was held sacred by all, and thought to include all; but now, to aid in making the bondage of the negro universal and eternal, it is assailed, and sneered at, and construed, and hawked at, and torn, till, if its framers could rise from their graves, they could not at all recognize it. All the powers of earth seem rapidly combining against him. Mammon is after him; ambition follows; and philosophy follows, and the Theology of the day is fast joining the cry. They have him in his prison house; they have searched his person, and left no prying instrument with him. One after another they have closed the heavy iron doors upon him, and now they have him, as it were, bolted in with a lock of a hundred keys, which can never be unlocked without the concurrence of every key; the keys in the hands of a hundred different men, and they scattered to a hundred different and distinct places; and they stand musing as to what invention, in all the dominions of mind and matter, can be produced to make the impossibility of his escape more complete than it is. It is grossly incorrect to say or assume, that the public estimate of the negro is more favorable now that it was at the origin of the government. Three years and a half ago, Judge Douglas brought forward his famous Nebraska bill. The country was at once in a blaze. He scorned all opposition, and carried it through Congress. Since then he has seen himself superseded in a Presidential nomination, by one indorsing the funeral doctrine of his measure, but at the same time standing clear of the odium of its untimely agitation, and its gross breach of national faith; and he has seen that successful rival Constitutionally elected, not by the strength of friends, but by the division of adversaries, being in a popular minority of nearly four hundred thousand votes. He has seen his chief aids in his own State, Shields and Richardson, politically speaking, successively tried, convicted, and executed, for an offense not their own, but his. And now he sees his own case, standing next on the docket for trial. There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people, to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races; and Judge Douglas evidently is basing his chief hope, upon the chances of being able to appropriate the benefit of this disgust to himself. If he can, by much drumming and repeating, fasten the odium of that idea upon his adversaries, he thinks he can struggle through the storm. He therefore clings to this hope, as a drowning man to the last plank. He makes an occasion for lugging it in from the opposition to the Dred Scott decision. He finds the Republicans insisting that the Declaration of Independence includes ALL MEN, black as well as white; and forthwith he boldly denies that it includes negroes at all, and proceeds to argue gravely that all who contend it does, do so only because they want to vote, and eat, and sleep, and marry with negroes. He will have it that they cannot be consistent else. Now I protest against that counterfeit logic which concludes that, because I do not want a black woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. I need not have her for either, I can just leave her alone. In some respects she certainly is not my equal; but in her natural right to eat the bread she earns with her own hands without asking leave of any one else, she is my equal, and the equal of all others. Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, admits that the language of the Declaration is broad enough to include the whole human family, but he and Judge Douglas argue that the authors of that instrument did not intend to include negroes, by the fact that they did not at once, actually place them on an equality with the whites. Now this grave argument comes to just nothing at all, by the other fact, that they did not at once, or ever afterwards, actually place all white people on an equality with one or another. And this is the staple argument of both the Chief Justice and the Senator, for doing this obvious violence to the plain unmistakable language of the Declaration. I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men crated equal – equal in ‘certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ This they said, and this meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet, that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast circumstances should permit. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere. The assertion that ‘all men are created equal’ was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration, not for that, but for future use. Its authors meant it to be, thank God, it is now proving itself, a stumbling block to those who in after times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant when such should re-appear in this fair land and commence their vocation they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack. I have now briefly expressed my view of the meaning and objects of that part of the Declaration of Independence which declares that ‘all men are created equal.’ Now let us hear Judge Douglas’ view of the same subject, as I find it in the printed report of his late speech. Here it is: ‘No man can vindicate the character, motives and conduct of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, except upon the hypothesis that they referred to the white race alone, and not to the African, when they declared all men to have been created equal – that they were speaking of British subjects on this continent being equal to British subjects born and residing in Great Britain – that they were entitled to the same inalienable rights, and among them were enumerated life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration was adopted for the purpose of justifying the colonists in the eyes of the civilized world in withdrawing their allegiance from the British crown, and dissolving their connection with the mother country.’ My good friends, read that carefully over some leisure hour, and ponder well upon it – see what a mere wreck – mangled ruin – it makes of our once glorious Declaration. ‘They were speaking of British subjects on this continent being equal to British subjects born and residing in Great Britain!’ Why according to this, not only negroes but white people outside of Great Britain and America are not spoken of in that instrument. The English, Irish and Scotch, along with white Americans, were included to be sure, but the French, Germans and other white people of the world are all gone to pot along with the Judge’s inferior races. I had thought the Declaration promised something better than the condition of British subjects; but no, it only meant that we should be equal to them in their own oppressed and unequal condition. According to that, it gave no promise that having kicked off the King and Lords of Great Britain, we should not at once be saddled with a King and lords of our own. I had thought the Declaration contemplated the progressive improvement in the condition of all men everywhere; but no, it merely ‘was adopted for the purpose of justifying the colonists in the eyes of the civilized world in withdrawing their allegiance from the British crown, and dissolving their connection with the mother country.’ Why, that object having been effected some eighty years ago, the Declaration is of no practical use now – mere rubbish – old wadding left to rot on the battle-field after the victory is won. I understand you are preparing to celebrate the ‘Fourth,’ tomorrow week. What for? The doings of that day had no reference to the present; and quite half of you are not even descendants of those who were referred to at that day. But I suppose you will celebrate; and will even go so far as to read the Declaration. Suppose after you read it once in the old fashioned way, you read it once more with Judge Douglas’ version. It will then run thus: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident that all British subjects who were on this continent eighty-one years ago, were created equal to all British subjects born and then residing in Great Britain.’ And now I appeal to all – to Democrats as well as others, – are you really willing that the Declaration shall be thus frittered away?– thus left no more at most, than an interesting memorial of the dead past? thus shorn of vitality, and practical value; and left without the germ or even the suggestion of the individual rights of man in it? But Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: agreed for once – a thousand times agreed. There are white men enough to marry all the white women, and black men enough to marry all the black women; and so let them be married. On this point we fully agreed with the Judge; and when he shall show that his policy is better adapted to prevent amalgamation than ours we shall drop ours, and adopt his. Let us see. In 1840 there were in the Untied States, 405,751, mulattoes. Very few of these are the offspring of white and free blacks; nearly all have sprung from black slaves and white masters. A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation but as an immediate separation is impossible the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas. That is at least one self-evident truth. A few free colored persons may get into the free States, in any event, but their number is too insignificant to amount to much in the way of mixing blood. In 1850 there were in the free states, 56,649 mulattoes; but for the most part they were not born there – they came from the slave States, ready made up. In the same year the slave States had 348,874 mulattoes all of home production. The proportion of free mulattoes to free blacks – the only colored classes in the free states — is much greater in the slave than the free states. It is worthy of note too, that among the free states those which make the colored man the nearest to equal the white, have, proportionably the fewest mulattoes the least of amalgamation. In New Hampshire, the State which goes farthest towards equality between the races, there are just 184 Mulattoes while there are in Virginia– how many do you think? 79,775, being 23,126 more than in all the free States together. These statistics show that slavery is the great source of amalgamation; and next to it, not the elevation, but the degeneration of the free blacks. Yet Judge Douglas dreads the slightest restraints on the spread of slavery, and the slightest human recognition of the negro, as tending horribly to amalgamation. This very Dred Scott case afford a strong test as to which party most favors amalgamation, the Republicans or the dear Union-saving Democracy. Dred Scott, his wife and two daughters were all involved in the suit. We desired the court to have held that they were citizens so far at least as to entitle them to a hearing as to whether they were free or not; and then, also, that they were in fact and in law really free. Could we have had our way, the chances of these black girls, ever mixing their blood with that of white people, would have been diminished at least to the extent that it could not have been without their consent. But Judge Douglas is delighted to have them decided to be slaves, and not human enough to have a hearing, even if they were free, and thus left subject to the forced concubinage of their masters, and liable to become the mothers of mulattoes in spite of themselves– the very state of case that produces the nine tenths of all the mulattoes – all the mixing of blood in the nation. Of course, I state this case as an illustration only, not meaning to say or intimate that the master of Dred Scott t and his family, or any more than a per centage of masters generally, are inclined to exercise this particular power which they hold over their female slaves. I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform – opposition to the spread of slavery – is most favorable to that separation. Such separation, is ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization; and no political party, as such, is now doing anything directly for colonization. Party operations at present only favor or retard colonization incidentally. The enterprise is a difficult one; but ‘when there is a will there is a way;’ and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be. The children of Israel, to such numbers as to include four hundred thousand fighting men, went out of Egyptian bondage in a body. How differently the respective courses of the Democratic and Republican parties incidentally bear on the question of forming a will – a public sentiment – for colonization, is easy to see. The Republicans inculcate, with whatever of ability they can, that the negro is a man; that his bondage is cruelly wrong, and that the field of his oppression ought not to be enlarged. The Democrats deny his manhood; deny, or dwarf to insignificance, the wrong of his bondage; so far as possible, crush all sympathy for him, and cultivate and excite hatred and disgust against him; compliment themselves as Union-savers for doing so; and call the indefinite outspreading of his bondage ‘a sacred right of self-government.’ The plainest print cannot be read through a gold eagle; and it will be ever hard to find many men who will send a slave to Liberia, and pay his passage while they can send him to a new country, Kansas for instance, and sell him for fifteen hundred dollars, and the rise. Source: http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/pre-civil-war/dred-scott/speech-at-springfield-june-26-1857/

Taxes Khaldun’s Curve, Non Negotium, and the 76 Exemption By Mark Shubert This essay tackles the question of taxation and suggests a dynamic tax code based on total tax revenue. First is the issue of how to view taxation in general. This paper only covers taxation or government revenue and not the issue of expenditures which is usually brought up in this discussion; expenditures only complicates an already complicated topic and since people disagree more about expenditures that tends to get in the way of people agreeing on a sound tax policy. To further simplify this topic the main prescriptions made will be in regards to the Federal Income Tax, but the same reasoning can apply to all types of taxes. There is an opinion on the left that views higher taxes as a necessity and even a noble goal. They want to raise taxes for the sake of raising taxes under the presumption that it will disproportionately affect the bourgeoisie or capitalist class which will then be spent on the general welfare. There is an opinion on the right that views lowering taxes as a necessity and even a noble goal. They want to lower taxes for the sake of lowering taxes under the presumption that it will raise the water for all boats, so to speak, which will then increase the general welfare. These two opinions view raising or lowering taxes as the focal point or end goal which could then be used to reach the intended end of increasing the general welfare. This leads to the first exhortation of the essay. That raising or lowering the tax rate should not be the main perspective on this issue but instead the maximization of total tax revenue or TTR should be the main consideration. Increasing the tax rate may increase or decrease TTR and decreasing the tax rate may increase or decrease TTR. The point is that simply increasing or decreasing the tax rate may or may not have its intended outcome. This concept is best illustrated by the Khaldun Curve also known as Laffer's Curve. There is a certain tax rate that maximizes TTR and that should be the goal of tax policy, not the aforementioned opinions. This goal should exist especially when there is a deficit but even in general since it can maximize the amount of money the state can invest in infrastructure that businesses on their own can't afford even if their corporate taxes were lower. The issue is that we do not know for certain which tax rate maximizes TTR and there are many variables that obfuscate its discovery. It is reasonable to address those variables in short. The main variables that get in the way are the policies that make taxes inegalitarian. These include tax deductions, exemptions and subsidies. If a wide range of successful companies or individuals don't have to pay taxes, or can get away with decreasing the tax rate they are bound to pay, then that will affect which rates increase or decrease TTR. The second exhortation is to abolish these variables as much as possible in order to have a more egalitarian tax program and to better observe the effectiveness of certain tax policies with less variables getting in the way. Besides, the existence of tax exemptions is just the freeloader problem and it puts the tax burden on other people. A quick analogy. Say there are ten people who make the same income of $100 each and there is a government budget of $100 and the government is fiscally responsible so no deficit spending. In a fair and egalitarian society each person would be taxed $10 or 10% of their income. If one of the people gets an exemption simply because they are religious or a non-profit, then they are not taxed $10. The budget is still the same $100 but now there are only nine people taxed and they are taxed $11.11 or 11.11% of their income. This has now created an inequality, since that one person who no longer pays taxes has more money than everyone else after taxes are collected. This person now has the incentive to lobby the government to increase the budget and in turn increase taxes on everyone else since they benefit from more government spending and don’t have to contribute; this person also now has more money that they can use to have a higher standard of living or to invest that extra money to make even more money than what is possible for everyone else. This idea that no establishment or industry or individual should receive benefits such as exemptions and deductions to taxes is a piece to what I call Non Negotium or the separation between business and state. This will not only create a fair tax code which will spread out the tax burden but it will also decrease spending and therefore the need for taxes for everyone, but let's not get bogged down talking about expenditures! There is just one exemption to this rule and that is the 76 exemption. This is the idea that income of $76,000 or less should not be taxed. This $76,000 is the buying power at October 1, 2019 (the start of the fiscal year of 2020), and inflation since then should be taken into consideration, so the $76,000 is the real value at that time not a fixed amount. The more inflation there is with no increase in wages means that less people have to pay taxes, which would encourage the government to have low inflation in order to tax more. The tax brackets would start at $76,000.01. The idea behind this is to help Americans get off their feet and could decrease spending by decreasing the necessity of government programs if the average American has more money at the end of the year. The cost of paying taxes, for the average American, both mentally and fiscally, outweighs the benefits of government programs designed to alleviate the lack of money people have. Why tax the average American when the government spends that taxed income on fulfilling the needs of the very same Americans who cannot fulfill their own needs because they don't have money because they are taxed? If someone made $76,000 in 2021 then they paid $12,468.50 ($76,000 is in the third tax bracket so a 22% tax on income above $40,525 up to $76,000, which means that 35,475 is taxed at 22% which equals $7,804.5 plus $4,664 from the first two brackets equals a total income tax of $12,468.50) in income tax alone which is a huge chunk of money, nearly 16.5% of their income. Besides, the money that won't be taxed directly from the average American will be taxed indirectly because they will spend that money which will trickle up to businesses and wealthier people who are taxed. An idea like trickle down economics but instead reversed so its trickle up economics. Clearing up these variables leads to the third exhortation where we experiment to find the point of maximizing TTR. We need to have brackets that are more numerous and clear on what they represent. In 2021, for single filers there were seven brackets each representing a fixed amount and each having a tax rate from 10% to 37%. Whatever the number of brackets we choose and whatever they represent, we need to do the following to find the point of maximizing TTR. In the first year of this tax policy, all brackets could be set to the same tax rate, I know this would make the flat tax supporters really happy. For simplicity let’s have the first year tax rate be 10%. This will be our control year. Then for the next year we increase the tax rate by 10% of the tax rate. That means that the second year tax rate will be 11% since 10% of 10% is 1% and that is how much we will be increasing. Then we compare both years and see which brackets increased and which decreased TTR. The brackets where increasing the tax rate ended up increasing TTR are the brackets where we continue increasing the tax rate by 10% so those brackets would be taxed 12.1% (11% plus 1.1% or 10% of 11%) for the third year. The brackets where increasing the tax rate ended up decreasing TTR are the brackets where we decrease the tax rate to the same as the previous year for the third year and for the fourth year we decrease them further by 10% until the TTR starts to decrease. In short, for each bracket we increase the tax rate until TTR starts to decrease. When TTR starts to decrease that is when we start to decrease the tax rate for TTR to increase until the TTR starts to decrease again and repeat. This dynamic tax system will eventually get as close to the point of maximizing TTR as possible. In summation: tax policy should be based on maximizing total tax revenue (Khaldun’s/Laffer's Curve), instead of a righteous belief in increasing or decreasing taxes for the sake of increasing or decreasing taxes; everyone should pay taxes and no individual or establishment should be given deductions, exemptions, or subsidies, in order to spread the tax burden and know the true effects a tax rate has on a given bracket of income; the average American should not have to pay federal income tax so income at $76,000 or below should not be taxed. The issue of maximizing total tax revenue is necessary when the state has a deficit and or a debt. The brackets should be more numerous and clear on what they are taxing and the rates should fluctuate steadily until they get close to the point of maximizing total tax revenue. For you economists out there, this Tax Curve that I am proposing is not the same as Khaldun'/Laffer's Curve in two main ways. Firstly, Laffer proposed a single tax rate for everyone while I am proposing we increase the number of income brackets where each one will have its own tax rate. This is because different brackets will be affected by different rates so it is naïve to assume that a single tax rate will maximize TTR for each bracket. Secondly, Laffer proposed a static tax rate, he believed that there was just one rate that maximizes TTR. I do not believe that the point that maximizes TTR is static since income and spending changes year over year. I hope I gave a convincing argument and decent reasons as to why our tax policy should be determined by dynamic tax calculation - I haven't thought of a name for it - let me know what you all think!

May 10, 1773, British Parliament An act to allow a drawback of the duties of customs on the exportation of tea to any of his Majesty's colonies or plantations in America; to increase the deposit on bohea tea to be sold at the India Company's sales; and to impower the commissioners of the treasury to grant licences to the East India Company to export tea duty-free. WHEREAS by an act, made in the twelfth year of his present Majesty's reign, (intituled, An act for granting a drawback of part of the customs upon the exportation of tea to Ireland, and the British dominions in America; for altering the drawback upon foreign sugars exported from Great Britain to Ireland; for continuing the bounty on the exportation of British-made cordage; for allowing the importation of rice from the British plantations into the ports of Bristol, Liverpoole, Lancaster, and Whitehaven, for immediate exportation to foreign parts; and to impower the chief magistrate of any corporation to administer the oath, and grant the certificate required by law, upon the removal of certain goods to London, which have been sent into the country for sale;) it is amongst other things, enacted, That for and during the space of five years, to be computed from and after the fifth day of July, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-two, there shall be drawn back and allowed for all teas which shall be sold after the said fifth day of July, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-two, at the publick sale of the united company of merchants of England trading to the East Indies, or which after that time shall be imported, by licence, in pursuance of the said therein and hereinafter mentioned act, made in the eighteenth year of the reign of his late majesty King George the Second, and which shall be exported from this kingdom, as merchandise, to Ireland, or any of the British colonies or plantations in America, three-fifth parts of the several duties of customs which were paid upon the importation of such teas; which drawback or allowance, with respect to such teas as shall be exported to Ireland, shall be made to the exporter, in such manner, and under such rules, regulations, securities, penalties, and forfeitures, as any drawback or allowance was then payable, out of the duty of customs upon the exportation of foreign goods to Ireland; and with respect to such teas as shall be exported to the British colonies and plantations in America, the said dreawback or allowance shall be made in such manner, and under such rules, regulations, penalties, and forfeitures, as any drawback or allowance payable out of the duty of customs upon foreign goods exported to foreign parts, was could, or might be made, before the passing of the said act of the twelfth year of his present Majesty's reign, (except in such cases as are otherwise therein provided for:) and whereas it may tend to the benefit and advantage of the trade of the said united company of merchants of England trading to the East Indies, if the allowance of the drawback of the duties of customs upon all teas sold at the publick sales of the said united company, after the tenth day of May, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-three, and which shall be exported from this kingdom, as merchandise, to any of the British colonies or plantations in America, were to extend to the whole of the said duties of customs payable upon the importation of such teas; may it therefore please your Majesty that it may be enacted; and be it enacted by the King's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, That there shall be drawn back and allowed for all teas, which, from and after the tenth day of May, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-three, shall be sold at the publick sales of the said united company, or which shall be imported by licence, in pursuance of the said act made in the eighteenth year of the reign of his late majesty King George the Second, and which shall, at any time hereafter, be exported from this kingdom, as merchandise, to any of the British colonies or plantations in America, the whole of the duties of customs payable upon the importation of such teas; which drawback or allowance shall be made to the exporter in such manner, and under such rules, regulations, and securities, and subject to the like penalties and forfeitures, as the former drawback or allowance granted by the said recited act of the twelfth year of his present Majesty's reign, upon tea exported to the said British colonies and plantations in America was, might, or could be made, and was subject to by the said recited act, or any other act of parliament now in force, in as full and ample manner, to all intents and purposes, as if the several clauses relative thereto were again repeated and re-enacted in this present act. And whereas by one other act made in the eighteenth year of the reign of his late majesty King George the Second, (intituled, An act for repealing the present inland duty of four shillings per pound weight upon all tea sold in Great Britain; and for granting to his Majesty certain other inland duties in lieu thereof; and for better securing the duty upon tea, and other duties of excise; and for pursuing offenders out of one county into another,) it is, amongst other things, enacted, That every person who shall, at any publick sale of tea made by the united company of merchants of England trading to the East Indies, be declared to be the best bidder for any lot or lots of tea, shall, within three days after being so declared the best bidder or bidders for the same, deposit with the said united company, or such clerk or officer as the said company shall appoint to receive the same, forty shillings for every tub and for every chest of tea; and in case any such person or persons shall refuse or neglect to make such deposit within the time before limited, he, she, or they, shall forfeit and lose six times the value of such deposit directed to be made as aforesaid, to be recovered by action of debt, bill, plaint, or information, in any of his Majesty's courts of record at Westminster, in which no essoin, protection, or wager of law, or more than one imparlance, shall be allowed; one moiety of which forfeiture shall go to his Majesty, his heirs and successors, and the other moiety to such person as shall sue or prosecute for the same; and the sale of all teas, for which such deposit shall be neglected to be made as aforesaid, is thereby declared to be null and void, and such teas shall be again put up by the said united company to publick sale, within fourteen days after the end of the sale of teas at which such teas were sold; and all and every buyer or buyers, who shall have neglected to make such deposit as aforesaid, shall be, and is and are thereby rendered incapable of bidding for or buying any teas at any future publick sale of the said united company: and whereas it is found to be expedient and necessary to increase the deposit to be made by any bidder or bidders for any lot or lots of bohea teas, at the publick sales of teas to be made by the said united company; be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That every person who shall, after the tenth day of May, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-three, at any publick sale of tea to be made by the said united company of merchants of England trading to the East Indies, be declared to be the best bidder or bidders for any lot or lots of bohea tea, shall, within three days after being so declared the best bidder or bidders for the same, deposit with the said united company, or such clerk or officer as the said united company shall appoint to receive the same, four pounds of lawful money of Great Britain for every tub and for every chest of bohea tea, under the same terms and conditions, and subject to the same forfeitures, penalties, and regulations, as are mentioned and contained in the said recited act of the eighteenth year of the reign of his said late Majesty. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That it shall and may be lawful for the commissioners of his Majesty's treasury, or any three or more of them, or for the high treasurer for the time being, upon application made to them by the said united company of merchants of England trading to the East Indies for that purpose, to grant a licence or licences to the said united company, to take out of their warehouses, without the same having been put up to sale, and to export to any of the British plantations in America, or to any parts beyond the seas, such quantity or quantities of tea as the said commissioners of his Majesty's treasury, or any three or more of them, or the high treasurer for the time being, shall think proper and expedient, without incurring any penalty or forfeiture for so doing; any thing in the said in part recited act, or any other law, to the contrary notwithstanding. And whereas by an act made in the ninth and tenth years of the reign of King William the Third, (intituled, An act for raising a sum not exceeding two millions, upon a fund, for payment of annuities, after the rate of eight pounds per centum per annum; and for settling the trade to the East Indies,) and by several other acts of parliament which are now in force, the said united company of merchants of England trading to the East Indies are obliged to give security, under their common seal, for payment of the duties of customs upon all unrated goods imported by them, so soon as the same shall be sold; and for exposing such goods to sale, openly and fairly, by way of auction, or by inch of candle, within the space of three years from the importation thereof: and whereas it is expedient that some provision should be made to permit the said company, in certain cases, to export tea, on their own account, to the British plantations in America, or to foreign parts, without exposing such tea, to sale here, or being charged with the payment of any duty for the same; be it therefore enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after the passing of this act, it shall and may be lawful for the commissioners of his Majesty's treasury, or any three or more of them, or the high treasurer for the time being, to grant a licence or quantity of licences to the said united company, to take out of their warehouses such quantity or quantities of tea as the said commissioners of the treasury, or any three or more of them, or the high treasurer for the time being, shall think proper, without the same having been exposed to sale in this kingdom; and to export such tea to any of the British colonies or plantations in America, or to foreign parts, discharged from the payment of any customs or duties whatsoever; any thing in the said recited act, or any other act to the contrary notwithstanding. Provided always, and it is hereby further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That a due entry shall be made at the custom-house, of all such tea so exported by licence, as aforesaid, expressing the quantities thereof, at what time imported, and by what ship; and such tea shall be shipped for exportation by the proper officer for that purpose, and shall, in all other respects, not altered by this act, be liable to the same rules, regulations, restrictions, securities, penalties, and forfeitures, as tea penalties, &c. exported to the like places was liable to before the passing this act: and upon the proper officer's duty, certifying the shipping of such tea to the collector and comptroller of his Majesty's customs for the port of London, upon the back of the licence, and the exportation thereof, verified by the oath of the husband or agent for the said united company, to be wrote at the bottom of such certificate, and sworn before the said collector and comptroller of the customs, (which oath they are hereby impowered to administer,) it shall and may be lawful for such collector and comptroller to write off and discharge the quantity of tea so exported from the warrant of the respective ship in which such tea was imported. Provided nevertheless, That no such licence shall be granted, unless it shall first be made to appear to the satisfaction of the commissioners of his Majesty's treasury, or any three or more of them, or the high treasurer for the time being, that at the time of taking out such teas, for the exportation of which licence or licences shall be granted, there will be left remaining in the warehouses of the said united company, a quantity of tea not less than ten millions of pounds weight; any thing herein, or in any other act of parliament, contained to the contrary thereof notwithstanding. Source: https://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/teaact.html

Martkos Terentilius Tarpeia Preamble For some reason many historians and American political theorists leave out the state constitutions that existed prior to the Philadelphia Convention when researching the federal Constitution. This is an academic error given that many of the delegates to the National Constitutional Convention participated in their respective State Constitutional Conventions. The essential experience and all of the political concepts of statecraft which the national delegates implemented into the federal Constitution can be seen in those state conventions. Their abilities to disquisition, to discuss, and to deliberate, developed from their prior experiences were instituted into the Constitution which means leaving out those state constitutions in your study will leave a serious gap in your knowledge on the subject. There were eleven state constitutions active among the several states that influenced the National Constitutional Convention of 1787. Each constitution is summarized and organized into three parts: The first part covers the constitution’s preamble, if there is one; the second part describes the state governmental structure; the third part describes the relationship between the government and the people mainly through a Bill of Rights, if there is one. The preamble sections are a piece of the overall picture to understand the intent of each document. The structure-of-the-government sections describe the offices, separation of powers, checks and balances, authorities, and terms within the state governments. The relationship-between-the-Government-and-people sections describe the rights of individuals, whether or not slavery was legal and how it was regulated, and who had suffrage explicitly protected. The primary sources are the official constitutions created and ratified by each of the states respectively. Eleven of the thirteen states wrote their constitution after King George III declared war on the rebellious colonies in August of 1775. The first State to write its constitution was the State of New Hampshire on January 5, 1776, and the last State to ratify its own constitution by 1787 was Massachusetts in 1780. Two of the thirteen states were still using their royal charters as their constitutions. Connecticut was using its 1662 Royal Charter and did not write its constitution until 1818. Rhode Island was using its 1663 Royal Charter and did not write its constitution until 1843. This paper leaves out the two states that had Royal Charters since this paper compares the constitutions that the states made and how the delegates of those conventions were impacted by that experience when writing the U.S. Constitution in 1787; any state constitution before 1776 and after 1787 is not included. By 1787, two of the states were already on their second (post 1775) constitutions. South Carolina in 1778 and New Hampshire in 1784. These second constitutions are in this paper and not the first ones since these constitutions influenced the Philadelphia Convention more so than their predecessors. For example, New Hampshire's first constitution proclaimed continued loyalty to the British monarch that will "never" break in its preamble. That "never" lasted six months as the State joined the others in declaring independence. Because of this, the first constitution of New Hampshire will not be looked at in this paper since the people held back their authentic design of a self-governing State in order to placate a monarch, while their second constitution is more faithful to the State's idea of a proper government. The exact state constitutions included are Virginia's, New Jersey's, Delaware's, Pennsylvania's, Maryland's, North Carolina's all of 1776, Georgia's and New York's of 1777, South Carolina's of 1778, Massachusetts' of 1780, and New Hampshire's of 1784. The states of Virginia and Delaware wrote their Bill of Rights in a separate document but still was part of their constitutions, so they are included; other states have their Bill of Rights enumerated in their constitution directly; some, like Georgia and South Carolina, don't even have a Bill of Rights but do have some individual rights recognized throughout their constitutions. As mentioned earlier, each state constitution is divided into three parts: preamble, structure, and bill of rights. These state constitutions will be compared to the U.S. Constitution to show what was common among the states and what was enumerated into the federal constitution. Only one of these state constitutions is still in effect today, that being the constitution of Massachusetts of 1780, which is older than the federal constitution. Virginia’s Constitution June 29, 1776 Virginia's Declaration of Rights June 12, 1776 Preamble Virginia’s preamble begins with a declaration of independence from Great Britain with a list of repeated injuries similar to that of the Declaration of Independence (hint: Thomas Jefferson was from Virginia). The preamble ends with: We therefore, the delegates and representatives of the good people of Virginia, having maturely considered the premises, and viewing with great concern the deplorable conditions to which this once happy country must be reduced, unless some regular, adequate mode of civil polity is speedily adopted, and in compliance with a recommendation of the general Congress, do ordain and declare the future form of government of Virginia to be as followeth: The preamble to Virginia’s Declaration of Rights includes the following assertion, “…which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government.” To Virginia, certain individual rights were viewed as necessary to a properly regulated government which rights are listed in the Bill of Rights section. Structure of Government Virginia established a trilateral government composed of a bicameral legislature, an executive and Council, and a supreme court. The Legislature is called the General Assembly, which comprises a House of Delegates and a Senate. For delegates, there are two per county and one for cities with large populations. Delegates are annually elected by the men, who are 21 years old, who own property and are residents of the county they vote in. The requirements to be a delegate include being a man, a resident of the county they are running in, 25 years old, and owning land. The power of the House of Delegates includes electing their speakers, appointing officers, creating procedures, filling vacancies, beginning all bills, approving or rejecting the Senate's amendments, and impeaching the governor or judges. The Senate consists of 24 members, one from each district. The terms are four years with a rotation of ¼ of the Senate annually. The electors and requirements are the same as the delegates. The power of the Senate consists of electing a speaker, appointing officers, creating procedures, filling vacancies, and rejecting house bills or amending them with the consent of the house except for money bills which can only be rejected not amended by the Senate. Joint power includes appointing treasurers and secretaries. Executive power resides in a governor, a lieutenant governor who will act as president of the Council, and an executive council. The general assembly annually elects the governor for no more than three consecutive terms and afterward has to wait another four years. The general assembly determines requirements. The governor's power includes granting pardons unless prosecuted by the General Assembly, calling the assembly to meet, appointing military officers and holding military courts, and is the commander in chief in times of war. Council of State, or Privy Council, is made of 8 members, with an annual rotation of two members elected by the General Assembly. They also appoint a state secretary and approve county sheriffs and coroners. The power of the Council includes electing its president, who is also the lieutenant governor. Judicial power resides in the courts, with a supreme court as the highest court of appeals. Both houses appoint all levels of judges, from county courts to the supreme court. Terms are for life on good behavior. Their power includes appointing county constables. Notable mentions are that oaths are not mentioned, no establishment of religion, no holding multiple offices are mentioned, slavery is not mentioned, an amending process is not mentioned. Bill of rights Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; Government of and by the people; right to reform; no titles of nobility; regular elections; right of suffrage depends on land ownership, and so no property taxes since property taxes threatens ownership; no one in office can prevent the law from being enforced; fair trial, cause, accusers, witnesses, evidence, speedy, jury, no self-incrimination; no excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishments; no unwarranted searches and seizures; in cases regarding property (slaves) there will be a trial by jury (of the white men "victim"); freedom of the press; maintain a well-regulated militia, but no standing armies; county governments should be of uniform structure; lastly, freedom of religion. New Jersey’s Constitution July 2, 1776 Preamble New Jersey’s preamble asserted that the authority of kings is derived from the people for the interest of the entire society. Since the current king was not interested in the entire society but only interested in enforcing his and his Parliament’s dominion, that is just cause for the subjugated people to secede from British despotism. The key principle is reciprocity which is needed to maintain society, “allegiance and protection are, in the nature of things, reciprocal ties; each equally depending upon the other, and liable to be dissolved by the others being refused or withdrawn.” A constitution was necessary to organize and unite the people of the newly freed state for their common defense against an enemy which seeks to subjugate them. Structure of Government Bilateral with a bicameral legislature and a governor. The Legislature consisted of the general assembly and legislative Council. The general assembly was made up of 3 members per county, annually elected, and must be free, resident of their county, own property in the county, and be valued at 500 pounds. Electors will be men and women who are, 21 years old, valued at 50 pounds, property owner, and resident of the county they vote in. The power of the general assembly consisted of electing a speaker, appointing necessary officers, and proposing bills and starting money bills that cannot be rejected or altered by the legislative Council. The Legislative Council consisted of one member from each county, annually elected by the same voters as the general assembly. Legislative councilors required that they be free, a resident of the county, worth 1,000 pounds, and own property in the county. The legislative Council's power included proposing bills and electing a vice president. Joint legislative power includes passing laws with a majority of each house, can change the number of assembly members but no less than 39, appointing generals and other high-ranking officers, and appointing the state treasurer annually. Executive power was held by the governor, who was annually elected by both houses, and the requirements to become governor were the same as the legislative Council. There is no second in command, and any vacancy resulted in a special election. The governor's power included convening the Legislature, being president of the Legislative Council and could cast votes in the legislative Council, being the commander in chief of the state militia, and counseled by three or more councilors. No executive council is mentioned. Judicial power was put into two high courts, the high court of appeals, which was made up of the governor and seven legislative councilors where pardons were granted, and a Supreme Court which was in charge of all other lower courts and had terms of seven years while lower court justices had terms of five years, all appointed by the governor and approved by the general assembly. Notable mentions include oaths, no established religion, no holding multiple offices, sheriffs and coroners were annually elected by the counties with three consecutive terms allowed. Slavery is not mentioned. An amending process is not mentioned. Bill of Rights A Bill of Rights is not included, but some rights are added throughout the constitution; The rights to address witnesses and to legal counsel; the property of the deceased goes to heirs, not the State; freedom of religion, freedom from religion, no religious taxes, no public funds to build or repair churches, or for ministry; no religious tests; restrictions on corruption, no person in any public office can be seated in the assembly; rights of trial by jury which will not be repealed ever. Delaware’s Constitution September 10, 1776 Delaware’s Declaration of Rights September 11, 1776 Preamble Delaware’s preamble just says that the freemen of the state chose the delegates for the purpose of establishing a system of government. No preamble for their declaration of rights. Structure of Government Trilateral but with lots of overlapping offices between branches despite declaring a separation of powers. The legislative branch is called the general assembly, bicameral with a House Assembly and a legislative council. The House Assembly consisted of seven annually elected members from each county; the electors and requirements for this house included freeholders, property owners who had no debt on the property they owned. The power of this house includes electing a speaker, and necessary officers, setting procedures, filling vacancies, and impeaching members; all money bills start here, will act as vice president, adjourn themselves, elect 24 justices of the peace for each county serving for seven years, impeaches the president once out of office, appoints the attorney general. The Legislative Council consisted of nine triennially elected members, three from each county, with a rotation of three every year. The electors and requirements for councilors included being freeholders and above the age of 25. The power of the legislative Council included electing a speaker and necessary officers, setting procedures, filling vacancies and impeaching members, can amend or reject money bills, acting as vice president, and adjourning themselves. Joint power included overturning county court decisions, appointing generals and other high ranking officers Executive power resides in the president, no second in command is mentioned, but there is an executive council, not to be confused with the legislative Council. The term for president is three years, and the electors will be both houses of the general assembly. The president's power included requesting funds, laying temporary embargoes, granting pardons to convicts, not from the general assembly, can call privy council meetings, will act as commander in chief with the privy council, convening the general assembly, with the privy council appointing secretary. Other state officers with terms of 5 years appoint 12 justices of the peace for each county serving for seven years, appoint low ranking officers not appointed by the Legislature, fill vacancies. The executive Council or Privy Council was made up of four members with terms of four years with a rotation of two members every two years. Each house will elect two members, and the rotation will include one member who was elected by each house. The powers of the Executive Council included appointing sheriffs and coroners annually to each county. Judicial power resides in courts, and the highest court of appeal was made up of seven members, including the president, three legislative councilors, and three house assembly members, with the state secretary as the clerk. County courts had three members plus a chief justice, elected by the president and general assembly. Terms for justices were lifelong on good behavior. The county courts could appoint their clerks and other necessary officers. Notable mentions include oaths that required the recognition of Jesus and God, no establishment of religion, no holding multiple offices including religious ministers, no one can be armed near the elections, no one who entered the State after the constitution was ratified can be a slave, but those already born or brought before can remain a slave, there was an amending process. Bill of Rights Government of the people; freedom of and from religion; that all persons professing the Christian religion ought forever to enjoy equal rights and privileges in this state, unless, under color of religion, any man disturb the peace, the happiness or safety of society; equal treatment of citizens; right for the people to rebel or reform and start a new government; property owners have a right to vote and participate in the government; that no power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, ought to be exercised unless by the Legislature; that for redress of grievances, and for amending and strengthening of the laws, the Legislature ought to be frequently convened; that every man hath a right to petition the Legislature for the redress of grievances in a peaceable and orderly manner; that every member of society hath a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, and therefore is bound to contribute his proportion towards the expense of that protection, and yield his personal service when necessary, or an equivalent thereto; but no part of a man’s property can be justly taken from him or applied to public uses without his own consent or that of his legal Representatives: Nor can any man that is conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms in any case be justly compelled thereto if he will pay such equivalent; that retrospective laws, punishing offenses committed before the existence of such laws, are oppressive and unjust, and ought not to be made; that every freeman for every injury done him in his goods, lands or person, by any other person, ought to have remedy by the course of the law of the land, and ought to have justice and right for the injury done to him freely without sale, fully without any denial, and speedily without delay, according to the law of the land; that trial by jury of facts where they arise is one of the greatest securities of the lives, liberties and estates of the people; that in all prosecutions for criminal offenses, every man hath a right to be informed of the accusation against him, to be allowed counsel, to be confronted with the accusers or witnesses, to examine evidence on oath in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury, without whose unanimous consent he ought not to be found guilty; that no man in the courts of Common Law ought to be compelled to give evidence against himself; that excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted; that all warrants without oath to search suspected places, or to seize any person or his property, are grievous and oppressive; and all general warrants to search suspected, or to apprehend all persons suspected, without naming or describing the place or any person in special, are illegal and ought not to be granted; that a well regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free government; that standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised or kept up without the consent of the Legislature; that in all cases and at all times the military ought to be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power; that no soldier ought to be quartered in any house in time of peace without the consent of the owner; and in time of war in such manner only as the Legislature shall direct; that the independency and uprightness of judges are essential to the impartial administration of justice, and a great security to the rights and liberties of the people; that the liberty of the press ought to be inviolably preserved. Pennsylvania’s Constitution September 28, 1776 Preamble The preamble begins with the purpose of government being “instituted and supported for the security and protection of the community…enable the individuals… to enjoy their natural rights…” When the government fails at this trust then the people have a right with common consent to change it through any means necessary to promote their safety and happiness. This commonwealth pledged allegiance with the British monarch for its protection and since that monarch has withdrawn that protection to declare a tyrannical war of subjugation in favor of the despotic Parliament; the colony therefore dissolves its fealty and assumes back the legitimate authority once granted to the British government. All colonies, for their welfare and safety, ought to be free and independent states founded on proper forms of government derived from and founded on the authority of the people only. The representatives of Pennsylvania created this constitution by common consent, without violence, and with deliberateness to form a government for the happiness of the people, their posterity, and to provide the means for future improvements without partiality to a particular class, sect, or denomination. Structure of Government Bilateral government with a unicameral legislature and an executive with a council. The Legislature is called the Assembly of Representatives, which is made up of annually elected members, six per county, including Philadelphia; any more is based on population. Census every seven years. Term limits of four out of seven years. The electors will be those over the age of 21, tax paying and owning property, and their sons over the age of 21 but not owning property or paying taxes can still vote. Requirements include being a resident of the county they are elected in. The power of the assembly included choosing a speaker, treasurer, and other necessary offices, making rules of proceedings, making bills and laws, impeaching members, no double jeopardy for the exact cause in the same session, swearing oaths for witnesses, redress grievances, granting charters for towns, boroughs, cities, and counties, but no altering, adding, or infringing any part of this constitution. Executive power resided in a president, vice president, and Council. The president and vice president have one-year terms, elected by the assembly and Council, and the electors made the requirements. The powers of the president included appointing judges, officers both military and civil, appointing a secretary, preparing for war, sitting as judges in the supreme court, granting pardons, calling funds and temporary embargoes, can call the assembly but not adjourn them, and will act as commander in chief of militia forces, but cannot command in person. The Executive Council consisted of 12 members, one for each county, with three years with a rotation of 1/3rd per year and a four-year gap between terms. Judicial power is not on the State but instead the county level where the assembly appoints justices with seven years. Notable mentions include oaths that have to recognize God, no mention of establishing a religion, no holding multiple offices, all men were trained for military service, and the militiamen elect low ranking officers. The county voters elect sheriff's coroners. No mention of slavery. No mention of an amending process. Proceedings will be posted publicly weekly. All bills will be open to the public before voting to ratify the bill into law, except in times of emergency. Every office can be impeached during or after. Bill of rights Equality of rights, life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness; freedom of and from religion; citizens of the State have the right to regulate the state government; power comes from the people and therefore officers are trustees and servants; self interest of an individual or few is illegitimate governing; right to recall officers or representatives or re-election; free elections, property owners will have suffrage and the right to run for office; right to life, liberty, property, and has to contribute to the protection of those rights, but with their consent nor those who are morally against taking up arms should be forced to; right to counsel, cause, witnesses, evidence, speedy, public trials, by an impartial jury, unanimity, no self incrimination, nor deprived of their liberty except by law and peers; no illegal searches and seizures; cases of property, or between two people, should be trials by jury; free speech, press; right to bear arms, no standing armies and civilian controlled military; the people ought to voice their concerns all the time; right to emigrate; right of assembly, petition or advise their representatives a redress of grievances; trial by jury; excessive bail shall not be exacted for bailable offenses: And all fines shall be moderate; elections will be by ballot, accessible, and voluntary. No bribery of voters, and if any is caught, their vote will be forfeit, and anyone running for office trying to bribe a voter will be removed from the ballot; freedom of the press to print proceedings of the Legislature; everyone ought to have a job that can provide him necessary wages, and if the Government requires a person to serve to take him away from his profession, he shall be compensated, and any position with high salaries that encourages men to run for office just for those high salaries, the Legislature will decrease the salaries; punishments will be proportional to the crime; for minor crimes, the punishment should be manual labor, not imprisonment, as reparations to the public; no taxes will be imposed, unless approved by the Legislature and after it has been presented to the people; immigrants who swear an oath to the State shall be treated equally as any other citizen. They need to be a resident of the State for two years before being able to be elected to office; hunting during specific seasons will be a right for their own land and land not owned by a private citizen; schools will be established in each county; laws of virtue and morality will be enforced, and religious ministers will be protected and granted privileges; declaration of rights will be a part of this constitution and cannot be violated; Council of Censors, elected by each county, every seven years, to debate for no more than one year, on the effectiveness of the constitution to protect the rights of the people. Any proposals they make will be brought to the assembly to be passed into law. Maryland’s Constitution November 11, 1776 Preamble Maryland’s preamble only discusses its declaration of rights. Mentions the Declaratory Act by parliament which declared parliament's authority to raise taxes without colonial representation (virtual representation). Parliament used force of arms to subjugate the colonies to its will which went against the consent of the colonists. Therefore, Maryland seceded from the British society and established this constitution for its independence and secure thereof. Structure of Government Bilateral with a bicameral legislature and an executive with Council. The Legislature was called the general assembly and made up of a house of delegates and a senate. The house of delegates consisted of 4 members per county who were annually elected. The electors included men, 21 of age, owning property over 30 pounds, and a resident in the county they vote in. The requirements to become a delegate included being a man, 21 of age, owning 50 acres of land, and a resident in the county they run in. The power of the house of delegates included originating money bills, proposing bills to the Senate, amending senate bills, calling witnesses, hearing complaints, committing people to jail, impeaching members, and imposing taxes. The House of Delegates will appoint treasurers and commissioners. The Senate consisted of 15 members total, elected for five-year terms, and had the requirements of being over 25 years old and having a value of 1000 pounds. The electors will be elected by the same as the voters for the house of delegates for five-year terms with two per county, assessing candidates and choosing members for the Senate. The powers of the Senate included passing bills, rejecting money bills, filling their vacancies, and electing a president of the Senate. Both houses can fill the vacancy of the governor. The executive powers resided in the governor and a council. The governorship had one-year terms with three consecutive terms being the limit and was elected by both houses. Requirements included being over 25 years old, a resident, and having a value of 5,000 pounds. The power of the governor consisted of appointing temporary officers, being commander in chief of the militia, granting pardons, laying embargoes for less than 30 days, and enforcing quarantine for vessels during plagues. Appoint one sheriff per county appoints the Chancellor, judges, and justices, the attorney general, military officers, surveyors. The Council was made up of 5 members, with terms of five years, elected by both houses, required candidates to be 25 years old and valued at 1,000 pounds. The Council's power included advising the governor and filling their own vacancies. Judicial power was put into county courts regulated by the general assembly. County justices appointed their own clerks, and the highest chancery court will have one Chancellor. Notable mentions include oaths that required recognizing the Christian God and denouncing England. No mention of establishing a state religion. No multiple holding offices, including religious ministers. The sheriffs were elected by their counties—no mention of slavery. The amending process included getting a majority in the general assembly three months before the next election. Bill of Rights Power originates from the people for the public good; the people have a right to regulate the government and police; citizens have the rights to several common laws of England including trial by Jury, and other rights made by the assembly; accountability to public officers, the people may recall members, or reform the government, or abolish it completely, as the people have a right to resist; people have a right to participate in the government, elections will be free, frequent, and suffrage will be granted to all who own property; separation of powers between the three branches; no power to suspend laws; freedom of speech, in the legislature will be impeached; meeting place will be fixed, convenient, public; legislature should meet frequently to amend laws; right to petition in a peaceful manner; no taxes without consent of the legislature; no poll tax, taxes should be done proportionate to individual wealth; no cruel or unusual punishments; no retrospective laws; no laws to attain people of treason or felony should exist; every person should be compensated for injuries and a right to a speedy trial; trial with evidence; all criminals will be informed of their crime, allowed counsel, confront witnesses, include supportive witnesses, examine witnesses on oath, speedy trial by an impartial jury, with unanimous consent; no self incrimination; no imprisonment, or violations of his liberty, property, or exile or outlawed, or life without legal process; no excessive bail, no cruel or unusual punishments; no illegal searches or seizures; no property taken unless for the crimes of murder, treason and only after conviction; state militia; no standing armies without consent of the legislature; military ought to be under civil authority; no quartering of troops; no person, except active military officers, be punished under martial law; impeachments of partial judges, by the governor and general assembly, by 2/3rds vote, and salaries should be modest, and no judge should hold any other office; frequent rotation of executive members; no public officer should hold multiple offices; freedom of religion, no disturbance of the peace is justified by religion, freedom from religion, other than an equal tax for the Christian religion, where taxpayers decide which church their religious tax goes to. No taxes for the building and repairing of new churches; no religious tests except for the general oath of the Christian faith; some denominations can swear an oath they are accustomed to; freedom of the press; monopolies are outlawed; no titles of nobility; amendments to the constitution can be made. North Carolina’s Constitution December 18, 1776 Preamble No preamble for its Bill of Rights but one for its structure. “WHEREAS allegiance and protection are, in their nature, reciprocal, and the one should of right be refused when the other is withdrawn:” Since the late King declared war on these colonies, he is no longer our protector and since he is no longer our protector we no longer owe our allegiance. Now that the state is detached from British protection and society, the state needs to establish its own society by the creation of a government authorized by the people for their happiness and prosperity. Structure of Government Bilateral, consisting of a bicameral legislature and a governor with an executive council. The Legislature consisted of a general assembly and a senate. The general assembly consisted of two annually elected representatives from each county. The electors were citizens over the age of 21, residents of the county, and a taxpayer. The requirements for candidates included being a resident of the county and owning 100 acres of land. The powers of the general assembly included electing their speaker, appointing necessary officers, passing bills, and filling their vacancies. The Senate was made up of annually elected members, one per county. The electors for senators were residents over the age of 21 and owned 50 acres of land. The senatorial requirements included being a resident and owning 300 acres of land in the State. The powers of the Senate included electing their own speaker and other necessary officers, passing bills, and filling their own vacancies. Joint responsibilities include reading bills three times and signing by speakers, elect judges, military leaders, annually elect treasurer, impeach all officers, appoint secretary for three-year terms, and purchasing native land. The executive powers of the State reside in a governor, a lieutenant governor, and a governor's Council. The president of the Senate was the lieutenant governor. The governorship had one-year terms and was allowed fewer than three terms in six years. The governor was elected by the general assembly and had to have been 30 years old, a resident of the State, and valued at 1,000 pounds. The powers of the governorship included being commander in chief, calling funds supported by the general assembly, lay embargoes for 30 days, grant pardons for crimes not convicted by the general assembly, and enforce executive authority restricted by the constitution, fill vacancies. The governor's Council was made up of seven members, annually elected by the general assembly, which had the power to advise the governor. Judicial powers are not mentioned. Notable mentions include oaths that required religious recognition, no establishment of religion or religious taxes. No multiple holding offices, including religious ministers. No mention of slavery or an amending process. Anyone who received money from the State had to pay it back in full before running for office. Bill of rights All political power is vested in and derived from the people only; the people have the right to regulate the Government; equal rights; the three branches ought to be separate; any government force not sanctioned by the representatives of the people is illegitimate; that elections of members, to serve as Representatives in General Assembly, ought to be free; right to trials of evidence, witnesses and no self incrimination; people cannot be charged unless indictment or impeached; trial by jury vote unanimous; no excessive fines nor cruel or unusual punishments; no illegal searches and seizures; no arrests unless warranted by law; compensation for unlawful treatment; trial by jury; free press; no taxation without representation; right to bear arms for the State, no standing armies; right to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances; freedom of religion; frequent elections, redress of grievances and amending the political system; preserve liberty; no titles of nobility; no monopolies; no retrospective laws and punishments; right to property and that this Declaration of Rights shall not prejudice any nation or nations of Indians, from enjoying such hunting-grounds. Georgia's Constitution February 5, 1777 Preamble Georgia does not have a Bill of Rights but they do have a preamble to their structure. This preamble mentions the Declaratory Act which declared Parliament’s authority to raise taxes and pass other laws on the colonies without the consent (direct representation) of the governed. Due to this violation of social trust, Americans must oppose oppression to assert their natural and reasonable rights and privileges. The Continental Congress, being made of representatives of the people of the states, asked each state, ...where no government, sufficient to the exigencies of their affairs, hath been hitherto established, to adopt such government as may, in the opinion of the representatives of the people, best conduce to the happiness and safety of their constituents in particular and America in general;” That Georgia along with her sister states are independent from British authority. The preamble ends with, “We, therefore, the representatives of the people, from whom all power originates, and for whose benefit all government is intended, by virtue of the power delegated to us, do ordain and declare, and it IS hereby ordained and declared, that the following rules and regulations be adopted for the future government of this State: Structure of Government Trilateral, consisting of a unicameral legislature, an executive with a cabinet, and a supreme court. The Legislature is called the House of Assembly, which comprises eight annually elected members per county. The electors were explicitly white, male, 21, resident, taxpayer, and valued at 10 pounds. Requirements included being a resident, being protestant, 21, and owning 250 acres of land valued at over 250 pounds. The assembly's powers include electing the governor, passing laws, filling vacancies, electing a speaker, and establishing superior courts in each county. Executive power resides in a governor and a cabinet. The lieutenant governor was also the president of the Council. Governors are elected annually by the assembly. Governor's power includes enforcing executive authority, granting pardons, convening house vacancies and commissions coming from the governor, can sit with the Council unless the Council is discussing house bills, and being the commander in chief. The cabinet was made up of two members from each county, elected by the housing assembly. The power of the assembly included advising bills before they were passed and electing a councilor president from their members. Judicial power resides in a supreme court consisting of a chief justice and three judges from each county. Notable mentions include no Bill of Rights, oaths of office, no establishing a state religion, no holding multiple offices, including religious ministers. Slavery is not mentioned. There is an amending process where the majority of the counties need to approve—no titles of nobility. Mandatory voting with a fine for those who don’t vote. Trials have to be held near the crime, trial by jury, schools funded in each county: freedom of religion, no excessive trial fines, maintaining habeas corpus, and freedom of the press. New York’s Constitution April 20, 1777. Preamble The tyranny of the British King and Parliament against the rights and liberties of the people necessitates independence and self-governance. The inconveniences of this conflict has led to the creation of an emergency government. New York’s preamble includes verbatim resolutions passed by the Second Continental Congress following the Proclamation of War by the King, along with the Declaration of Independence. The separation and reclamation of rights from Britain has stored to the people their natural rights which they now relinquish through their suffrage to institute and establish a government made to secure their rights and liberties most conducive of the happiness and safety of them and of America in general. Structure of Government Trilateral with a bicameral legislature, a governor with a council, and a supreme court. The Legislature is made up of an assembly and a senate. The assembly was made up of 70 members with different representatives per county depending on population; the census was taken every seven years. The terms were seven years; the electors were the male residents who owned 20 pounds worth of land. The requirements included being a freeholder and being valued at 1,000 pounds. The powers of the assembly included electing a speaker, passing bills, and starting money bills. The senate proportions were based on districts, of which there were four, and three had six senators while the southern, NYC, district had 9. The senatorial term was four years, with at least one senator from each district up for election every year. The joint power of the Legislature included electing a treasurer originating in the assembly, appointing sheriffs annually with no more than four consecutive terms, and holding a monopoly with buying native land. The executive power of the State resided in a governor, a lieutenant governor, and a council. The lieutenant governor was also the president of the Senate. Gubernatorial terms were three years. The electors were the same as for the assembly, and requirements were not mentioned. Powers of the governor included being the commander in chief, granting particular pardons, calling the Legislature temporarily, giving State of the state addresses, and appointing military officers. The Council included the governor, the Chancellor, and the supreme court. The power of the Council was to assess and approve laws passed by the Legislature. The judicial power was divided between the Chancellor and the supreme court. The Chancellor was the chief justice of the chancery courts, while the supreme court was the highest court of appeals. Courts appointed their clerks and other necessary officers of the court. The impeachment court was made up of the president of the Senate, senators, Chancellor, and supreme court justices. Notable mentions include oaths that needed to be taken by politicians and voters, no establishment of religion, no holding multiple offices including religious ministers, no mention of slavery, no mention of an amending process. A bill of rights was not included, but some rights were put in the constitution on various points, including protecting property and rights, proceedings open to the public, freedom of religion for Christian denominations, a well-regulated militia made by every man except Quakers, trial by jury. South Carolina’s Constitution March 19, 1778. Preamble The first constitution established in March of 1776 as a temporary government waiting for the resolution to the conflict between the colonies and Great Britain became obsolete with the Declaration of War by the King and with the Declaration of Independence by the Congress; therefore a new constitution is needed. The freemen of this state have agreed to this new constitution. Structure of Government Bilateral with a bicameral legislature and a divided executive. The Legislature was made up of a house of representatives and a senate. House proportions were based on the taxpaying population, with a census occurring every 14 years. Terms for house seats were two years and were elected by explicitly white men, protestant, 21 years old, resident of the county, owned 50 acres and was a taxpayer. Requirements to be a house member included being protestant, resident of the county, clear of debt, and owning land valued at 3,500 pounds. The house's power included passing bills, starting money bills that cannot be altered by the Senate, electing a speaker, filling vacancies, and impeaching other officers. The Senate included one from each parish and district and was elected annually. Electors were the same as a house, but the requirements included being protestant, 30 years old, resident of the parish or district, clear of debt, and owning 2,000 pounds of land value. The power of the Senate included passing bills, electing a president of the Senate, filling vacancies, and trying impeachment cases. The joint powers included electing justices of the peace for each county, and all other judge positions, sheriffs and other lower executive officers, and high military officers are elected by the Legislature for two-year terms, declare war, or make peace. Executive power resided in a governor, lieutenant governor, and a privy council. Gubernatorial terms were two years, and no consecutive terms were allowed. Electors were the Legislature. Requirements were being protestant, resident of the State, clear of debt, valued at 10,000 pounds. Powers of the executive included being commander in chief, appointing lower-ranked military officers, and laying temporary embargoes. The privy council was made up of the lieutenant governor and eight other members chosen by the Legislature with a rotation of half the Council up for election every year. The only explicit requirement for the Council was that members had to be Protestant. The power of the Council included choosing a lieutenant governor if a vacancy occurred and that the Council was the chancery court. Judicial power was regulated by the legislative branch on the county level. Notable mentions include oaths that denounced England, an establishment of the protestant religion, no multiple holding offices including religious ministers, no mention of slavery, and no mention of an amending process. There was no bill of rights, but some rights were added throughout the constitution, including the right of Christians to worship, punishment should be proportional to the crime, free press, no illegal seizures or imprisonments, and reparations had to be given when violations occurred. Massachusetts’ Constitution June 15, 1780 Preamble The preamble asserts, The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government is to secure the existence of the body-politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying, in safety and tranquility, their natural rights and the blessings of life; and whenever these great objects are not obtained the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity, and happiness. The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals; it is a social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen and each citizen with the whole people that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good. It is the duty of the people, therefore, in framing a constitution of government, to provide for an equitable mode of making laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation and a faithful execution of them; that every man may, at all times, find his security in them. We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence, or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other, and of forming a new constitution of civil government for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain, and establish the following declaration of rights and frame of government as the constitution of the commonwealth of Massachusetts. Structure of Government Trilateral with a bicameral legislature, bicameral executive, and a supreme court. The Legislature, called the general court, consisted of a House of Representatives and a Senate. House proportions were based on population, and each town was allowed at least one representative. House members were annually elected. Electors were men, 21 years old, had a salary of 3 pounds, and were residents of the town. The power of the house consisted of impeaching, starting money bills, and passing bills. The Senate consisted of members from districts based on tax revenue with no more than 6 per district. Senators were annually elected by freeholders above the age of 21, valued at 60 pounds, and a resident. Requirements to be a senator included being a freeholder, a resident of the district, and valued at 600 pounds. The powers of the Senate included filling the vacancy of the lieutenant governor, electing their own president, impeachments, and passing bills. Joint powers include overturning vetoes, interpreting laws, electing the secretary and treasurer of the State. Executive power resides in the governor, lieutenant governor, and Council. The lieutenant governor was elected by the people, the same as the house. Freeholders annually elected the governorship, residents of seven years, and 1,000 pounds in land value. The governor's power included veto power, hearing appeals, calling council meetings, with Council can dissolve the general court temporarily, commander in chief, grant pardons, appoint high ranking officers, with Council, take funds for defense. The Council consisted of nine members annually elected by the Legislature and chosen by the legislative body. Their power included advising the enforcing executive authority. Judicial power in a supreme court whose justices had lifelong appointments by the governor and Council on good behavior, the power of the supreme court was to hear appeals and advise the other branches. Notable mentions include oaths that recognize religion and denounce England. No establishment of religion, no multiple holding offices, including religious ministers. Low-ranking military officers are elected by their troops—no mention of slavery. There is an amending process—the protection of habeas corpus and the establishment of a university. Bill of rights All men are born free and equal, have the right to self-defense, and to the right to property; religious freedom to worship the creator of the Universe provided it does not disturb the peace; the people can invest in their Legislator to institute specific communities to provide a place of worship. The Legislature may legislate that there must be a teacher in said parish or communities that must attend. The money provided may go to the teacher and support him and his parish denomination alone. All denominations of Christians have equal rights under the law so be that they are peaceful; outside of what the American congress decides, the people of this State have a right to self-determination delegated through the State; the offices of this Government are subject to the will of the people; no man shall possess a title that gives him an advantage or a title that he may pass on to his children; the Government exists to serve the happiness of the people, and they may amend and reform it as they see fit; to protect against tyranny the seats of the Government will be subject to election via the people; all elections should be free, and everyone may vote or run for office on equal grounds; everyone has the right to liberty and happiness, and their property can not be confiscated from them by the State, unless the people or publicly declare it so. In this case, the property taken for public use requires compensation towards the individual for his property confiscation; everyone has protection under the laws equally and may seek compensation via them, and this should not be barred via payments or taxes; everyone has a right to trial by the court, to be read their charges, and have access to legal defense. No citizen can be punished by the legislation without trial save for those in the army and navy; in criminal prosecution obtaining facts are vital to the protection of the citizen; every citizen is protected from starches of his property and person unless it is ordained by court or law that a warrant should be granted to the authorities to do so; property disputes will be settled in court via jury, save for maritime disputes, unless altered by Legislature; freedom of the press shall not be impeached; the people have a right to bear arms in peacetime that shall not be infringed, but all military authority be subject to civil authority; the people have a right to observe their Legislator and to instruct them on what they require of them in the Government; the people have a right to assembly and to address their representatives; the power of suspending the laws is to be exercised only by the Legislator or via it's permission; debate used in the Legislator may not be brought against an individual in prosecution in court; the Legislature ought to assemble frequently to address matters of law; no tax or tariff can be leveled against the people without their consent or that of the Legislator; laws may not punish actions committed before that law's creation; the Legislator can not declare someone guilty; no magistrate or court of law can demand cruel and excessive punishments; in peace no soldier can be quartered in any one's home without their consent, and in times of war this action requires legislation; martial law may not be app[lied to those not in the armed forces, and the Militia shall be disciplined by the Legislature; everyone has the right to trial by a fair and unbiased court; the branches of executive, legislative, and Judicial shall never exercise the others power. New Hampshire’s Constitution October 31, 1784 Preamble The preamble only states, “All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good.” Structure of Government Trilateral with a bicameral legislature, a two-sectioned executive, and a supreme court. The Legislature is made up of a general court and a senate. The general court is proportionate to the population of men who are 21 years old in each town. The terms are annual, and representatives are elected by men, 21 years old, pay a poll tax, and are residents of the town. The general court's power included impeachment, and money bills can be amended by the Senate, propose laws, elect speakers and state secretaries, and appoint necessary officers. The Senate is based on counties that contributed 12 senators, and the rest were from districts based on tax revenue. Senators held annual positions and were elected by the same electors as the general court. Both requirements were that candidates had to be protestants, free of debt, 30 years old, resident for several years prior, and be valued at 200 pounds. The power of the Senate included appointing officers, determining proceedings, trying impeachments. The senior senator was the president pro tempore. Jointly, the Legislature established lower courts, passed laws, elected military and civil officers, made necessary arrangements for the defense of the State, and took a census every five years. Executive power was placed into a president and cabinet. The president served annual terms and was elected by the voting population. Requirements to become a president included being 30 years old, resident of the State for several years prior, protesting, and valuing 500 pounds. The power of the president included breaking ties in the Senate, temporarily adjourning the general court, commander in chief, granting pardons, all officers not in the general court will be appointed by the president, and can use state funds for defense with permission from the general court. The cabinet was made up of two senators and three representatives annually by the two houses, respectively. Judicial power was established in a supreme court and lower courts. All justices were elected by the general court and held life-long terms on good behavior. The courts had the power to appoint clerks and other necessary officers. Notable mentions include oaths, no establishment of religion, no holding multiple offices including religious ministers, no mention of slavery and amending process, encouraged education, and protected habeas corpus. Bill of rights Consent of the governed; all men have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; when men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void; of this kind are the rights of conscience; freedom of religion; right to establish churches and other religious institutions. No taxes will be imposed for religious establishments No state religion; the people rule the Government; no titles of nobility; Government of the public good and the right to resist tyranny; free elections, terms and conditions may apply; because everyone has a right to life, liberty, and property, therefore they must contribute to protect those rights, but no property will be taken for public use without their consent; no one will be forced to bear arms but they must pay to support the arms of the State; compensation for wrongdoing; right to criminal information, no self incrimination, meet witnesses, provide evidence, question witnesses, fully heard in their defense, receive Council, and no arrests, seizing of property, are taking of liberties and life unless done so via due process; no double jeopardy, and no capital punishment unless under military courts; trials will be held where the crimes are committed; fair punishments, punishments should reform not exterminate; no illegal searches and seizures; trial by jury; appropriate jury; freedom of the press; no retrospective laws; a well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and sure defense of a state; no standing armies; civilian controlled military; no quartering of troops in private homes; no taxation without representation; no suspending laws; freedom of speech in the Legislature; right to protest and petition the Government; no excessive fines nor cruel or unusual punishments; no martial law except in the military; just justices; three branches of Government that are separate; government proceedings ought to be recorded. In summation Six of eleven states had a clear and separated trilateral structure and the rest had bilateral governments with their legislative or executive branches with judicial functions. Nine of eleven states had a bicameral legislature, and the rest had a unicameral legislature. Only two states had something like a unitary executive, New Jersey, and New York. For New Jersey, there was no executive council and so there was only a president, while for New York the Executive Council included the president, Chancellor, and supreme court where the president ran the Council. The rest of the states had a bicameral executive where the president or governor was separated from the Council. For nine of the eleven states, the chief executive was elected by the Legislature and not directly by the people. Only four states had a separate judicial branch on the state level. Most had county courts as the highest court of appeals, while a council made up of legislative and executive officers made up for other types of courts. The most common type of suffrage included property or wealth requirements, all above the age of 21, and had to be a resident of a county in the State for a certain number of years. Some states explicitly required voters to be white and male; some states required voters to be Protestant. Georgia was the only State to have mandatory voting. South Carolina was the only one to establish a state religion, the Protestant religion, while some states had oaths of offices that included the recognition of God. Only one State, Delaware, explicitly mentions slavery to restrict the importation of slaves. Most had an amending process. Some states had representatives based on both population and equal representation of the counties. Some states did not include a bill of rights but did incorporate individual rights which significantly varied between them. There seems to be nothing novel about the U.S. Constitution, given that there is nothing unique about it relative to the sum of the state constitutions. All political concepts of statecraft present in the federal Constitution can be found in the states prior to 1787. This defends the reasoning for writing this paper; that properly understanding the Constitution requires studying the state constitutions since many of those who wrote and ratified the Constitution participated in their respective state constitutional conventions. More can and should be added to this study including the state ratifying conventions for the Constitution, the Philadelphia convention itself, and how several of the states would rewrite their state constitutions following the ratification of the federal constitution. Axioms of a Civil Polity Based on the principles and structures of these constitutions and the Constitution we can extrapolate a probity for a civil polity. This probity should be understood and used by those who wish to study statecraft; they are as follows: Consent of the Governed Consent of the governed is the princeps of principles; the first among equals of this probity. It is the start of the social contract necessary for a society, especially a civil society, to form & continue existing. The consent of the governed can only be properly given & transpires through suffrage since voting is the only existing institution that gathers consent. This means that the only way the government can be legitimate is if the people elect the highest government offices. This is the idea of direct representation and anything that is not direct is virtual and therefore illegitimate. The highest authorities in government ought to be elected while their subordinate offices do not since those subordinates only hold delegated powers from their superiors. Without this proper consent, the government is despotic since it is acting arbitrarily and the people are placed into a state of nature. The only civil means of escaping that state of nature is the creation of a new society created by the people as a whole, one that is more civil than its despotic predecessor. Separation of Powers As a safeguard from arbitrary & despotic governments, the powers relinquished from & by the people and granted to the government in trust must be separated into unique parts. This separation should include at least three parts for more stability and they include a legislature, executive, and a judiciary. A separation of powers includes the nonintervention of one power over the other when it comes to the appointment of officers. For example, the executive should not be able to barricade new appointments to the legislature and likewise the legislature ought not to prevent the proper election of the executive. This separation of powers, if consistently applied in our government structure would also be applied to the judiciary, however, at the moment it is not since both the executive & the legislature has an active role in the appointments of justices. This separation of powers can also be applied within each branch; an example would be the current legislature which is bicameral and consists of two separated but complementary houses. Checks and Balances​ Once the powers are separated, they should check & balance each other. A check is a negative of one branch on the power of another. An example would be the executive veto. Similarly the legislature can block any proposed bills from the executive. The judiciary, just like with the separation of powers, was not fully developed in the Constitution but if the principle of checks and balances is to be consistent then it too would have a check or negative on the other two branches. De facto, the judiciary has judicial review where it can interpret a statute passed by the legislature or enforced by the executive as constitutional and therefore null in void. This judicial review power should be enumerated in the constitution. Although the executive can veto a bill passed through the legislature, the legislature can override the veto which means that the branches are not coequal but instead coordinate under the legislature. Another argument for this legislative supremacy is the fact that the legislature can impeach and remove either executive or judicial officers while neither the executive nor judiciary can impeach or remove any legislature. Just as the legislature can override an executive negative on its power so too should the legislature be able to override a judicial negative on its power. This means that any judicial review that decides a statute unconstitutional and therefore nullified, the legislature should be able to override that judicial review in a process similar to overriding a veto, perhaps it should be called legislative review. Enumerated Powers The power of the government is limited to what the people relinquish from themselves and grant to the government. This can only be known if said powers were enumerated or in other words written down. The reason for enumeration is to prevent arbitrary governance which is the definition of despotism, and despotism is something civil society ought to prevent. After all the root of the term legitimate is legi which means to read and the only way to read is to have something written down. Therefore the only legitimate power is power written down while anything not written down is less legitimate; if there is a power that the people consent to then it is best for that power to be enumerated instead of leaving it out and held in common. Federalism Federalism is a specific type of separation of powers where the powers are not separated between branches within the same level but instead between different levels of government. This does a number of things. First, it establishes specialization as a local government is best suited to deal with local issues than larger levels of government; however, federalism allows for higher levels of government to intervene when the lower levels fail to fulfill their responsibilities. If a local government fails to protect the people then the state government has the power and ought to step in and make the necessary changes to better secure the people. Likewise, if the state government fails to protect the people then the federal government can intervene and the reason for this is because no government at any level has the right nor were instituted to fail. Second, federalism creates multiple constituencies that an individual can be apart of and be represented by. If a minority in a locality is not properly represented by their local government then they can appeal to their state government but only if each constituency directly represents the people. If the federal government is instituted by states and the states subjugate the people how can the federal government look after the interests of the people? In that situation it wouldn’t because it is not representing the people but instead the states. So each level and also each branch of the government needs to directly represent the people; this is the concept of direct representation mentioned earlier. The people would therefore elect their local, state, and federal officers themselves and no level would have the right to create another level; only the people should create and give power to different levels of government as they see fit necessary to their happiness. A state cannot declare its own authority, only the people in the state can relinquish their power and grant it to the state; the same applies to all levels of government and each branch in each level. Bill of Rights Similarly to the concept of enumeration which properly lists government authority and which rights or powers the people relinquish & grant to the government; there are many rights that the people do not relinquish and therefore do not grant to the government. These retained rights are civil rights, the rights the people have in a civil society. These also need to be enumerated especially when conflict arises regarding which rights should be kept by the people. The rights of the people are not limited to the Bill of Rights but are best known and defended when they are enumerated. If there is a right held in common and questioned threatened by the government, then it is safe to enumerate it into the supreme charter of the polity. Amendments No enumerated rights, structures, powers, or procedures, is perfect and so in order for the perpetual development of a more perfect society future generations need to be able to amend what is enumerated or add to it. This amending process cannot be impossible nor compromise stability lest the entire political system loses its trust and therefore consent of its constituents endangering everyone in a state of nature. Works Cited US Constitution 1787 https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSBTliXbqFB1JIBqe4RDWq8X3EzSBlshT8LSAAOIq_ratZNatq2jZHxqFouNceLY2IK4E0oYrsFpTRa/pub Virginia Constitution (1776) https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQIjZWUpGrcxidVOnw_EDyd0yg0KeSozOoxJ6jRYR2z-HA-e85VOmlHUtnlJ6T72PRPcGVP_6RSX5TR/pub Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRzwEHY4i3CexHkUil_Xwgz6zzL90JS2JK1OQvk7QcexJyZHuQrYvEhY7q_mYRhbBBlfrNeO8kfxXBK/pub New Jersey Constitution (1776) https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRa3UNXS-jdmu25M84OmlXiNF9wUvKrRhT_TLfOFQxa2JOyodj87ol9CODOZ97oPMXGUYYHe2Xxn6YT/pub Delaware Constitution (1776) https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSeabDI6LYBZHqDgsONbR___8zeG47yP1u80Owqm8j9MlcrQ-Nkz91X8B5CqU702n8vNOfhdQSx8uo3/pub Delaware declaration of rights (1776) https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTbpPfkbDY1ipJJrqzoGyv5nZNDcBGkNUUhNglWNRGML0cqSmr1A_b0RS259wCb5E0Ld8GQ8OT_mGy0/pub Pennsylvania Constitution (1776) https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRR25f8YOnGNfMyFE8xj--az74ax7-d5lT4RuPlIdE8PFfnjzYJOVyw-qIciloh6v6JZVs_PI1DE6Jj/pub Maryland Constitution (1776) https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQbjh9sHw8_RIYDW296l6AV7egi7b3l-quABlkDucJEdnwEuv_t4K4cj3NZQ_6couuuAFdLUP9WzPwe/pub North Carolina Constitution (1776) https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSqR99BiCNZUgjkWRBiTm3t3aWVwd7OaAqkt5SSblRAMy96G_oTDnt6sVqMX3dB7xkbGwn0CyJqjG-9/pub Georgia’s Constitution (1777) https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQvthyOdKSFvnj6YeW-Hi9Q6cDV-7NBkub-LnsJyGbwrivlm6HZDDJ80nZ82BQ5YxFI1shD_rDEqQFi/pub New York Constitution (1777) https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vT3QX2a57m4bPN-ueNmTaWqK4rJXb4m_-CE5QolPe6uziCCkO-9tJowJfNz5yQmqYh2YtOOq5UZzQHx/pub South Carolina Constitution (1778) https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRwXsd0w9N-nkdpSvBHum8A2nRHX6bKuqfzpWayR7sq1lP1FPDmK3cEvXPQzkvX7JKSt8vvEMEyRAEN/pub Massachusetts Constitution (1780) https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQbCP0VIxn--cT_-nbyXjQuRDiZXPnBjiwpGDtM8ZtAt_nRTfcLasQWlw-G0MjGhaPFvbPFBssa_HQ7/pub New Hampshire Constitution (1784)https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRU-NDkz7PC7G6hHPPeL5CMf7eroP-1tL8EtxveAG5gPo9tFgOIX2PZE-Zea65jClOj47huONolPAwS/pub

BOSTON, June 8, 1765. SIR, THE House of Representatives of this Province, in the present Session of the General Court, have unanimously agreed to propose a Meeting, as soon as may be, of COMMITTEES, from the Houses of Representatives or Burgesses of the several British Colonies on this Continent to consult together on the present Circumstances of the Colonies, and the Difficulties to which they are, and must be reduced, by the Operation of the Acts of Parliament for levying Duties and Taxes on the Colonies; and to consider of a general, and united, dutiful, loyal and humble Representation of their Condition, to his Majesty and the Parliament, and to implore Relief. The House of Representatives of this Province, have also Voted to propose, That such Meeting be at the City of New-York, in the Province of New-York, on the first Tuesday in October next; and have appointed a Committee of Three of their Members, to attend that Service, with such as the other Houses of Representatives, or Burgesses, in the several Colonies, may think fit to appoint to meet them. And the Committee of the House of Representatives of this Province, are directed to repair to said New-York, on said first Tuesday in October next, accordingly. If therefore, your Honourable House should agree to this Proposal, it would be acceptable, that as early Notice of it as possible, might be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives of this Province. SAMUEL WHITE, Speaker. Source: https://www.americanhistorycentral.com/documents/stamp-act-congress-massachusetts-circular-letter-text/