To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; States had become attached to the regulation of their own trade; also that their regulations had been oppressive and vexatious to each other. This last consideration had so much weight that it was finally left with Congress, as being the safer course, to regulate commerce between the States. "And with the Indian tribes." An Indian tribe, situated within the territorial boundaries of a State, or of the United States, but exercising the powers of government, and national sovereignty, under the guaranty of the general government, is held to be politically a State, but not a foreign State, in the sense of the Constitution. It is rather a domestic dependent nation, and as such is doubtless entitled to sue in the Courts of the United States. Mr. Jefferson's opinion was that the United States had no right to the Indian lands, not ceded by them, except the right of pre-emption. In this opinion every enlightened and unbiassed judgment must concur. How does the treatment of the tribes at the South, especially of the Cherokees of Georgia, appear by the side of this doctrine? "To establish a uniform rule of naturalization," etc. The fact that the President, Vice-President, and members of Congress, are to be chosen by the citizens of all the States; also that trade and commerce are carried on berween the citizens of the several States under the guaranty of the Constitution; makes the provisions of this clause obviously proper and necessary. "And uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcy." States often have their own bankrupt laws. This they have a right to do, when and where Congress has not exercised its power. As far as Congress uses the power here given, the power of the States is controlled and limited; but when Congress does What difficulty arose in settling this clause? Is an Indian tribe a foreign nation? What is it, and what right has it? What opinion of Mr. Jefferson is quoted? What is pre-emption? What do you think of the removal of the Cherokees, and other tribes? Why should naturalization and bankrupt laws be made by Congress for the whole Union? Have States their own bankrupt laws? To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and mea sures; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; To establish post-offices and post-roads; To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors not use the power, the State bankrupt laws are constitutional, provided that they do not impair the obligation of contracts. "To coin money," etc. Uniformity is especially necessary, both in coins and weights, and the various species of measure. This could not be attained by leaving the matter to the States; hence the necessity of committing it to Congress The same reasons that make uniform bankrupt laws desirable, apply here. "To provide for the punishment," etc. This is the security of Congress, and their only adequate sanction, in borrowing money and regulating the coinage. "To establish post-offices," etc. Some maintain that Congress can only direct the carrying of the mail, and the establishment of post-offices on roads already existing, but cannot open or make any new road. Others more properly maintain that they can appropriate money for the making of a road where they judge it necessary that the mail should pass. The making of the road is a necessary means for a necessary end. Without this power, the legitimate ends of the government may be permanently obstructed, at least to a certain extent, and its objects fail of being realized. "To promote the progress of science and useful arts," etc. That the government should be the patron of learning and science was the design of many, if not all, of the members of What is necessary in order that such laws should be constitutional? What is it to coin money? Do you know where it is done? What is such an office or establishment called? In what is uniformity especially necessary? Could it be attained by leaving it to the States? What other reasons apply here? Why should Congress have power to punish counterfeiters of coin and forgers of U. S. securities? What is a post-office? Post-road? Mail? What difference of opinion is held? Which is probably right? What arguments? How may Congress promote science, etc.? the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; the Convention from the first. Several proposals were made to authorize Congress to establish a national university; this was embraced in the plan proposed by Mr. Pinckney. It was finally judged unnecessary because Congress would of course have a right to establish a university in the territory containing the seat of government, over which they were to have exclusive jurisdiction. In addition to this, it was very properly provided that encouragement should be held out to authors and inventors by giving them suitable copy-rights and patents. This power did not exist under the Confederation. Being confided to Congress, it does not exist in the States; but the States may give exclusive rights to introducers of new works and inventions, who do not claim to be authors or inventors. "To constitute tribunals," etc. This power entered into the plans of Messrs. Randolph, Pinckney, and Hamilton. It was objected to on the ground that the State courts would be sufficient to do the business, with an appeal to the Supreme Court; that it was encroaching on the province of the States to erect such tribunals within their limits; and that it would tend to create divisions and jealousies between them and the State courts. On the other hand, it was urged that if courts, having final jurisdiction in many cases, were not established in the several States, the number of appeals would be so great as to be oppressive to the Supreme Court, and even beyond its power of revision. The judicial authority of the nation ought also to be so administered that the general government should not be any way dependent on the good-will or discretion of the States. What is a copy-right? What is a patent-right? Do these rights last permanently? What was the design of the Convention? What proposals were made? Whose plan contained such a provision? Why was it judged unnecessary ? Did the power to grant exclusive rights exist under the Confed eration? What State right is mentioned? What power entered into the plans of Messrs. Pinckney and Hamilton? On what ground was it objected to? What was urged in its favor? How ought the judicial authority of the nation to be administered? To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; "Law of nations." The oceans and seas on the globe are the great highway of nations, where all have an equal right of way. Certain general rules and principles have been found necessary to be observed in their intercourse with each other, which all acknowledge, and which are called the “law of nations." "To declare war." The plans of Messrs. Pinckney and Hamilton proposed to give the Senate the sole and exclusive power to declare war. In support of this, it was said that the whole Legislature would be too large a body, and act too slowly; besides, it might be presumed that the Senate would be better informed, and of course a safer depositary of such a power. The same kind of arguments were also used in favor of giving the President the power to declare war. Neither the Senate nor the President would declare war, it was said, without a pretty certain knowledge that the people would sustain it. But these doctrines seemed to the Convention to savor too much of monarchy for a republic, and of course were discarded. "Letters of marque and reprisal" are retaliatory measures, short of a declaration of war. They authorizé a naval officer to make captures, on the high seas, from a power that refuses to make indemnification for injuries done, or to perform the stipulations of a treaty. The words " marque and reprisal" are nearly synonymous, as used; there is this difference laid down, however, that reprisal signifies simply taking again, and marque conveys the additional idea of passing the frontiers of a State in order to such taking. What is piracy? Felony? What are the oceans and seas? What is it to declare war? What did Messrs. Pinckney and Hamilton propose? What arguments for that? To whom else did some propose to give the power to declare war? What are letters of marque and reprisal? What do they authorize? To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; The power to declare war implies the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal. They are both named because the latter is sometimes a measure of peace; that is, it may prevent the necessity of a resort to general hostilities. The power in question is essential to complete sovereignty, and must in the nature of the thing reside in every national government that is intended to use force for any purpose of offence or defence whatever. The power to declare war is always claimed and exercised by absolute monarchs. And even in limited monarchies, this is the theory of the Constitution. In Great Britain and France, the monarch declares war. In the ancient republics of Greece and Rome, the power of peace and war was in the assemblies of the people, after the question had been submitted to them by the Senate. Even the kings of Rome could not declare war until the question had been submitted to the Senate and people. The power to make rules concerning captures is necessarily co-existent with the power to declare war and make reprisals. "To raise and support armies," etc. This is an indispensable incident to the power to declare war; but then there is the danger to be guarded against of large standing armies in time of peace. These form the strength and security of despotic governments. Being held separate from the mass of the people, and regularly paid by the government for their services, they form an interest separate from that of other What does the power to declare war imply? Why are they both named? To what is the power essential? Where must it reside? By whom is this power always claimed? How is it in limited monarchies? Give examples. Where was this power in ancient Greece and Rome? By whom was the question submitted to them? What remark of the kings of Rome? What powers are co-existent? What powes is next named? To what is this an indispensable incident? For how long may appropriations be made? What danger to be guarded against? What do standing armies form? How are they held and paid? What interest do they form? |