No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State. No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another; nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another. No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time. much like the one which apportions representatives and direct taxes among the States. The object of it is to guard the slave States against being taxed for all their slave population, while but three fifths are represented in Congress. The necessity of direct taxes was anticipated to extinguish the revolutionary debt; and the Convention wished to guard against any State's being taxed in an undue proportion. Mr. Pinckney's plan proposed that direct taxes should be in proportion to the whole number of inhabitants of every description. No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State." On this prohibition we have already spoken. "No preference shall be given," etc. These prohibitions were made in view of the great difficulties experienced between the States under the Confederation. The regulations of the States with a view to revenue and the favoring of their own ports, produced the difficulties which were among the principal causes of the calling of the Convention. Experience therefore plainly suggested the propriety of a perfect equality in the United States' ports. “No money shall be drawn,” etc. The propriety of this is too plain to require any comment. What clause does this resemble? What is the object of it? What did Mr. Pinckney's plan propose ? What preference is prohibited? What provision in favor of vessels going from State to State? In what view were these prohibitions made? What had produced these difficulties? What did experience suggest? Give the clause respecting the drawing of money, On what grounds were these provisions made? No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States; and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign State. SEC. 10. No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and "No title of nobility shall be granted," etc. Titles of nobility are abundant in the governments of Europe. They arise from various causes,-principally from the interest of monarchs to secure the influence of eminent men, and_from the distinctions enjoyed under the old feudal system. But as neither the General nor State Governments can have any need of them, and they are against the natural equality of men advocated in the whole system, except so much of it as tolerates slavery, they are very properly prohibited in this and the next Section. The other prohibition in this clause is a guard against the corrupting or bribing of United States' officers by foreign powers. Presents have several times been sent by foreign princes to the President of the United States, but they have always been left to the disposal of Congress. SEC. 10. The object of this Section is to restrain the States from doing what Congress may not do, and to specify what national powers are to be given up by any State in order to be a member of the Confederacy. Where the same prohibitions apply both to the General and State Governments, it is for similar reasons, and the same principles and policy apply in both cases. Where the States are restrained from doing what Congress or the Executive may do, it is because the things are strictly national in their character, and Repeat the next clause. Where do titles of nobility abound? From what do they arise? Why are they prohibited here? Why may not United States' officers accept of presents, etc., from a foreign prince or State? Have such presents been sent to any officer of the United States ? What has been done with them? Repeat the substance of Sec. 10. What is the object of this Section? Where the same prohibitions apply-what are the reasons? Why are the States restrained from doing what Congress may do? reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility. No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any State on imports or exports, to allow the States to do them, for instance, to make treaties, declare war, or coin money, would introduce endless confusion, and be utterly subversive of the national compact. "Bills of credit" are notes issued by the State without any regard to any capital, and intended to circulate as money among the people. Laws "impairing the obligation of contracts," are not proper bankrupt laws, for the latter are constitutional. A vast deal of discussion has been had, with a view to show the relation to each other of the power to pass bankrupt laws, and the prohibition to make laws impairing the obligation of contracts. Writers say that a bankrupt law, which releases the debtor, on his surrendering all his property, from any farther suit or claim for previous debts, does not discharge the contract, or touch the obligation of it; but what a contract, with all its obligation, can be worth to a creditor, after such an operation upon it, it is hard to say. But it may be sufficient to say here that bankrupt laws do not impair the obligation of contracts, but simply direct what shall be done with a contractor whose ability to fulfil is partly or wholly lost, in which case the obligation, be it ever so valid, is proportionably worthless to the creditor. "No State shall, without the consent of Congress," etc. The principles of the two last clauses have been generally What would be the effect of allowing the States to do them? What are bills of credit? What of laws impairing the obligation of contracts? What discussion has been had? What do writers say? What remark? What do bankrupt laws simply direct? State the leading points of the two last clauses. shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of Congress. No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. considered already. Some possible cases being in view, in which it might be necessary for a State to lay a duty on articles imported or exported, provision was made to prevent its being done for the purposes of State revenue, or so as to conflict with the powers of Congress or the equality of all United States' ports. Inspection and quarantine laws, which concern only a State, are within the residuary powers of State sovereignty, and may require some tax on commerce. so with regard to questions of boundary, interest in lands situated within the territories of each other, and perhaps other things affecting the comfort of two or more States, they may, with the consent of Congress, make the necessary regulations with each other, or with a foreign State. And Gold, silver, and copper, are coined by the authority of Congress, notwithstanding that legal tenders are confined to gold and silver. In some nations, ancient and modern, small coins have been made of brass. In the ancient republic of Sparta, iron was coined. It was secured against counterfeits, or illegal imitations, by making the iron worth less after it was coined than before. In Russia, platina, a fine and valuable metal, heavier than gold, has been coined. What posssible cases were in view? What provision was made for them? What kind of laws may States pass, which may require a duty? On what subjects may States, with the consent of Congress, make treaties and compacts? What metals have been coined by authority of Congress? Of what have small coins been made in other nations? What metal was coined in ancient Sparta? How was it secured from counterfeits? What metal has been coined in Russia? ARTICLE II. SECTION 1. The Executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and together with the Vice-President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows: SEC. 1. "The Executive power," etc. The subjects of this Section were fruitful sources of debate. Some members of the Convention were strenuous for a plurality in the Executive department, contending that it should consist of three at least. Such persons thought they saw the beginnings of monarchy in, a single executive. The mutual counsels and advice of a plural executive would be a guard against precipitancy and rashness. Others thought this plan inconsistent with the firmness, strength, and independence, which seemed essential in the Executive. Some thought an independent Executive to be the "essence of tyranny;" that it ought to be the creature of, and dependent on, the Legislature, and of course should be chosen by that body. With others the independency of the Executive was essential to its value as a branch of the government. Some would have the Executive chosen for life, or during good behavior. This idea startled others as an approach toward an elective monarchy. Instead of it, various terms of the office were proposed, generally from three to seven years. In the course of the debate, even eight, twelve, fifteen, and twenty years, were proposed. The re-eligibility of the Executive was also a matter of much discussion. And the first votes the Convention were able to pass upon the subject were embodied in a resolution, to the effect that the national Executive consist of a single person, to be In what is the executive power vested? How long does he hold his office What other officer is chosen at the same time, for the same term? What arguments for a plurality in the executive ? What against it? What did some think of an independent executive? On what would they have it depend? How chosen? How did others view the matter? How long would some have the President's term of office? Why did this startle others? What were proposed instead? Of what lengths generally? What other terms were named? What else was a matter of much discussion? What resolution was passed first on all these matters? |