Pros And Cons Of The Constitutional Convention

he Constitutional Convention was composed of men of strong principal; men with firm opinions and the education to support those views. Their patriotism and analytical prowess fueled the Convention and its countless debates, resulting in months of writing and perfecting the document that serves as our nation’s foundation. The delegates’ intensity caused them to continue haggling over details up until just days before the Constitution was completed. Such was the case on September 14th, 1787, a mere three days before the Constitution was sent off for ratification. Several issues were raised for discussion that day, including that of impeachment, the publication of all the proceedings of the lower house of Congress, and the appointment of a national

Interestingly, two delegates moved jointly on the issue: John Rutlidge, a representative of South Carolina who had received education in England (just like the rest of the South Carolinian representatives), and Gouverneur Morris, a representative of Pennsylvania (yet a New York native, oddly enough) (Quinn, 52, 90). These men collaborated and raised a motion to add a clause that would force an impeached President to be suspended from office until his or her trial and acquittal. James Madison argued against the motion, stating that “the President is made too dependent already on the Legislature. . .”. He went on to argue that if the clause was added, the Legislature would hold nearly all of the federal power. If the impeached magistrate were to be suspended from his role, the Legislature could then instate another individual whose policies they supported. This would lead to a nullification of the system of checks and balances, with the Legislative Branch indirectly controlling policy with no real opposition. Madison’s argument proved effective, as Rutlidge’s and Morris’s move was

Nathaniel Gorham and Rufus King, both representing Massachusetts, argued that if the motion passed, more issues would arise because the people were already accustomed to the Legislature selecting a Treasurer (Quinn, 12, 14). Gouverneur Morris then shrewdly stated that if the Treasurer were not chosen by the Legislature, he would be less trusted by the Legislature and “more readily impeached.” Roger Sherman, a farmer-turned-political leader who represented Delaware at the Convention, sided with Gorham and King, stating that as Congress has the power of the purse, it would be suitable for them to choose a Treasurer. He did not support the joint vote, however. Charles Pinkney, a young but very insightful delegate from South Carolina, declared that he, too, was against the joint ballot. His reasoning was based on the fact that South Carolina employed a joint ballot to choose their state Treasurer, and when a bad appointment was made, the Legislature refused to learn from their faults. After much deliberation, the movement was passed, 8 to 3. From then on, the Treasurer was to be appointed by the President rather than the houses of