In ratifying the Constitution, the states drew up ratification ordinances that described their understanding of what the Constitution meant and the premises on which they accepted the new framework. In fact, many states were not willing to adopt the model without citing their own tolerances directly. These understandings were sometimes also offered as textual amendments to be considered for ultimate codification as a constitutional amendment. Here is the understanding that a few of the states reached (direct from the documents) when it came to the federal government’s ability to establish mercantile policies in the states: New York: “That the Congress do not grant Monopolies or erect any Company with exclusive Advantages of Commerce.” Rhode Island: “That Congress erect no company with exclusive advantages of commerce.” North Carolina: “That Congress erect no company of merchants with exclusive advantages of commerce.” Massachusetts: “That Congress erect no Company of Merchants with exclusive advantages of commerce.” But we’re supposed to believe that all of the states wished for the federal government to have substantive, suppressive power over all commerce in the country, grant bailouts to failing firms, provide exclusive monopolies to others, and allow for a national bank with the sole power of money printing. I think not.
Posted on: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 02:53:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015