Changes

'''Debate:  Should deliberations to change the government proceed in secrecy, without public scrutiny?'''

'''Debate:  Should deliberations to change the government proceed in secrecy, without public scrutiny?'''

The Constitutional Convention was governed by strict rules.  For example, "Every member rising to speak, shall address the President; and whilst he shall be speaking, none shall pass between them or hold discourse with another, or read a book, pamphlet or paper."  There were no teleprompters then! Nothing was to be considered final until the entire Constitution had been written.  Each state received one vote.

The Constitutional Convention was governed by strict rules.  For example, "Every member rising to speak, shall address the President; and whilst he shall be speaking, none shall pass between them or hold discourse with another, or read a book, pamphlet or paper."  There were no teleprompters then! Nothing was to be considered final until the entire Constitution had been written.  Each state received only one vote, regardless of how many delegates a state sent to the convention, similar to how the U.S. Senate today allows each state only two votes (two senators) regardless of how large or small the population is in each state.

While most delegates agreed that stronger central government was necessary, they were uncertain how they could accomplish this without creating too much centralized power.  Their fear of the corruption that power brings reflects the Christian beginnings of our nation.  Christianity teaches that humans are sinful and prone to corruption.  Very few other religions teach that.

While most delegates agreed that stronger central government was necessary, they were uncertain how they could accomplish this without creating too much centralized power.  Their fear of corruption resultant from power reflected the Christian beliefs of most of the Founders: Christianity teaches that humans are sinful and prone to corruption, and thus a constitution should restrain that tendency towards corruption.

As the Constitutional Convention began, the delegates agreed that the Articles of Confederation had not created a functional government.  Congress was in shambles, and attendance in Congress was so sporadic that between October 1785 and April 1786 it had the minimum required attendance to conduct business (a "[[quorum]]") on only three days.  The stated purpose of the Constitutional Convention was to "render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government and the preservation of the Union."

As the Constitutional Convention began, the delegates agreed that the Articles of Confederation had not created a successful government.  Congress was in shambles, and attendance in Congress was so sporadic that between October 1785 and April 1786 it had the minimum required attendance to conduct business (a "[[quorum]]") on only three days.  The stated purpose of the Constitutional Convention was to "render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government and the preservation of the Union."

Those words left the Convention somewhat open in terms of its goal.  Delegates had a choice.  First, they could amend the Articles, but this would be very difficult because unanimous approval from the states was required.  Instead, they could draft a new constitution.  Some questioned whether the Convention had authority to do this, but consensus was that a new constitution was the only choice.

Those words left the Convention unlimited in terms of its goals.  Delegates had a choice.  They could amend the Articles, but this would be very difficult because unanimous approval from the states was required.  Instead, they could draft a new constitution.  Some questioned whether the Convention had authority to do this, but consensus was that a new constitution was the only choice.

The attendees thereby did not limit their actions to fixing the Articles of Confederation.  This same debate rages today by calls for a constitutional convention.  There is no way to limit what a constitutional convention does.  This debate over whether a constitutional convention can be limited to a particular issue (e.g., requiring a balanced budget by the national government) continues today, with many saying that there is never a way to limit a constitutional convention.  The only real protection from a convention exceeding its scope is that its proposal must still be ratified by the states.

The attendees thereby did not limit their actions to fixing the Articles of Confederation.  This same debate rages today by calls for a constitutional convention.  There is no way to limit what a constitutional convention does.  The only real protection from a convention exceeding its scope is not to have one in the first place.

'''Debate:  Was it proper for the delegates to go beyond their authority to amend the Articles of Confederation, and instead propose a new constitution?

'''Debate:  Was it proper for the delegates to go beyond their authority to amend the Articles of Confederation, and instead propose a new constitution?