New Jersey Plan

6 Key excerpts on "New Jersey Plan"

• 

  eBook - ePub

  The Encyclopedia of the Wars of the Early American Republic, 1783–1812

  A Political, Social, and Military History [3 volumes]

  • Spencer C. Tucker(Author)
  • 2014(Publication Date)
  • ABC-CLIO

    (Publisher)

  Plan put forth by William Paterson of New Jersey on June 15, 1787, at the Constitutional Convention that countered the already-introduced Virginia Plan. Among other things, Paterson’s plan called for the establishment of a unicameral legislative body that would have given each state one vote. The Virginia Plan, also known as the Randolph Plan, had dominated the first two weeks of deliberation and debate at the convention. It called for proportional representation.

  The New Jersey Plan was contained in a total of nine resolutions, which more closely tracked the existing Articles of Confederation than had the Virginia Plan. By maintaining equal state representation in Congress, the New Jersey Plan also more clearly preserved the interests of the less populous states. Consistent with Paterson’s intention to amend rather than replace the Articles of Confederation, the first resolution of the New Jersey Plan almost directly tracked the language of the Annapolis Convention. Also consistent with this goal, the second resolution made no attempt to alter the unicameral structure of the Confederation Congress but instead focused on enlarging its powers. These included the power to raise revenue by levying duties on foreign goods, to regulate the collection of such taxes, to alter such regulations when needed, and to legislate further acts to regulate commerce and trade. Recognizing problems with the existing tax structure, which depended upon congressional requisitions on the states, the New Jersey Plan provided that such requisitions would be made according to the white population and three-fifths of slaves.

  Perhaps consistent with the agreement to which the convention had come in respect to the Virginia Plan, the New Jersey Plan further specified that Congress would elect an executive, to consist of an unspecified number of persons (but clearly plural in nature), to serve for a single term of unspecified years. Congress was to have the power to remove the executives and would have the power to appoint officers not otherwise provided for. The plan prohibited the president from taking personal command of U.S. troops. Whereas the Virginia Plan called for legislative appointment of judges, the New Jersey Plan provided that the executive would appoint judges. Like the Virginia Plan, the New Jersey Plan provided that members of the judiciary would try impeachment of federal officers.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  No longer available |Learn more

  The Challenge of Democracy

  American Government in Global Politics, Enhanced

  • Kenneth Janda, Jeffrey Berry, Jerry Goldman, Deborah Deborah(Authors)
  • 2019(Publication Date)
  • Cengage Learning EMEA

    (Publisher)

  (There was no pro-vision for a system of national courts.) ● ● That the acts of the legislature be binding on the states—that is, that they be regarded as “the supreme law of the respective states,” with the option of force to compel obedience. After only three days of deliberation, the New Jersey Plan was defeated in the first major convention vote, 7–3. However, the small states had enough support to force a compromise on the issue of representation in the legislature. Table 3.1 compares the New Jersey Plan with the Virginia Plan. New Jersey Plan Submitted by the head of the New Jersey delegation to the Constitutional Convention, a set of nine resolutions that would have, in effect, preserved the Articles of Confederation by amending rather than replacing them. TABLE 3.1 Major Differences Between the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan Characteristic Virginia Plan New Jersey Plan Legislature Two chambers One chamber Legislative power Derived from the people Derived from the states Executive Unspecified size More than one person Decision rule Majority Extraordinary majority State laws Legislature can override National law is supreme Executive removal By Congress By a majority of the states Courts National judiciary No provision for national judiciary Ratification By the people By the states 59 From Confederation to Constitution The Great Compromise The Virginia Plan provided for a two-chamber legislature, with representation in both chambers based on population. The idea of two chambers was never seriously challenged, but the idea of representation according to population stirred up heated and prolonged debate. The small states demanded equal representation for all states, but another vote rejected that concept for the House of Representatives. The debate continued. Finally, the Connecticut delegation moved that each state have an equal vote in the Senate. Still another poll showed that the delegations were equally divided on this proposal.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  The Constitutional Convention of 1787

  A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of America's Founding [2 volumes]

  • John R. Vile(Author)
  • 2005(Publication Date)
  • ABC-CLIO

    (Publisher)

  He accepted the idea of an executive but lent his weight to those, like Edmund Randolph, who thought that it should be plural in nature. Perhaps as a way of avoiding legislative corrup- tion, he further proposed that this executive, rather than Congress, should appoint members of the federal judiciary. In a provision that the Con- vention later revised and incorporated into the fi- nal document, he proposed that U.S. laws and treaties should be the supreme law of the land. Scholars still vigorously debate the primary in- tent of the New Jersey Plan. Was it designed as a radical alternative to the Virginia Plan, or was it largely a stalking horse for those who insisted on keeping equal state representation in at least one house of the new Congress? The issue, which scholars will probably never fully resolve, is not new. The day after Paterson introduced the New Jersey Plan, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina somewhat cynically observed that if the delegates were to grant New Jersey “an equal vote . . . she will dismiss her scruples, and concur in the Natil. system” (I, 255). One fascinating aspect of the New Jersey Plan is that, while its proponents argued that it had jus- tice on its side, they tended not so much to stress the desirability of the plan in and of itself as to stress the compatibility of the plan with the task to which the Convention had been called. Pater- son pointedly observed: I came here not to speak my own sentiments, but [the sentiments of] those who sent me. Our ob- ject is not such a Governmt. as may be the best in itself, but such a one as our Constituents have authorized us to prepare, and as they will ap- prove. (I, 251) Because proceedings were secret, delegates could only guess at what the people outside the Convention might accept.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  The Constitution Explained

  A Guide for Every American

  • David L. Hudson(Author)
  • 2022(Publication Date)
  • Visible Ink Press

    (Publisher)

  Charles Pinckney (1757–1824) of South Carolina introduced a plan of government on the same day as the Virginia, or Randolph, Plan. The plan was similar in some respects to Madison’s ideas. In fact, some historians suspect that Madison gave little mention to Pinckney’s plans in his notes because he did not want the Pinckney Plan to receive credit.

  Pinckney’s plan also argued for a strong national government. The Convention as a whole never debated Pinckney’s plan. However, it was referred to a later committee, the Committee of Detail, which made use of it. Christopher and James Lincoln Collier write: “Many of Pinckney’s ideas, and even his language, ended up in the final Constitution of the United States.”

  Pinckney made many speeches during the Convention in which he argued for the delegates to think about a central government. Historian Charles Warren writes that on June 25, Pinckney made a particularly passionate speech: “Into the debates which had so largely turned on devotion to the States, Pinckney now breathed a spirit of Americanism.”

  Paterson or New Jersey Plan

  On June 15, William Paterson (1745–1806) from New Jersey introduced the Paterson Plan. “Can we, as representatives of independent states, annihilate the essential powers of independency?” Paterson said when introducing his proposal. He wanted a weaker central government.

  The New Jersey Plan contained many features, including a single-bodied, or unicameral, legislature and a multiperson executive. Under the New Jersey Plan, Congress could only act on certain matters. Congress would elect the members of the federal executive. Congress could remove the persons of the federal executive if a majority of state leaders voted such action necessary.

  Interestingly, the New Jersey Plan contained language providing that the laws of the U.S. Congress “shall be the supreme law of the respective States.” This formed the basis for the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. The supremacy clause provides that the laws of the national, or federal, government are the supreme law of the land and trump the laws of the various states.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Revolutionary America, 1763-1815

  A Sourcebook

  • Francis D. Cogliano, Kirsten E. Phimister(Authors)
  • 2010(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  The Virginia Plan (document 2) would strike at the authority of the states—both because it would vest so much authority in the federal government and because representation within the proposed bicameral congress would be apportioned according to population. Under the Continental Congress and the Articles of Confederation, each of the states were equal and possessed one vote. On June 14 and 15, 1787, William Paterson (1745–1806) of New Jersey presented an alternative to the Virginia Plan. According to Paterson’s plan, which had the support of several small states which feared they would be overwhelmed under the Virginia Plan,

  Congress would have increased powers but it would retain a unicameral structure and each state delegation would have one vote. Paterson’s plan was closer to the original intention of the Constitutional Convention in so far as it recommended modifications to the Articles of Confederation rather than their replacement by a new constitution. The New Jersey Plan prompted a debate about the nature of representation in the new government, and a compromise emerged whereby representation in the lower house of Congress, the House of Representatives, would be according to state population but each of the states would be equal in the upper house having two votes in the Senate.

  1. Resd. that the articles of Confederation ought to be so revised, corrected & enlarged, as to render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government, & the preservation of the Union.

  2. Resd. that in addition to the powers vested in the U. States in Congress, by the present existing articles of Confederation, they be authorized to pass acts for raising a revenue, by levying a duty or duties on all goods or merchandizes of foreign growth or manufacture, imported into any part of the U. States, by Stamps on paper, vellum or parchment, and by a postage on all letters or packages passing through the general post-Office, to be applied to such federal purposes as they shall deem proper & expedient; to make rules & regulations for the collection thereof; and the same from time to time, to alter & amend in such manner as they shall think proper: to pass Acts for the regulation of trade & commerce as well with foreign nations as with each other: provided that all punishments, fines, forfeitures & penalties to be incurred for contravening such acts rules and regulations shall be adjudged by the Common law Judiciaries of the State in which any offense contrary to the true intent & meaning of such Acts rules & regulations shall have been committed or perpetrated, with liberty of commencing in the first instance all suits & prosecutions for that purpose in the superior Common law Judiciary in such State, subject nevertheless, for the correction of all errors, both in law & fact in rendering judgment, to an appeal to the Judiciary of the U. States.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Forging the American Nation, 1787-1791

  James Madison and the Federalist Revolution

  • Shlomo Slonim(Author)
  • 2017(Publication Date)
  • Palgrave Macmillan

    (Publisher)

  54 On June 13, Madison’s formal proposal for lodging the appointment of judges in the Senate was carried unanimously. 55 At this point, the Senate to which Madison and the Convention referred was that outlined in the Virginia Plan (essentially drafted by Madison) in which representation would be proportional to population, as in the lower house. 56 The New Jersey Plan, first presented to the plenum on June 15, provided for the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court by the executive acting alone. 57 This may ring strange in a plan devoted to according the states, and particularly the smaller states, a greater role in the operation of the federal government. However, two things should be borne in mind. First, the New Jersey Plan endorsed a plural executive; and second, the national executive was 42 S. SLONIM subject to the control of state executives who could apply to Congress for his removal. Consequently, a restraining feature was built into the appointment process, and there was no need for additional restraint by another branch of government. The New Jersey Plan made no reference to the adoption of treaties, and presumably under its scheme the power to make treaties would continue to reside in the one-House, state-controlled Congress that operated under the Articles of Confederation. On June 19, the Convention opted for the Virginia Plan in preference to the New Jersey Plan. 58 This, of course, did not put an end to small-state agitation for equality in at least one house of the national legislature. 59 The matter was only resolved with finality when the Connecticut Compromise was adopted on July 16, granting all states equality in the Senate. 60 The previously adopted formula, according to which the Senate alone made judicial appointments, was now significantly weighted in favor of the smaller states. This fact was not lost on the delegates of the larger states when the judicial appointments provision was once again taken up for debate on July 18.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book