Source: http://wiki.conventionofstates.com/doku.php?id=clips:convention_rules&amp;do=login&amp;sectok=
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 22:40:37+00:00

Document:
As discussed in Section 3.5, the courts rely heavily on historical practice when interpreting the words of Article V. This is true both of the Supreme Court2) and lower courts.3) The history relied on by the courts includes both the period up to the time the Constitution was ratified and practice subsequent to ratification.
Historically, the formal rules adopted by prior multi-state conventions have been less than comprehensive, leaving most matters to be decided by parliamentary law. Fortunately, that law is readily accessible and easy to ascertain: it is collected in Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure, published by the National Conference of State Legislatures. As explained below, we recommend Mason's Manual as a source of guidance in absence of a formal convention rule to the contrary.
Before the Constitution was ratified, colonies and states met in convention over thirty times.17) Since ratification, at least four additional conventions of states have met: Hartford (1814), Nashville (1850), Washington, D.C. (1861), and Santa Fe (1922).18) The formal rules of several of these gatherings survive, and the journals or proceedings enable us to reconstruct a partial list of rules from many of the others.
A multi-state convention is a gathering of states in their sovereign capacities, and sovereigns may choose their own representatives. Accordingly, selection of state committees is always left to the states sending them.25) The strength of the rule is illustrated by the outcomes of the rare attempts to breach it: only twice has the calling entity attempted to guide the selection procedure (in 1765 and again in 1780), and on both occasions those efforts were successfully disregarded.26) In any event, for Congress to dictate how commissioners are selected would radically undercut the fundamental purpose of the convention procedure as a way for the states to bypass Congress.
The selection method most often chosen by state legislatures has been election by the legislature itself, either in joint session or (more often) seriatim by chamber. However, legislatures may delegate the choice to the executive alone or to some combination of executive nomination and legislative approval. The latter methods were employed for many of the commissioners sent to Washington (1861) and to all of them sent to Santa Fe (1922).
Each state determines how to commission its own representatives. Early in the convention, each commissioner is expected to present his or her credentials—that is, the commission or comparable document showing authority to act on behalf of his state or state legislature. The convention selects a committee that passes on those credentials.
The tradition at general conventions has been for state-by-state votes to be tabulated in northeast-to-southwest order.
There are two kinds of quorum rules: (1) the number of commissioners who must agree to cast a state committee's vote and (2) the number of states necessary to transact business on the floor. The former is called an internal quorum rule. It is determined by the commissioning authority—that is, by each state for its own committee. For example, when New York commissioned its three delegates to the Constitutional Convention, it specified that any two must be present (and agree) to cast the state's vote.
What Officers Should the Convention Have?
Conventions of states always decide what officers are to govern them. Prior conventions seem to have made this decision pursuant to parliamentary law, before formal rules were adopted.
At the least, every convention has a presiding officer, called the president or chairman, and a secretary, executive secretary, or clerk.34) Some conventions, especially larger ones, have selected other officers, such as vice president, assistant secretaries, doorkeepers, sergeants-at-arms, and messengers. One former legislator consulted on this project recommended appointment of a parliamentarian.
In prior conventions, the identity of the temporary presiding officer, pending election of a permanent chairman, seems to have been arranged in informal pre-opening meetings. Although some have suggested that Congress designate a temporary presiding officer in its convention call, no multi-state convention call has ever done this, and an attempt to do so likely would have advisory force only.
Before the 1850 Nashville Convention, a preliminary committee decided on nominees for various offices. Although this did not prevent nominations from the floor, the convention did elect the committee's nominees.
The presiding officer always has been elected from among the commissioners rather than from outside the convention. The secretary or clerk usually (but not always) has been a non-commissioner, presumably to better assure impartiality in preparation and preservation of the records. We recommend that state lawmakers consult in advance on preliminary nominations, and that a convention of states retain the custom of electing a commissioner as the presiding officer and a non-commissioner as secretary or clerk.
One of our advisors suggested that an informal committee of state legislative leaders draft proposed rules in advance of the convention, and then try to induce as many state legislatures as possible to agree to them in advance. Whether or not this is done, the final decision on convention rules belongs to the convention itself.
After drafting proposed rules, the committee presents those rules to the floor for debate, adoption, or rejection.
A “default rule” is a rule that applies in absence of an explicit rule to the contrary. For example, in American parliamentary practice, the default rule for making decisions is a majority of those voting. The federal Constitution, or that of a state, or the adopted rules of a public body, can alter a default rule.
It is impractical for a temporary gathering such as a convention of states to adopt rules to address every conceivable situation, and the historical record shows that conventions of states have not attempted to do so. Instead, like legislatures, they adopt discrete rules addressed to particular situations and rely on a common source to supply the gaps.42) By way of illustration, the default rules for the 1787 Constitutional Convention appear to have been adapted from the procedures of the Confederation Congress. The 1850 Nashville Convention formally acceded to Thomas Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice, which Jefferson drafted for the U.S. Senate when he served as Vice President, and therefore as President of the Senate.
We believe the convention should adopt as a source of default rules Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure. There are several reasons for this.
First, Mason's Manual is very comprehensive. Using it as a source of default rules would make it unnecessary for the convention to struggle with such questions as which motions are in order and when, or the vote margin required for reconsideration.
Second, Mason's Manual is usable and practical. Not only is it time-tested, but unlike the rules and prior default sources used by earlier conventions, it has been kept up-to-date and consistent with modern technology.
Third, Mason's Manual relies on parliamentary common law, and is annotated heavily with legislative and judicial precedents, so the sources and reasoning behind a particular rule are easily discoverable.
Fourth, it enjoys wide currency among state legislatures: Seventy of the ninety-nine American state legislative chambers43) have adopted it, and there is trend in its direction.44) Therefore, Mason's Manual, or adopted rules based on Mason's Manual, are likely to be familiar to a majority of commissioners—most of whom will be chosen by state legislatures and will have had state legislative experience. Mason's Manual also will be familiar to any legislative officers or committees assigned to oversee their respective convention delegations.
Finally, among those lawmakers we consulted for this project, we found none who was hostile to Mason's Manual, and several who were very enthusiastic.
Adoption of Mason's Manual would make it unnecessary to craft rules for every occasion. Nevertheless, we believe some explicit rules are called for, as explained below.
To understand the reasons for state-by-state voting, it is important to remember that a convention for proposing amendments is not a general legislature, like Congress or a state legislature. Nor is it an instrumentality of any one state. It is, rather, part of a process designed explicitly to enable the semi-sovereign states, acting as a group through their legislatures,47) to offer ratifiable proposals. James Madison pointed out that the Constitution has both “national” (popular) and “federal” (state-based) features.48) The amendments convention, like the U.S. Senate, is a clear example of the latter.
Moreover, the fundamental reason for the convention procedure was to provide the states a way to bypass Congress.49) The only entity, other than the convention, that might prescribe an unprecedented voting rule would be Congress.50) But allowing Congress to design the convention's voting system would undercut the convention's fundamental purpose in a way that the judiciary generally does not sanction. There is no evidence that the one state, one vote rule has been impacted in any way by the “one person, one vote” requirement the modern Supreme Court imposes on general legislative bodies directly representing the people.
Approval of motions and proposals by a majority of those voting (in this case, a majority of states) is the prevailing rule under parliamentary law and prior convention practice. The convention may, if a majority of state committees wishes, alter the rule. The Santa Fe Convention (Colorado River Commission) decided on a unanimity requirement among states for most purposes. The reason, apparently, was that the group was negotiating an interstate compact, the compact would not be binding on any state that rejected it, and the compact might be useless unless all states consented.
The unanimity requirement at the Santa Fe meetings worked tolerably well, but there were only eight commissioners, and dissenters occasionally voted “yes” so as not to obstruct the progress of the negotiations. Even at Santa Fe, late in the proceedings the unanimity rule was changed temporarily to majority consent for most purposes.
A unanimous voting rule clearly would not be appropriate at a general convention, with far more states involved. We recommend that amendments conventions decide substantive and procedural questions by a majority of states voting, a quorum being present.
Traditionally, a quorum is a majority of eligible voters (states),53) and this rule seems to have been followed for most multi-state conventions. For example, the 1787 Constitutional Convention adopted a quorum of seven—that is, a majority of state committees—with decisions to be made by a majority of a quorum. On the other hand, the Washington Conference Convention adopted a quorum of only seven states when twenty-one were present. In absence of unforeseen circumstances, we do not recommend departing from the majority rule. However, any future convention of states should provide, as prior multi-state conventions have, that if a quorum is not present, those states that are represented should have power to adjourn from day to day.
Some conventions have been introduced with prayers, generally before the daily session. For example, the rules of the Hartford Convention of 1814 prescribed that “[t]he meetings of this Convention shall be opened each morning, by prayer, which it is requested may be performed, alternately, by the Chaplains of the Legislature of Connecticut, residing in the city of Hartford.” Even the modern Congress has decided that prayer can have an uplifting effect on the proceedings.
On the other hand, the most successful American multi-state convention in history—the one that drafted the Constitution—made no provision for institutionalized prayer.
We have a preference for an initial prayer, led in turn by representatives of a wide range of faiths and denominations. However, prayer is not an objective that should be pursued if it proves divisive, since, of course, individual commissioners and committees can make their own arrangements if they wish.
The Albany Congress administered an oath to its secretary, presumably to record the proceedings honestly. Oaths of fidelity are routinely administered to American public officers, and we see no reason why a convention should not do so as well.
A convention may decide to create any committees relevant to its mission. Typically, conventions create committees to review credentials, committees to draft language, and committees to negotiate differences. If the gathering is called under the Convention of States application, it will have to address a range of subjects, including term limits, fiscal responsibility, and amendments narrowing or clarifying the jurisdiction of the federal government. In that case, the convention may opt to create a committee to develop amendment language addressing each subject.
That Committees shall be appointed by ballot; and that the members who have the greatest number of ballots, although not a majority of the votes present, be the Committee. When two or more Members have an equal number of votes, the Member standing first on the list in the order of taking down the ballots shall be preferred.
Note that under this rule election was by a plurality rather than a majority.
There seems to be no reason to go through the trouble of electing members to all committees, but election may be appropriate for major areas of responsibility, such as rules and intra-convention negotiation.
Our advisors were unanimous in believing that such secrecy would not be publicly acceptable today. Mason's Manual, accordingly, includes no such rules. Advocates of secrecy may be comforted by the realization that, although secrecy has some procedural advantages, disclosure offers some offsetting advantages (in addition to public acceptance). Among these advantages is the greater ability of legislative authorities to ensure that their commissioners remain within their instructions and remain connected with political realities.
Informal discussions among state legislative leaders prior to a convention may lead to agreed limits on the size of any one state's committee. Based on a study of the historical record, we believe that a cap of five commissioners per state would be appropriate. Ultimately, the size of a state's committee is a matter for that state's legislature to determine.
It is possible that non-cooperative states may, if they do not boycott the convention,56) opt to send oversized delegations. They may do so as a measure of protest, as a populist gesture, or as a way of skewing debate in their favor. An historical illustration is the decision of Tennessee to send 100 commissioners to the Nashville Convention, when all the remaining states collectively sent only seventy-five. The presence of oversized committees does not change the one state, one vote rule (which, in fact, survived a challenge at Nashville), but the situation could present problems of crowding and fairness.
One way of forestalling this problem without impairing the prerogative of a state to govern its own committee is to adopt a convention rule limiting the number of commissioners from any one state who may participate in any given debate or appear on the floor at one time. One of our advisors suggested a limit on the amount of floor time that may be used on any day by any state committee.
Commentary: Mason's Manual sets forth a somewhat different order.61) If we disregard the items on Mason's list relevant to a legislature but not to a convention, we are left with the following: (1) call to order, (2) roll call, (3) invocation, (4) reading and approval of the journal of the previous day, (5) reports of standing committees, (6) reports of special or select committees, (7) special orders, (8) unfinished business, (9) introduction and first reading of proposals, (10) consideration of daily calendar, (11) announcement of committee meetings, and (12) adjournment.
Commentary: Addressing the presiding officer is in accord with modern practice.63) The presiding officer's obligation to select the person rising earlier, and to choose between those rising at the same time, also is consistent.64) The proscription on reading extraneous matter may seem alien in a time of universal multi-tasking, particularly with tablet computers and smartphones; but there is something to be said for requiring commissioners to direct their attention to the debate. If, however, written motions are to be disseminated instantly, commissioners should have receiving devices available. If computers are used for that purpose, then preventing commissioners from reading unrelated matter on them may be impractical.
We found no multi-state convention that limited the amount of time a commissioner could speak on the floor. An effort to impose time limits at the Washington Conference Convention was unsuccessful. Because a modern convention for proposing amendments will represent more states than any prior multi-state gathering—and therefore probably contain more commissioners—we recommend imposition of time limits.
Commentary: Not even the great prestige of former President John Tyler, the Washington Convention's presiding officer, enabled the stricken non-appealability language to survive a motion to amend. The convention decided that any ruling from the chair could be appealed, although without debate. We also recommend that appeals be permitted to prevent undue influence from the chair.74) This is particularly important because any person with sufficient reputation to be elected presiding officer is likely to have, or to have had, ties (and perhaps sympathies) with the same federal government the convention has gathered to reform.
Commentary: This rule derived from the 1787 convention, and was a tribute to the enormous prestige of its president, General Washington. The 1861 convention retained the rule, probably as a tribute to John Tyler. Whether a modern convention adopts it may depend on the personal prestige of its presiding officer.
Commentary: This rule also is duplicated in modern practice.83) It assures that all commissioners have full notice of pending measures and time to consider them. For similar reasons, the rules of the First Continental Congress prescribed that “no question shall be determined the day, on which it is agitated and debated, if anyone of the Colonies desire the determination to be postponed to another day.”84) This prompted one of our advisors to recommend a requirement of at least a day's lapse between committee approval of a measure and action by the full house. Mason's Manual states, “It is the usual procedure not to consider bills reported by committees when the report is received by the house, but to order the bill to second reading.”85) Because this reference seems inapplicable to conventions (which do not consider bills nor customarily provide for “readings”) a day's delay between committee report and house vote may serve the purpose better.
#United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931); Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922); Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920); see also Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. 381 (1798) (following procedure in adopting first ten amendments.
#See supra § 3.5; see also Paul Mason, Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure § 39-6 (Nat’l Conference of State Legislatures, 2010 ed.) [hereinafter Mason’s Manual] (“The best evidence of what are the established usages and customs is the rules as last in effect.”).
#Accord Mason’s Manual §§ 2-1, 10-4, 13-7.
#Dyer, 390 F. Supp. at 1306 (referring to power of Article V assembly to establish its own rules); see also Mason’s Manual § 71-1.
#Opinion of the Justices, 167 A. 176 (Me. 1933) (ratification conventions pass on the elections of their own members); accord Mason’s Manual § 560.
#This is an assumption made in Thomas H. Neile, The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Contemporary Issues for Congress 39 (Cong. Research Serv., Mar. 7, 2014) [hereinafter CRS Report], a paper that shows insufficient understanding of history, recent research, or applicable law. For example, it relies on only two of the more than forty reported Article V judicial decisions.
#A Report of the Debates and Proceedings in the Secret Sessions in the Conference Convention for Proposing Amendments to the Constitution of the United States 19 (L.E. Chittenden ed., 1861).
#Resolutions, Address, and Journal of Proceedings of the Southern Convention 26 (Harvey M. Watterson ed., 1850). Jefferson’s Manual is now a source for procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives as well. See Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson’s Manual, H.R. Doc. No. 111-156 (2011), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/HMAN-112/pdf/HMAN-112.pdf.
#Cf. id. §§ 41, 47.
#Id. §§ 50-1, 51-6, 510-1, 510-4; see also State of Rhode Island v. Palmer, 253 U.S. 350 (1920); Dyer v. Blair, 390 F. Supp. 1291, 1306 (N.D. Ill. 1975) (Stevens, J.). Alarmists sometimes demand to know in advance of a convention what the majority necessary for decision will be. A common question is, “Can the convention act by a simple major­ity vote, or would a two-thirds majority be required, as in Congress, for proposing an amendment?” See Robert G. Natelson, Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers 33–34 (Am. Legislative Exch. Council, 2d ed. 2013), available at http://www.alec.org/wp-content/uploads/article-five-handbook-1.pdf (reproducing text of alarmists’ questions and providing answers). This question, of course, reveals ignorance of parliamentary common law. Somewhat more surprisingly, a recent Congressional Research Service paper reveals a similar ignorance. See CRS Report, at 39 (suggesting that a convention majority of two-thirds would be appropriate).
#Mason’s Manual §§ 32-4, 37.
#The Santa Fe convention, which negotiated the Colorado River Compact, actually gathered at different times in four different locations, convening at various times in Washington, D.C., Phoenix, and Denver. Most of the meetings, however, including the final and climatic meetings, were held in Santa Fe. I was unable to find a single, unified, online source of the convention proceedings. I accordingly collected them and posted them at Minutes and Records of the Colorado River Commission (1922), available at http://constitution.i2i.org/files/2014/01/Minutes-CORiver-Commn.pdf. There may have been other twentieth century conventions that met to negotiate interstate compacts, although nearly all twentieth century compacts were negotiated more informally.# One might argue that the four-state Delaware River Basin Advisory Committee, which negotiated the Delaware River Basin Compact in 1959–1960, should be categorized as an additional interstate convention. Because this proposition is contestable, that gathering is not included here. See Robert G. Natelson, A Modern Quasi-Convention of States, Independence Inst. (Mar. 1, 2014), http://constitution.i2i.org/2014/03/01/thea-modern-quasi-convention-of-states/.
#Although called a “commission,” this gathering was a true regional convention of states. It should not be confused with those bodies called “commissions” that operate after and pursuant to compacts. The latter represent another form of multi-state cooperation, but their permanent character disqualifies them from being called conventions.
#A “general convention” is one to which all states, or at least states from all regions, are invited, irrespective of whether all participate. It is to be distinguished from a regional, or partial, convention. See supra § 3.1. The term “general convention” does not designate an assembly where the subject matter is unlimited, as some have assumed.
#For a unified, online collection of the proceedings, see Minutes and Records of the Colorado River Commission (1922) [hereinafter Colorado Commission Records], available at http://constitution.i2i.org/files/2014/01/Minutes-CORiver-Commn.pdf.
#When the Massachusetts legislature called the 1765 Stamp Act Congress, it asked that other colonies select commissioners through only the lower houses of their legislatures. This was because at the time only the lower chambers were directly elected, while the upper chambers were controlled indirectly by the British Crown. Nevertheless, several colonies chose commissioners in ways other than that recommended, and those commissioners were duly seated. Robert G. Natelson, Founding-Era Conventions and the Meaning of the Constitution’s “Convention for Proposing Amendments,” 65 Fla. L. Rev. 615, 635–37 (2013), reprinted infra § 5.1. In 1780, the Massachusetts legislature called a convention of five northeastern states. Apparently because some state legislatures were in recess, it asked that commissioners be appointed by those states’ official “councils of war.” Several states opted to select commissioners by other means, and they also were duly seated. Id. at 659–60.
#In 1783 the Massachusetts legislature attempted to break this custom by calling a five-state “one delegate, one vote” convention. The call had to be rescinded when two of the four other states invited refused to attend. Natelson, Conventions, at 666.
#Cf. Paul Mason, Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure § 52 (Nat’l Conference of State Legislatures, 2010 ed.) [hereinafter Mason’s Manual] (providing for equality of the “members” of an assembly).
#1 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 2 (Max Farrand ed., 1939) (“The Members then proceeded to ballot on behalf of their respective States—and, the ballots being taken, it appeared that the said George Washington was unanimously elected.”); see also id. at 4: (“Mr. Wilson moved that a Secretary be appointed, and nominated Mr. Temple Franklin. Col. Hamilton nominated Major Jackson. On the ballot Majr. Jackson had 5 votes & Mr. Franklin 2 votes.”); id. at 29 (showing only eight slash marks representing votes). Obviously, since there were several dozen commissioners present, this low vote tally had to reflect the states.
#Mason’s Manual §§ 306-2, 536.
#Id. §§ 49-1, 502-1; see also id. § 501-1 (“The total membership of a body is to be taken as the basis for computing a quorum, but when there is a vacancy, unless a special provision is applicable, a quorum will consist of the majority of the members remaining qualified.”); accord id. § 502-2. Section 501-2 provides that “The authority that creates a body has the power to fix its quorum.” In the case of an amendments convention, however, that authority is the convention, not Congress, which calls it, nor the state legislatures, who apply for it and authorize and create its delegations. The Constitution does not prescribe a quorum, leaving it to the convention.
#Rhode Island v. Palmer, 253 U.S. 350 (1920); Dyer v. Blair, 390 F. Supp. 1291, 1306 (N.D. Ill. 1975) (Stevens, J.). On majorities as a rule of decision, see Mason’s Manual §§ 50-1, 51-6, 510-1, 510-4.
#Because of Hoover’s relief work in World War I and his reputation as an international engineer, his personal prestige at the time was enormous.
#For a unified, online source of this convention’s proceedings, see Colorado Commission Records.
#Default rules are discussed below in Section 3.14.4.
#Paul Mason, Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure § 30-1 (Nat’l Conference of State Legislatures, 2010 ed.) [hereinafter Mason’s Manual] (“Most legislative bodies adopt a manual of legislative procedure as the authority to apply in all cases not covered by constitutional provisions, legislative rules, or statutes.”); see also id. § 30-2 (stating that resort to manuals by “deliberative assemblies” is permissible).
#See Using Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure, Nat’l Conference of State Legislatures, http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/masons-manual-for-legislative-bodies.aspx (last visited Mar. 27, 2014).
#The two most prominent rivals to Mason’s Manual also were designed for bodies other than conventions: Robert’s Rules of Order, and Jefferson’s Manual.
#The Federalist No. 39 (James Madison).
#Some have argued that Congress has this power under the Necessary and Proper Clause, but this is inaccurate. See supra § 3.9.4.
#Robert G. Natelson, Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers 22 (Am. Legislative Exch. Council, 2d ed. 2013).
#Resolutions, Address, and Journal of Proceedings of the Southern Convention 27 (Harvey M. Watterson ed., 1850). Similarly an effort in 1783 by the Massachusetts legislature to call a one delegate, one vote convention failed because states refused to participate. Robert G. Natelson, Founding-Era Conventions and the Meaning of the Constitution’s “Convention for Proposing Amendments,” 65 Fla. L. Rev. 615, 666 (2013), reprinted infra § 5.1.
#Mason’s Manual § 705-3 (providing that a legislative body has absolute control of its chambers).
# 1 Farrand’s Records, at 8.
#For example, Rhode Island objected to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, and refused to send commissioners. No multi-state convention has included committees from every single state.
#A Report of the Debates and Proceedings in the Secret Sessions in the Conference Convention for Proposing Amendments to the Constitution of the United States 19 (L.E. Chittenden ed., 1861) [hereinafter Washington Conference Report].
#All the rules of that convention are not treated here—only those on debate and decorum.
#Washington Conference Report, at 23, 24.
#Paul Mason, Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure § 710 (Nat’l Conference of State Legislatures, 2010 ed.) [hereinafter Mason’s Manual].
#Washington Conference Report, at 23.
#Mason’s Manual §§ 91-2, 110-1.
#Washington Conference Report, at 23–24.
#Washington Conference Report, at 24.
#Cf. Mason’s Manual § 144-2 (stating that “A motion is usually presented orally, but if particularly long or involved, the presiding officer may require that it be presented . . . in writing.”).
#Id. § 441 (“Form of Presenting Main Motions”); id. § 442 (“Precedence of Main Motions”).
#Mason’s Manual §§ 311-2, 313-1, 313-2.
#Cf. Mason’s Manual §§ 230-1, 246-4 (permitting appeals).
#Mason’s Manual §§ 215, 216-3.
#Id. § 204-1. The Founding Generation specifically recognized that a convention for proposing amendments may adjourn without proposing any amendments. Robert G. Natelson, Proposing Constitutional Amendments by Convention: Rules Governing the Process, 78 Tenn. L. Rev. 693, 743–44 n.342 (2011), reprinted infra § 5.2., at (quoting James Madison and an anti-federalist writer).
# Washington Conference Report, at 24.
#1 Journals of the Continental Congress 1774–1789, at 26 (1904).

References: V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3
 § 39
 § 71
 § 560
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3
 § 5
 § 52
 § 501
 § 502
 v. 
 v. 
 § 30
 § 30
 § 3
 § 5
 § 705
 § 710
 § 144
 § 441
 § 442
 § 204
 § 5