100 Years Ago Today, Jeannette Rankin Was Elected as First U.S. Congresswoman

On November 7, 1916, Jeannette Rankin, a suffragist from Montana, was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, becoming the first woman in the history of this nation to win a seat in the United States Congress. When she was elected, she said:“I may be the first woman member of Congress . . . But I won’t be the last.” Today, 104 women hold seats in the United States Congress. 20 women serve in the U.S. Senate and 84 serve in the U.S. House of Representatives.

 

Who Was Jeannette Rankin?

Jeannette Rankin, the eldest daughter of a rancher and a schoolteacher, was born near Missoula, Montana, on June 11, 1880. She graduated from Montana State University (now the University of Montana) in 1902 and attended the New York School of Philanthropy (later the Columbia University School of Social Work). After a brief period as a social worker in Spokane, Washington, Rankin entered the University of Washington in Seattle. It was there that she joined the woman suffrage movement, a campaign that achieved its goal in Washington State in 1910. Rankin became a professional lobbyist for the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA). Her speaking and organizing efforts helped Montana women gain the vote in 1914.

When Rankin decided in 1916 to run for a House seat from Montana, she had two key advantages: her reputation as a suffragist and her politically well-connected brother, Wellington, who financed her campaign. Some national woman suffrage leaders feared she would lose and hurt the cause. The novelty of a woman running for Congress, however, helped Rankin secure a GOP nomination for one of Montana’s two At-Large House seats on August 29, 1916. Rankin ran as a progressive, pledging to work for a constitutional woman suffrage amendment and emphasizing social welfare issues. Long a committed pacifist, she did not shy away from letting voters know how she felt about possible U.S. participation in the European war that had been raging for two years: “If they are going to have war, they ought to take the old men and leave the young to propagate the race.” Rankin came in second, winning one of Montana’s seats. She trailed the frontrunner, Democratic Representative John M. Evans, by 7,600 votes, but she topped the next candidate— another Democrat–by 6,000 votes. Rankin ran a nonpartisan campaign in a Democratic state during a period of national hostility toward parties in general. And this was the first opportunity for Montana women to vote in a federal election. “I am deeply conscious of the responsibility resting upon me,” read her public victory statement.

Rankin and the Fight for Women’s Suffrage

As the first woman Member, Rankin was on the front lines of the national suffrage fight. During the fall of 1917 she advocated the creation of a Committee on Woman Suffrage and, when it was created, she was appointed to it. When the special committee reported out a constitutional amendment on woman suffrage in January 1918, Rankin opened the very first House Floor debate on this subject. “How shall we answer their challenge, gentlemen,” she asked. “How shall we explain to them the meaning of democracy if the same Congress that voted for war to make the world safe for democracy refuses to give this small measure of democracy to the women of our country?” The resolution narrowly passed the House amid the cheers of women in the galleries, but it died in the Senate.

The Weekend Before Election Day: A Good Time to Make Sure You’re Fully Informed Before You Vote

The 2016 election is on Tuesday, November 8, 2016. More than 30 million citizens have already voted, taking advantage of early voting opportunities in many states. If, like me, you have not yet voted, I hope you’ll spend some time this weekend making sure you are fully informed before you head to the polls on Tuesday.

Ballotpedia, a non-partisan encyclopedia of American politics at all levels of government, has some very useful Election 2016 resources. This is a terrific one-stop-shop for folks who want a last minute primer on the 2016 election at the federal, state, and local level.

(1) To learn more about the candidates for President and Vice President and their positions on domestic, economic and foreign policy, check out this page.

(2) 34 of 100 seats in the United States Senate are up for reelection. Learn more about the Senate candidates running in your state here.

(3) Learn more about candidates for the House of Representatives here.

(4) A total of 93 state executive seats are scheduled for election in 23 states. All 13 types of executive offices will have an election in at least one state. Twelve states will elect governors, including a special election in Oregon, and ten states will elect attorneys general. Learn more here.

(5) 86 of 99 total state legislative chambers will hold elections on Tuesday. Learn more about these state legislative elections here.

(6) 162 statewide ballot measures have been certified for the ballot in 35 states. Learn more about ballot measures in your state here.

(7) There are many local ballot measures, as well. Check out this page to see what’s been proposed in your locality. 

(8) 63 state supreme courts and intermediate appellate courts across 34 states are holding elections in 2016. Learn more about your state judicial elections here.

(9) 39 of 50 states will hold elections for judges in general and limited jurisdiction trial courts. Learn more about these local judicial elections here.

(10) 46 of the country’s 100 largest cities are holding municipal elections this year. Learn more about your city’s municipal elections here.

(11) 644 of America’s largest school districts by enrollment are holding elections this year for 2,043 seats. These elections will take place in 38 states. These districts collectively educated a total of 17,177,187 students during the 2013-2014 school year—34% of all K-12 students in the United States. Learn more about school board elections where you live here.

(12) There are a number of political recall efforts in several states. Find out if elected officials in your state are being recalled here.

A Civic Holiday for SCOTUS Enthusiasts: The First Monday in October

28 U.S.C § 2 states that “The Supreme Court shall hold at the seat of government a term of court commencing on the first Monday in October of each year and may hold such adjourned or special terms as may be necessary.”

And so the first Monday in October has become an unofficial civic holiday of sorts for followers of the United States Supreme Court. And so it seems only appropriate to spend some time discussing the history of the United States Supreme Court.

Article III, §1 of the United States Constitution states that “[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” The Supreme Court of the United States was created in accordance with this provision and by authority of the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789. It was organized on February 2, 1790.

Article III, §2 of the Constitution sets out the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and provides that

“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;-between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

Under authority given to Congress by the Constitution, various statutes have been passed conferring appellate jurisdiction upon the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and 8 associate justices (the number currently fixed by statute in 28 U.S.C. §1).

Article III, §1 provides that “[t]he Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

The current justices of the United States Supreme Court include:

(1) Chief Justice John G. Roberts

(2) Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy

(3) Associate Justice Clarence Thomas

(4) Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

(5) Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer

(6) Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

(7) Associate Justice Sonio Sotomayor

(8) Associate Justice Elena Kagan

There is currently one vacancy on the Court. Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has been nominated by President Obama to fill that vacancy. The Senate has not yet voted to confirm Garland’s nomination. Article II, §2 of the Constitution states that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . judges of the Supreme Court.”

 

When Congress Overrides a Presidential Veto: A Brief History

The Senate just voted to override President Obama’s veto of a law that would allow 9/11 survivors to sue Saudi Arabia (the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act). The House is poised to override his veto later this week, as well. [Update: The House voted today to override President Obama’s veto].

This is the first veto override of President Obama’s two terms in office, and is a good time to review Congress’s power to override presidential vetoes under the United States Constitution. Per the terms of the Constitution, President’s veto can be overridden by two-thirds of both houses of Congress. The super-majority requirement makes veto overrides relatively rare. A Congressional Research Service Report found that prior to 1969, Congress overrode approximately 1 of every 18 (5.7%) regular vetoes. Since 1969, Congress has voted to override about 1 out of 5 (18.3%) regular vetoes.

This useful chart from the same CRS report shows the number of vetoes overridden from 1789 through the presidency of George W. Bush (note that the report was published in April 2004, and does not reflect that Congress voted to override 4 of President Bush’s vetoes prior to the end of his second term).

screen-shot-2016-09-28-at-1-43-49-pm

Article I, § 7 of the United States Constitution reads in relevant part –

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sunday excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law. (emphasis added)

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill. (emphasis added).

In Federalist No. 69, Alexander Hamilton discussed the power of Congress to override presidential vetoes –

The President of the United States is to have power to return a bill, which shall have passed the two branches of the Legislature, for re-consideration; but the bill so returned is to become a law, if upon that re-consideration it be approved by two thirds of both houses. The King of Great Britain, on his part, has an absolute negative upon the acts of the two houses of parliament. The disuse of that power for a considerable time past, does not affect the reality of its existence; and is to be ascribed wholly to the crown’s having found the means of substituting influence to authority, or the art of gaining a majority in one or the other of the two houses, to the necessity of exerting a prerogative which could seldom be exerted without hazarding some degree of national agitation. The qualified negative of the President differs widely from this absolute negative of the British sovereign; and tallies exactly with the revisionary authority of the Council of revision of this State, of which the Governor is a constituent part. In this respect, the power of the President would exceed that of the Governor of New-York; because the former would possess singly what the latter shares with the Chancellor and Judges: But it would be precisely the same with that of the Governor of Massachusetts, whose constitution, as to this article, seems to have been the original from which the Convention have copied.

And in Federalist No. 72, Hamilton went on to say

But the Convention have pursued a mean in this business; which will both facilitate the exercise of the power vested in this respect in the executive magistrate, and make its efficacy to depend on the sense of a considerable part of the legislative body. Instead of an absolute negative, it is proposed to give the executive the qualified negative already described. This is a power, which would be much more readily exercised than the other. A man who might be afraid to defeat a law by his single veto, might not scruple to return it for re-consideration; subject to being finally rejected only in the event of more than one third of each house concurring in the sufficiency of his objections. He would be encouraged by the reflection, that if his opposition should prevail, it would embark in it a very respectable proportion of the legislative body, whose influence would be united with his in supporting the propriety of his conduct, in the public opinion. A direct and categorical negative has something in the appearance of it more harsh, and more apt to irritate, than the mere suggestion of argumentative objections to be approved or disapproved, by those to whom they are addressed. In proportion as it would be less apt to offend, it would be more apt to be exercised; and for this very reason it may in practice be found more effectual. It is to be hoped that it will not often happen, that improper views will govern so large a proportion as two-thirds of both branches of the Legislature at the same time; and this too in defiance of the counterpoising weight of the executive. It is at any rate far less probable, that this should be the case, than that such views should taint the resolutions and conduct of a bare majority. A power of this nature, in the executive, will often have a silent and unperceived though forcible operation. When men engaged in unjustifiable pursuits are aware, that obstructions may come from a quarter which they cannot controul, they will often be restrained, by the bare apprehension of opposition, from doing what they would with eagerness rush into, if no such external impediments were to be feared.

Joseph Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution explained how the Constitutional Convention delegates viewed this legislative check upon the executive’s veto power –

The other point of inquiry is, as to the extent of the legislative check upon the negative of the executive. It has been seen, that it was originally proposed, that a concurrence of two thirds of each house should be required; that this was subsequently altered to three fourths; and was finally brought back again to the original number. One reason against the three fourths seems to have been, that it would afford little security for any effectual exercise of the power. The larger the number required to overrule the executive negative, the more easy it would be for him to exert a silent and secret influence to detach the requisite number in order to carry his object. Another reason was, that even, supposing no such influence to be exerted, still, in a great variety of cases of a political nature, and especially such, as touched local or sectional interests, the pride or the power of states, it would be easy to defeat the most salutary measures, if a combination of a few states could produce such a result. And the executive himself might, from his local attachments or sectional feelings, partake of this common bias. In addition to this, the departure from the general rule, of the right of a majority to govern, ought not to be allowed but upon the most urgent occasions; and an expression of opinion by two thirds of both houses in favour of a measure certainly afforded all the just securities, which any wise, or prudent people ought to demand in the ordinary course of legislation; for all laws thus passed might, at any time, be repealed at the mere will of the majority. It was also no small recommendation of the lesser number, that it offered fewer inducements to improper combinations, either of the great states, or the small states, to accomplish particular objects. There could be but one of two rules adopted in all governments, either, that the majority should govern, or the minority should govern. The president might be chosen by a bare majority of electoral votes, and this majority might be by the combination of a few large states, and by a minority of the whole people. Under such circumstances, if a vote of three fourths were required to pass a law, the voice of two thirds of the states and two thirds of the people might be permanently disregarded during a whole administration. The case put may seem strong; but it is not stronger, than the supposition, that two thirds of both houses would be found ready to betray the solid interests of their constituents by the passage of injurious or unconstitutional laws. The provision, therefore, as it stands, affords all reasonable security; and pressed farther, it would endanger the very objects, for which it is introduced into the constitution.

The first congressional override of a presidential veto occurred on March 3, 1845, when the 28th Congress voted to override President John Tyler’s veto of an appropriations bill.

The Congressional Research Service describes congressional procedure for reconsidering vetoed legislation

Congressional action on a vetoed measure begins when the President returns the bill to the chamber of origin along with his objections in the form of a veto message. Once the vetoed legislation has been received by the originating chamber, that house is constitutionally required to “reconsider” the vetoed bill. The Constitution is silent, however, on the meaning of “reconsideration.” Procedure and tradition govern the treatment of vetoed bills returned by the President. On receipt of the vetoed bill, the President’s message is read into the journal of the receiving house. After entering the message into the journal, the House of Representatives or the Senate complies with the constitutional requirement to “reconsider” by laying the measure on the table (essentially stopping further action on it), referring the bill to committee, postponing consideration to a certain day, or immediately voting on reconsideration (vote on override). Action by both the House and the Senate is required to override.5 A two-thirds majority vote by Members present (provided there is a quorum) is required to override a presidential veto. When one house fails to override, the other house will not attempt to override, even if the votes are present to succeed. Action by the Senate or the House of Representatives on a veto may be taken at any time during a Congress in which the veto is received.

In Honor of National Voter Registration Day: A Brief History of Voting Rights in America

In honor of National Voter Registration Day, and in an effort to encourage citizens to not only register to vote ahead of state deadlines but also to vote in this year’s election on Tuesday, November 8, I thought I’d provide some general information here about the history of voting rights in this country.

Let’s begin at the beginning. . .

Voting in Colonial America

The 13 colonies imposed land/property or tax-paying requirements on voters. In their view, only these people were sufficiently committed to their communities to vote.

Many colonies also imposed religious tests on voting, barring Catholics and Jews, for example, from participating in elections. These religious tests would later be repealed.

The American Revolution

The American Revolution was fought, in part, over the issues of voting and representation in Parliament. American colonists rejected the notion of “virtual representation” – the idea that English members of Parliament could represent the interests of the colonists in North America, even though the colonists had no say in electing those representatives. Hence the language in the Declaration of Independence: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed[.]” (emphasis added).

The Abolition of Property Requirements in the 19th Century

The 19th century saw the abolition of property requirements for voting and thus began a new era of universal white manhood suffrage.

Note that during this time, only a few states (like Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, and others) allowed African Americans to vote without significant restrictions. In most other places, African Americans – whether slave or free –  could not vote.

Also during this period, women property holders in New Jersey, who had once had the right to vote, now lost it.

The Fifteenth Amendment

The Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution granted African American men the right to vote. It declared the “right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

Although ratified on February 3, 1870, the promise of the 15th Amendment would not be fully realized for almost a century. Through the use of poll taxes, literacy tests, intimidation, violence, and other Jim Crow-era means, Southern states effectively disenfranchised African Americans during this period. It was not until the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that a majority of African Americans in the South would be registered to vote.

 

The Nineteenth Amendment

In 1776, Abigail Adams wrote to her husband John Adams: “I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.”

John Adams responded to his wife’s letter (in a similarly teasing tone) and declared that men were not really the “masters” of women but were “subject to the despotism of the petticoat.” Adams and his contemporaries, like those who preceded them, failed to make codifying women’s rights a priority.

Although the Seneca Falls women’s rights convention of 1848 adopted a specific call for women’s suffrage, it would take an additional 72 years of lobbying and protesting for most women to gain the right to vote.  The amendment was first introduced in Congress in 1878, but was not ratified until August 18, 1920.

The Nineteenth Amendment reads:

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

The Voting Rights Act of 1965

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was an act to enforce the 15th amendment to the United States Constitution, and was signed into law 95 years after that amendment was ratified. In that 95 year period, African Americans in the South faced near insurmountable obstacles to voting, including, literacy tests, poll taxes, a variety of bureaucratic restrictions, intimidation, physical violence and economic reprisal. As a result, there were few registered black voters in the South.

Political protests and reactionary violence in 1964 brought renewed attention to the issue of voting rights for African Americans. In particular, the murder of voting-rights activists in Mississippi and attacks on peaceful marchers in Selma, Alabama, allowed President Lyndon Baines Johnson and Congress to pass the voting rights bill on August 5, 1965.

The legislation outlawed literacy tests and provided for the appointment of federal examiners to help register qualified citizens to vote. By the end of 1965, 250,000 new black voters had been registered, one-third by Federal examiners. By the end of 1966, only 4 out of the 13 southern states had fewer than 50 percent of African Americans registered to vote.

The 24th Amendment and the Abolition of the Poll Tax

At the time of the passage of the 24th Amendment by Congress in 1962, five states (Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and Texas) maintained poll taxes. which disproportionately impacted poor African American voters. The Amendment was ratified in 1964 and reads:

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

The 26th Amendment: Old Enough to Fight, Old Enough to Vote

The debate over lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 began during World War II and intensified during the Vietnam War, when young men who could not vote and therefore influence war policy were being conscripted to fight in the Vietnam War.

In 1970, Congress passed the Voting Rights Acts Amendments, which sought to lower the minimum age of voters in both state and federal elections from 21 to 18. In response, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Oregon v. Mitchell (1970) that Congress had the right to regulate the minimum voting age in federal, but not state and local, elections.

In response to this case and mounting political pressure, Congress passed the 26th Amendment in March 1971. The states quickly ratified the Amendment, which went into effect in July of that year. The 26th Amendment reads:

“The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

The fight over voting rights continues

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was amended and reauthorized in 1970, 1975, 1982, 1992 and 2006. In 2013, the United States Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder

ruled 5-4 that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was unconstitutional. Section 4 lays out the formulas for how the Justice Department enforces Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 requires that the states identified with a history of discrimination  obtain approval from the federal government before they can make changes to their election law. Section 4 formulas as of 2013 mandated that “Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia in their entirety; and parts of California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota” ask for preclearance for electoral law changes. After Shelby County v. Holder, these states are free to make changes to election law or district maps without approval from the Justice Department.

Without Section 4, the Justice Department has fewer legal resources for challenging election law it finds discriminatory.

The Supreme Court found Section 4 unconstitutional because of the age of the coverage formulas. The Supreme Court’s opinion notes: “voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that. The question is whether the Act’s extraordinary measures, including its disparate treatment of the States, continue to satisfy constitutional requirements. As we put it a short time ago, ‘the Act imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs.’”

In other words, the Supreme Court is telling Congress, “if you want to keep Section 5, you better make new rules.”

Since the Supreme Court’s decision, Congress has yet to amend the Voting Rights Act in light of the Court’s concerns. Furthermore, many states have enacted laws that shift early voting and voter registration times or impose new voter-ID requirements. Conservatives argue that these laws are designed to counter voter fraud or help shrink stage budgets. Liberals argue that the laws are designed to disenfranchise college students and African Americans, who typically vote in favor of Democratic candidates. There is active litigation over these statutes across the country.

Similarly, there is an ongoing debate over whether convicted felons who have served their time in prison should be allowed to vote. A handful of states bar felons from voting unless they successfully petition to have their voting rights restored.

 

227 years ago, the U.S. Senate Confirmed the First U.S. Supreme Court Justices

On September 26, 1789, the U.S. Senate voted to confirm  John Jay, John Rutledge, William Cushing, John Blair, Robert Harrison, and James Wilson as the first justices of the United States Supreme Court.

John Jay was confirmed as the nation’s first Chief Justice. Jay served as a delegated to both the First and Second Continental Congresses, and was elected president of the Continental Congress in 1778. He also contributed five essays to The Federalist (now known as The Federalist Papers), and was a stronger supporter of the federal Constitution of 1787. After serving as Chief Justice for five years, Jay resigned from the Supreme Court on June 29, 1795, and became Governor of New York. He declined a second appointment as Chief Justice in 1800, and President John Adams then nominated John Marshall for the position.

001_jay

John Rutledge  was elected to the South Carolina Commons House of Assembly. In 1764, he was appointed Attorney General of South Carolina by the King’s Governor and served for ten months. Rutledge served as the youngest delegate to the Stamp Act Congress of 1765.He was a member South Carolina delegation to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and served as a member of the South Carolina Ratification Convention the following year. After one year on the Supreme Court, Rutledge resigned in 1791 to become Chief Justice of South Carolina’s highest court. On August 12, 1795, President George Washington nominated Rutledge Chief Justice of the United States. He served in that position as a recess appointee for four months, but the Senate refused to confirm him.

002_rutledge

William Cushing served as Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court from 1780 to 1789. He strongly supported ratification of the U.S. Constitution and served as Vice Chairman of the Massachusetts Ratification Convention. Cushing served on the Court for 20 years.

002_cushing

John Blair began his public service in 1766 as a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses. In 1770, he resigned from the House to become Clerk of the Governor’s Council. Blair was a delegate to the Virginia Convention of 1776, which drafted the State Constitution. Blair became a Judge of the Virginia General Court in 1777 and was elevated to Chief Judge in 1779. From 1780 to 1789, he served as a Judge of the First Virginia Court of Appeals. Blair was a delegate to the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787 and was one of three Virginia delegates to sign the Constitution. He was also a delegate to the Virginia Ratification Convention of 1788. He served on the Court for only 5 years, and resigned due to the rigors of circuit riding and ill health.

003_blair

Robert Harrison served as the Chief Justice of the General Court of Maryland from 1781 to 1789.Harrison, ultimately, declined to serve as an associate justice, citing health reasons. The seat eventually went to James Iredell.

robert_hanson_harrison

James Wilson was elected a delegate to the First Continental Congress in 1775 and was a signer of the Declaration of Independence. He also served as a delegate to the Second Continental Congress. As a delegate to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, Wilson was a member of the committee that produced the first draft of the Constitution. He signed the finished document on September 17, 1787, and later served as a delegate to the Pennsylvania Ratification Convention. He served on the Court for eight years.

001_wilson

(Biographical information of the justices was provided by the Supreme Court Historical Society).

227 Years Ago Congress Approved the Bill of Rights

 

bill_of_rights_630

On September 25, 1789, Congress approved 12 amendments to the United States Constitution and sent them to the states for ratification. The 10 amendments that were ultimately ratified (on December 15, 1791) became known as the Bill of Rights.

Here are the 12 amendments sent to the states on September 25. You might be surprised by the issues that ranked first and second above our now First Amendment. The second amendment proposed in 1789, regarding congressional pay, was ratified nearly 203 years later in 1992 and is now the 27th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the benificent ends of its institution
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; vizt.
ARTICLES in addition to, and amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

ARTICLE THE FIRST. After the first enumeration required by the first Article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which, the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

ARTICLE THE SECOND. No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

ARTICLE THE THIRD. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

ARTICLE THE FOURTH. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

ARTICLE THE FIFTH. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any House, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

ARTICLE THE SIXTH. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

ARTICLE THE SEVENTH. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of {a} Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

ARTICLE THE EIGHTH. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

ARTICLE THE NINTH. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

ARTICLE THE TENTH. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

ARTICLE THE ELEVENTH. The enumeration the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

ARTICLE THE TWELFTH. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

You can explore the legislative history of the Bill of Rights in the ConSource digital library.