Law

Philosophy of Law September 13, 2006

Juan Arcila

Ten Point Paper

Constitutional Convention

In this paper I will assume that I am a member of a constitutional convention, and in front of me I have two different proposals, one identical to the New York constitution and the other identical to the Pennsylvania constitution. My position will be illustrated both arguing against the constitution that I feel would be less effective and more difficult to implement in our culture, and giving several examples that will explain why I chose the constitution I chose and why it would be a better path to follow.

First I am going to make a case for both constitutions explaining the different strengths and weaknesses that each constitution may hold. The Pennsylvania constitution was always considered as to be the most radical constitution due to the fact that it incorporated several elements such as a unicameral (single chamber as a legislative assembly) constitution, liberalized voting and office holding requirements. The constitution in Pennsylvania was to be governed by an assembly of the representatives of the freeman of Pennsylvania. The executive power is vested in the president and council, every free man of 21 years or above that has paid taxes and has been a resident of Pennsylvania for more than one year, is allowed to vote, also the sons of these free men are allowed to vote, without even having to pay for taxes.

The house of representatives of freeman of the commonwealth consisted of people with wisdom and virtue, which were chosen by freeman of every city and county. The council consisted of twelve persons, and no member of the general assembly should be chosen by the council. Any person serving the state as a counsellor for 3 successive years cannot be reelected for the following four years. In conclusion this form of constitution was very radical because it put power on both the president and the council, but it made sure that the people that could be president or be part of the council, was people that had financial wealth and were "wise" with relation to others.

The New York constitution on the other hand, had a reputation for being very conservative and for concentrating the power basically on the governor alone. The constitution states that the judges and the governor constituted a council to revise all bills about to be passed into laws by the legislature. The governor was to continue in office during three years and be general commander Ð'- in Ð'- chief of all the militia, also the governor was to inform the legislative branch at every session of the condition of the state and every new decisions outcome.

Both of these constitutions have many strengths and weaknesses, for example: in the Pennsylvania constitution the power seems to be divided into different braches and the president alone cannot make any decision he desires to make, also the people that advise the president and make part of the council are highly influential and wise. However it seems kind of unfair that only people that own land were the only ones that were allowed to vote, the argument they made was that they were actually the only ones qualified enough to make a decision of that magnitude, but in reality as we see it in democracies nowadays, most people are capacitated to make that kind of decision basically basing it on their own welfare.

The New York constitution on the other hand, is more orientated towards a kind of "monarchy" were the governor is in charge of passing the laws, reviewing the laws before they are passed and the militia. This kind of constitution has a lot of weaknesses, for instance: when so much power is invested in a sole individual, he or she cannot avoid its selfish nature, and will eventually start to making decisions and acting on its individual welfare instead of what would be beneficial for the government.

In the position that I am in it would not be very complicated to make a decision of which one of these two constitutions to choose. The world we live in, is not an individually ran world anymore. It would be practically foolish to choose the New York constitution, basing my decision on the well being of the people that are going to be governed and are going to be following this constitution. For a group of people or a community would be much easier to follow a set of rules and laws that was passed with their consent,