What Would Peyton Randolph Do?
 
By: Stanley L. Klos

August 25, 2008

The title of the chapter “What Would Peyton Do?” is taken from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to his grandson declaring that:
 

I had the good fortune to become acquainted very early with some characters of very high standing, and to feel the incessant wish that I could ever become what they were. Under temptations & difficulties, I would ask myself what would Dr. Small, Mr. Wythe, Peyton Randolph do in this situation? What course in it will insure me their approbation? I am certain that this mode of deciding on my conduct, tended more to its correctness than any reasoning powers [i]
 

The following chapter demonstrates the heuristic value of this Jeffersonian approach by applying the ethos and wisdom of past presidents to current 21^st Century Challenges.  This is an exercise that the author has thoroughly enjoyed. 
 

States’ Rights and Peyton Randolph
 

States' Rights refers to the level of Sovereignty that each U.S. State possesses in relation to its political power to enact laws within framework the Constitution of 1787’s empowerment of the federal government. The most commonly cited source for states' rights is the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of 1787, which states: “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.”[ii] This clause was partly taken from Article II in the Constitution of 1777:  “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled”[iii]
 

States' Rights issues usually come to the public’s attention when the federal government seeks to override a State law.  The United States Supreme Court rarely rules in the favor of States in their challenges over the conflict of their laws with the federal government.  When the Federal government’s laws conflict with state laws Congress, typically, circumvents the 10^th Amendment.  They accomplish this by denying federal funding to states that fail to conform to their federal guidelines. For example, the former national 55 mph speed limit law in the 70’s and the current national 21-year drinking age law were enacted with clauses eliminating federal state highway funding for any state that refused to pass similar laws.  These and other political tactics, limiting state powers, were foreseen by many of the Founders who feared a strong central government.
 

Richard Henry Lee addressed calls to strengthen the federal government in a letter to Samuel Adams on March 14, 1785:
 

I think sir that the first maxim of a man who loves liberty should be, never to grant to Rulers an atom of power that is not most clearly and indispensable necessary for the safety and well being of Society. [iv]
 

Upon the passage of the Constitution of 1787, two years later, Lee warned George Mason that the new Federal government would "… produce a coalition of monarchy of men, military men, aristocrats and drones, whose noise, impudence and zeal exceeds all belief". [v]
 

            Founders, like Lee, realized their new Constitution of 1787 would require more then just amendment procedures for future generations. Consequently, they provided the Anti-Federalists with a provision in Article V that requires only two thirds of the states to call a Constitutional Convention:
 

"… on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a con­vention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and pur­poses, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the sev­eral states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof…"[vi]
 

Most citizens do not realize this verbiage exists leaving the ultimate authority to revise some or all of the constitution with the state legislatures. Should such a convention be called, as was done for revising the Articles of Confederation in 1787, then it will be one State one vote to change anything or every­thing.  To reiterate, 2/3rds of the state legislatures have been empowered to convene a national convention of State appointed delegates who would be empowered to propose, caucus, deliberate, debate, and finally vote on revisions, additions or, as was done in 1787, create an entirely new Constitution for the United States of America. The synergy, which prevailed in 1787 at Philadelphia, certainly would be repeated in a convention of the States’ wisest and most learned delegates not tied to the demanding duties of the Congressional, Presidential, or Supreme Court constitutional offices.   Obviously the work at such a constitutional convention would be of colossal importance and Nay Sayers argue that our 21^st Century delegates do not possess the mastermind capabilities of the founders.  This author believes just the opposite as such a convention would consist of a melting pot of delegates including women and minorities that were excluded from the 1787 Philadelphia Convention.   
 

Be that as it may, when it comes to States’ Rights and other constitutional issues the Founders believed future generations had such convention capabilities. They specifically designed Article V as a mastermind mechanism to enable its citizens, through their State legislatures, to reverse unsettling federal laws and central government customs that conflict with autonomy of the individual States and their people.  The facts are clear, the ultimate power in the Constitution of 1787 lies, as it did in the Articles of Confederation, with the State Legislatures. 
 

What would Peyton Randolph Do?  This author believes he would rally his State legislature to call for a Constitutional Convention specifically addressing the erosion of Virginia and the People’s rights under a federal government “… whose noise, impudence and zeal exceeds all belief.” Additionally, President Randolph, as a founding member of the Continental Congress, would welcome the assembling of the paramount ethos from States to a convention designed to brainstorm and deliberate over a host of constitutional issues insuring the United States thrives for yet another 230 years.

Start your search on What Would Peyton Do?.

The Congressional Evolution of the United States Henry Middleton

Unauthorized Site: This site and its contents are not affiliated, connected, associated with or authorized by the individual, family, friends, or trademarked entities utilizing any part or the subject's entire name. Any official or affiliated sites that are related to this subject will be hyper linked below upon submission and Evisum, Inc. review.

Copyright© 2000 by Evisum Inc.^TM. All rights reserved.
Evisum Inc.^TM Privacy Policy