Category: Warren Throckmorton

September 6, 1787 (Click to read Madison’s notes on the day)

Summary

The delegates continued their discussion of how to elect the president and vice-president.

Influences on the Delegates

Today, the delegate worried about an aristocracy was Pennsylvania’s James Wilson.

Mr. WILSON said, that he had weighed carefully the Report of the Committee for remodelling the constitution of the Executive; and on combining it with other parts of the plan, he was obliged to consider the whole as having a dangerous tendency to aristocracy; as throwing a dangerous power into the hands of the Senate. They will have, in fact, the appointment of the President, and, through his dependence on them, the virtual appointment to offices; among others, the officers of the Judiciary department. They are to make treaties; and they are to try all impeachments. In allowing them thus to make the Executive and Judiciary appointments, to be the court of impeachments, and to make treaties which are to be laws of the land, the Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary powers are all blended in one branch of the Government. The power of making treaties involves the case of subsidies, and here, as an additional evil, foreign influence is to be dreaded. According to the plan as it now stands, the President will not be the man of the people, as he ought to be; but the minion of the Senate. He cannot even appoint a tide-waiter without the Senate. He had always thought the Senate too numerous a body for making appointments to office. The Senate will, moreover, in all probability, be in constant session. They will have high salaries. And with all these powers, and the President in their interest, they will depress the other branch of the Legislature, and aggrandize themselves in proportion. Add to all this, that the Senate, sitting in conclave, can by holding up to their respective States various and improbable candidates, contrive so to scatter their votes, as to bring the appointment of the President ultimately before themselves. Upon the whole, he thought the new mode of appointing the President, with some amendments, a valuable improvement; but he could never agree to purchase it at the price of the ensuing parts of the Report, nor befriend a system of which they make a part.

By this late date in the convention, discontent still sounded from several of the delegates. Alexander Hamilton indicated his willingness to approve the plan even though he didn’t like it.

Mr. HAMILTON said, that he had been restrained from entering into the discussions, by his dislike of the scheme of government in general; but as he meant to support the plan to be recommended, as better than nothing, he wished in this place to offer a few remarks. He liked the new modification, on the whole, better than that in the printed Report. In this, the President was a monster, elected for seven years, and ineligible afterwards; having great powers in appointments to office; and continually tempted, by this constitutional disqualification, to abuse them in order to subvert the Government. Although he should be made reëligible, still, if appointed by the Legislature, he would be tempted to make use of corrupt influence to be continued in office. It seemed peculiarly desirable, therefore, that some other mode of election should be devised. Considering the different views of different States, and the different districts, Northern, Middle, and Southern, he concurred with those who thought that the votes would not be concentered, and that the appointment would consequently, in the present mode, devolve on the Senate. The nomination to offices will give great weight to the President. Here, then, is a mutual connexion and influence, that will perpetuate the President, and aggrandize both him and the Senate. What is to be the remedy? He saw none better than to let the highest number of ballots, whether a majority or not, appoint the President. What was the objection to this? Merely that too small a number might appoint. But as the plan stands, the Senate may take the candidate having the smallest number of votes, and make him President.

The discussion resumed the next day.

1787 Constitutional Convention Series

To read my series examining the proceedings of the Constitution Convention, click here.  In this series, I am writing about any obvious influences on the development of the Constitution which were mentioned by the delegates to the Convention. Specifically, I am testing David Barton’s claim that “every clause” of the Constitution is based on biblical principles. Thus far, I have found nothing supporting the claim. However, stay tuned, the series will run until mid-September.
Constitutional Convention Series (click the link)
To follow on social media, click the following links:
Facebook (blog posts and news)
Facebook (Getting Jefferson Right – history news)
Twitter

Last week I wrote some reactions to the Nashville Statement on sexual orientation and gender identity.  The statement was written by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and has been the focus of much controversy since it was released a week ago.  I thought the statement missed the mark in several ways, but the one I want to highlight with this follow up post is the Nashville Statement’s claim about disorders of sex development.
After my post on the Nashville Statement came out, I received the following email from Lianne Simon. Lianne is an intersex individual who tells her story on her website and also accompanies Dr. Megan DeFranza (PhD, theology, Marquette University) on speaking engagements regarding intersex conditions and theology. They manage the website intersexandfaith.org. Simon gave me permission to use her email:

In your Patheos post you said, “Practically, the Nashville signers don’t give us a clue how people Jesus referred to here can “embrace their biological sex.”
I think their intention is fairly clear. Sex is strictly binary to the signatories. Gender identity is entirely ‘adopted’ rather than rooted in biology. Therefore, intersex people must have a biological sex (i.e. male or female) that is confused or obscured by their disorder. So. the statement
“…and should embrace their biological sex insofar as it may be known.”
means that intersex people should embrace the sex assigned them by doctors and accept the medical treatment involved.
This is the way I, as a Christian intersex person, understand their position. As do my intersex friends.
We are castrated by doctors, undergo cosmetic sex assignment surgeries without our consent, are given hormones, lied to, have secrets kept from us, and made to live in shame–all in the name of their bloody binary view of sex.
That’s what their statement means to us.
They not only approve, they’re demanding that we embrace the evil that’s being done to us.
And if we object to the binary sex forced upon us, then we’re rejecting God’s plan and departing from the faith.
Kind regards,
Lianne Simon
www.intersexandfaith.org
www.liannesimon.com

Simon’s story is fascinating and well worth reading. She wrote a detailed response to the Nashville Statement at her website. She provides a human face to the topics covered in the Nashville Statement. I hope the signers will reconsider their pronouncements about disorders of sex development in light of Lianne’s life.
The part of the Nashville Statement Lianne referred to is below:

WE AFFIRM that those born with a physical disorder of sex development are created in the image of God and have dignity and worth equal to all other image-bearers. They are acknowledged by our Lord Jesus in his words about “eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb.” With all others they are welcome as faithful followers of Jesus Christ and should embrace their biological sex insofar as it may be known.
WE DENY that ambiguities related to a person’s biological sex render one incapable of living a fruitful life in joyful obedience to Christ.

Lianne’s story provides a real life foundation for my criticism that the guidance offered by the Nashville Statement is uninformed and inadequate. She concludes her blog post with this:

I’m grateful that the Nashville Statement says that we who are intersex are “created in the image of God and have dignity and worth equal to all other image-bearers.” But I’m troubled that this affirmation appears to require us to give up our bodily integrity and embrace some doctor’s guess at what sex God meant us to be.
Understand this—your Nashville Statement drives intersex people away from the Gospel.

The real world of sexuality is not as neat and clean as portrayed by the signers of the Nashville Statement. I hope Lianne’s story provides a caution to those who marginalize those who have been dealt a hand they didn’t ask for.

September 5, 1787 (Click to read Madison’s notes on the day)

Summary

The delegates continued to consider proposals from the Brearly committee. A lengthy discussion concerned the election of the president.

Influences on the Delegates

Edmund Randolph worried that proposals for the president to come from the legislature would create a monarchy or an aristocracy.

Mr. RANDOLPH. We have, in some revolutions of this plan, made a bold stroke for monarchy. We are now doing the same for an aristocracy. He dwelt on the tendency of such an influence in the Senate over the election of the President, in addition to its other powers, to convert that body into a real and dangerous aristocracy.

Another Virginia delegate, George Mason, was even stronger in his criticism of the plan as it was being discussed by the delegates.

Col. MASON. As the mode of appointment is now regulated, he could not forbear expressing his opinion that it is utterly inadmissible. He would prefer the Government of Prussia to one which will put all power into the hands of seven or eight men, and fix an aristocracy worse than absolute monarchy.

The Virginia delegation worried that governmental power would be in the hands of too few people. Over the next couple of days, the election of the executive dominated discussion. It is obvious that many delegates feared the creation of a ruling class.

1787 Constitutional Convention Series

To read my series examining the proceedings of the Constitution Convention, click here.  In this series, I am writing about any obvious influences on the development of the Constitution which were mentioned by the delegates to the Convention. Specifically, I am testing David Barton’s claim that “every clause” of the Constitution is based on biblical principles. Thus far, I have found nothing supporting the claim. However, stay tuned, the series will run until mid-September.
Constitutional Convention Series (click the link)
To follow on social media, click the following links:
Facebook (blog posts and news)
Facebook (Getting Jefferson Right – history news)
Twitter

The National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference reacted within minutes to Donald Trump’s decision to end protection of undocumented people brought here as children (DACA).
Although the response to Trump was tepid, the organization promises a full court press on Congress.

REV SAMUEL RODRIGUEZ REACTS TO DACA DECISION:
Hispanic Christians to Launch National 60-Day Campaign in Support of DREAMers, Will Put “Unrelenting Pressure” on Members of Congress Until “Every DREAMer can Dream Again”
“We do not intend on letting a single member of Congress have a good night’s rest until they guarantee our young people can rest easy.” Rev. Samuel Rodriguez
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Today, in light of the White House’s decision on DACA, the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference and its affiliate churches and organizations, announces a national campaign intent on putting “unrelenting pressure” on “every” member of Congress until a permanent, legislative solution is provided for “DREAMers.”
“Hundreds-of-thousands of Hispanic young people will be overcome with fear and grief today. Simultaneously, a multi-ethnic coalition of tens-of-millions of law abiding, U.S. citizens will begin to put unrelenting pressure on members of Congress to provide a permanent solution for DREAMers, whose fate is in question by no fault of their own,” said Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, President of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.
“For far too long in this country, Hispanic young people have been the political bargaining chips of our powerful politicians. This is an affront to the sanctity of life, it is inhumane, and the Hispanic community will stand for it no longer. Our elected members of Congress have time and again, professed concern for the Hispanic community and yet, have chosen to do nothing. We will not distinguish between Republicans and Democrats but between those who stand for righteousness and justice and those who do not.”
Among other actions, the National Hispanic. Christian Leadership Conference will be temporarily relocating additional staff to Washington, D.C., launching a national media campaign, rallying tens-of-thousands of the nation’s spiritual leaders, coordinating weekly meetings on Capitol Hill and in State Capitols. Additionally, the NHCLC will be organizing a “fly-in” of hundreds of prominent Hispanic leaders from throughout North America for a prayer meeting on the evening of Oct. 30, followed by a series of Congressional visits on Oct. 31.
Of President Donald J. Trump’s decision to phaseout DACA, the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez says the following:
“I am disappointed that these protections are ending and I’ve expressed that disappointment to the White House directly. I also understand why they chose this course of action. If the fate of DACA is any indication, then it was only a matter of time before DACA would face a similar fate in the court sand, in fact, the entire program could be ceased immediately by a court order rather than being phased out. Thankfully, It is the job of Congress to make laws, and now the President has provided Congress a six month window to legislate a more permanent and legally defensible solution for DREAMers. Six months is too long, we will demand action from Congress within 60 days. We do not intend on letting a single member of Congress have a good night’s rest until they guarantee our young people can rest easy. We will not be silent until every DREAMer can dream again.”
The National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference is a non-partisan organization that has long been numbered among the nation’s foremost advocates for comprehensive immigration reform. It is the organization’s official position that it is primarily the responsibility of Congress to address the nation’s longstanding challenges with immigration policy. In that capacity Rev. Samuel Rodriguez has worked with Democrat and Republican majorities in Congress as well as with Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald J. Trump in advocating for comprehensive immigration reform.
###
Rev. Samuel Rodriguez is president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. He has been named by CNN and Fox News as “the leader of the Hispanic Evangelical movement” and TIME Magazine nominated him among the 100 most influential leaders in America.
The National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference( NHCLC) is the organization recognized and identified by Time Magazine, New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Christianity Today, Charisma Magazine, NBC, Telemundo, Univision, Fox News, CNN, and a number of additional media outlets, publications, and periodicals as America’s largest Hispanic/Latino Christian organization with 40,118 certified member churches in the United States and in covenant relationship with ministries and churches in LatinAmerica and around the world.
Website | www.nhclc.org Twitter | @nhclc

I commend the group for the promise of action. However, I hoped for a stronger response to President Trump. The president did not need to stop new applications. The deadline for a lawsuit was arbitrary and could have been ignored by Trump. Even if the state AGs decided to sue, that would have taken a long time and would have put just as much pressure on Congress. I agree that Congress is culpable but I also believe evangelicals will shift the blame to Congress when in fact Trump didn’t have to take any action unless he wanted to, which apparently he did.

Earlier today, Donald Trump’s Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) would be “rescinded.” The decision which could result in the eventual deportation of nearly 800,000 people is an attack on the legacy of Ronald Reagan. Reagan supported amnesty for those who came into the country illegally but had settled into American communities. The GOP is no longer the party of Reagan on immigration.
In 1980, both Bush and Reagan in a campaign debate responded to a question about the children of illegal immigrants. Both Bush and Reagan provided a humane and responsible answer. Both understood the destabilizing effect of xenophobia and Reagan specifically rejected the idea of a “fence.” Both understood that a friendly and cooperative Mexico is vital to our security interests. Neither Reagan nor Bush would be welcome in today’s party of Trump. Watch:

In a debate with Democrat presidential candidate Walter Mondale in 1984, Reagan said:

I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally.

Reagan also understood that the economic problems of other countries create conditions which make it likely that people will flee to the U.S. Reagan did not condemn hard working people for wanting a better life. He saw America as the hope for that life. His goal was to improve relations with other nations to help lift them up. Now, the party of Reagan has become the party of America First which seems to mean American Only.
Today’s Republicans in Congress should find their backbone and stand in the tradition of Reagan. First, they need to pass veto-proof legislation which would protect the DACA participants and then next they should pass legislation which would allow a path to legalization for the undocumented.

To follow on social media, click the following links:

Facebook (blog posts and news)
Facebook (Getting Jefferson Right – history news)
Twitter