Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

History Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Selected Works

2013

Constitutional History

Legal Theory

File Type

Articles 1 - 30 of 44

Full-Text Articles in History

Table Annexed To Article: Secrecy Broken: Reports Of The Delegates Following The Federal Convention, Peter J. Aschenbrenner Oct 2013

Table Annexed To Article: Secrecy Broken: Reports Of The Delegates Following The Federal Convention, Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Despite the measures taken to ensure the secrecy of the proceedings during the federal convention, many delegates made reports to their states and explained the choices behind various clauses. However, no delegate had access to the official journal of the constitutional convention.


Table Annexed To Article: Congress And Parliament Deploy Appraisives (1801-1802), Peter J. Aschenbrenner Oct 2013

Table Annexed To Article: Congress And Parliament Deploy Appraisives (1801-1802), Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Parliament (primary text writer, the House of Commons) produced 24,647 words beginning in 1801; in in a comparable interval, Congress produced 27,123 words. By coincidence, this was the first year that Parliament served as the text-writer for the newly-minted United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Appraisives in the English language, numbering 3,683 have been tested against the Early Constitution. Appraisives in the Early Constitution, 2 OCL 193. This investigation tests the known class of appraisives in these target vocabularies employed by Congress and Parliament. Mean words between ‘hits’ are returned.


Order Of Delegate Arrival At Philadelphia Tabled Against Support/Opposition To Constitution, Peter J. Aschenbrenner, David Kimball Sep 2013

Order Of Delegate Arrival At Philadelphia Tabled Against Support/Opposition To Constitution, Peter J. Aschenbrenner, David Kimball

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Fifty-five delegates were appointed by twelve states to attend the federal convention in May, 1787. Arrival of the delegates is matched with support/opposition for the Constitution.


Delegate Arrivals At Philadelphia Compared To Voting Records At The Ratification Conventions By State, Peter J. Aschenbrenner, David Kimball Sep 2013

Delegate Arrivals At Philadelphia Compared To Voting Records At The Ratification Conventions By State, Peter J. Aschenbrenner, David Kimball

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Fifty-five delegates were appointed by twelve states to attend the federal convention in May, 1787. Eleven states ratified the Constitution between December 7, 1787 and July 26, 1788. When delegate arrival dates are compared with the order in which their respective state ratification conventions completed their business, a significant number of delegates supporting the constitution are missing in action.


Table Annexed To Article: Delegate Arrivals In Philadelphia Compared To Voting Records, Peter J. Aschenbrenner, David Kimball Sep 2013

Table Annexed To Article: Delegate Arrivals In Philadelphia Compared To Voting Records, Peter J. Aschenbrenner, David Kimball

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Fifty-five delegates were appointed by twelve states to attend the federal convention in May, 1787. Eleven states ratified the Constitution between December 7, 1787 and July 26, 1788. When delegate arrival dates are compared with the order in which their respective state ratification conventions completed their business, a significant number of delegates supporting the constitution are missing in action.


Table Annexed To Article: A Detailed Breakdown Of Note-Takers Surveyed From Farrand’S Records Vols. 1 And 2 (1937), Peter J. Aschenbrenner Sep 2013

Table Annexed To Article: A Detailed Breakdown Of Note-Takers Surveyed From Farrand’S Records Vols. 1 And 2 (1937), Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Eleven of the fifty-five delegates that attended the Federal Convention took notes during the proceedings. These notes, along with Jackson’s official journal and available committee drafts, are assembled in Farrand’s Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 at volumes 1 and 2. OCL provides a page-by-page breakdown of the text [of their notes] which appears in the Farrandian presentation.


Naming Constitutions And Constitutional Text In The Early American Republic, Peter J. Aschenbrenner Aug 2013

Naming Constitutions And Constitutional Text In The Early American Republic, Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

From the beginning of the nation (October 7, 1777) to the disaster of Dred Scott (March 6, 1857), the United States has produced thirty-two articles worth of constitutioinal text, in 133 constitutional text units, beginning with the Articles of Confederation (opening date noted above). OCL names all the writings and groups them, for the first time.


Table Annexed To Article: Naming Constitutions/ Constitutional Text In The Early American Republic, Peter J. Aschenbrenner Aug 2013

Table Annexed To Article: Naming Constitutions/ Constitutional Text In The Early American Republic, Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

From the beginning of the nation to disaster of Dred Scott (March 6, 1857), the United States has produced twenty-one writings which may be grouped as constitutional text units after the Articles of Confederation. OCL names all the writings and groups them, for the first time.


Table Annexed To Article: Our Aesthetic Constitution, Peter J. Aschenbrenner Jul 2013

Table Annexed To Article: Our Aesthetic Constitution, Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

If natural language is deficient, then descriptions-in-words of constitutions may suffer the same fate. What other choices are there, when an investigator – or more typically, a speaker in ordered discourse – or even more usually a speaker uttering demotic elaboration – sets out to describe constitutional text? Isn’t it obvious that artifacts featuring words lock users into using more words? OCL offers (the first of) several studies.


Our Aesthetic Constitution, Peter J. Aschenbrenner Jul 2013

Our Aesthetic Constitution, Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

If natural language is deficient, then descriptions-in-words of constitutions may suffer the same fate. What other choices are there, when an investigator – or more typically, a speaker in ordered discourse – or even more usually a speaker uttering demotic elaboration – sets out to describe constitutional text? Isn’t it obvious that artifacts featuring words lock users into using more words? OCL offers (the first of) several studies.


Table Annexed To Article: The Mathematical Logic Of Blocking Power: From Thirteen To Forty-Four States, Peter J. Aschenbrenner Apr 2013

Table Annexed To Article: The Mathematical Logic Of Blocking Power: From Thirteen To Forty-Four States, Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

OCL explores the mathematical logic of blocking power, that is, the power to block organic change. In Constitution I (the Articles of Confederation) the formula was absurdly simple. Any state, no matter how geographically small, economically insignificant and revoltingly irrelevant could block organic change desired by all the other constituents. Hence, secession orchestrated (via Constitution II) so that the first nine states (willing to do so) could secede from Rhode Island.


How Many Unique Words Did It Take To Write Our First Constitution?, Peter J. Aschenbrenner Apr 2013

How Many Unique Words Did It Take To Write Our First Constitution?, Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

In 3,466 words – crafted between July, 1776 and November, 1777 – the Continental Congress created Constitution I, universally known as the Articles of Confederation. How many of these words are unique? And how many of these 3,466 words did the Philadelphia convention use in crafting the 4,321 words of Constitution II?


The Mathematical Logic Of Blocking Power: From Thirteen To Forty-Four States, Peter J. Aschenbrenner Apr 2013

The Mathematical Logic Of Blocking Power: From Thirteen To Forty-Four States, Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

OCL explores the mathematical logic of blocking power, that is, the power to block organic change. In Constitution I (the Articles of Confederation) the formula was absurdly simple. Any state, no matter how geographically small, economically insignificant and revoltingly irrelevant could block organic change desired by all the other constituents. Hence, secession orchestrated (via Constitution II) so that the first nine states (willing to do so) could secede from Rhode Island.


The Foreigners Among Us: Constituent Expulsion In The Early American Republic, Peter J. Aschenbrenner Mar 2013

The Foreigners Among Us: Constituent Expulsion In The Early American Republic, Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

OCL surveys constituent explusion through the impost laws passed in the first session of the First Federal Congress. The purpose of the laws was to make clear to North Carolina and Rhode Island that Constitution II was a ‘take it or leave it’ affair. North Carolina, never truculent, merely slow to ratify, got the message; Rhode Island’s struggle with political reality created a near year-long sideshow before it finally bowed the neck Providential to the inevitable. Pay up or join up.


How Many Unique Words Did It Take To Write Our First Constitution?, Peter J. Aschenbrenner Mar 2013

How Many Unique Words Did It Take To Write Our First Constitution?, Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

In 3,466 words – crafted between July, 1776 and November, 1777 – the Continental Congress created Constitution I, universally known as the Articles of Confederation. How many of these words are unique? And how many of these 3,466 words did the Philadelphia convention use in crafting the 4,321 words of Constitution II?


Table Annexed To Article: The Foreigners Among Us, Peter J. Aschenbrenner Mar 2013

Table Annexed To Article: The Foreigners Among Us, Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

OCL surveys constituent explusion through the impost laws passed in the first session of the First Federal Congress. The purpose of the laws was to make clear to North Carolina and Rhode Island that Constitution II was a ‘take it or leave it’ affair. North Carolina, never truculent, merely slow to ratify, got the message; Rhode Island’s struggle with political reality created a near year-long sideshow before it finally bowed the neck Providential to the inevitable. Pay up or join up.


A Survey Of Note-Takers In Farrand, Peter J. Aschenbrenner Mar 2013

A Survey Of Note-Takers In Farrand, Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Twelve writers took notes of proceedings at the federal convention beginning in May, 1787 at Philadelphia. The best known are Major Wm. Jackson and James Madison, the convention’s official Secretary and its unofficial note-taker, respectively. The efforts of all twelve note-takers are surveyed by output.


Table Annexed To Article: Our Constitutional Kinesis: Words That Can Go Like A Machine, Peter J. Aschenbrenner Mar 2013

Table Annexed To Article: Our Constitutional Kinesis: Words That Can Go Like A Machine, Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Americans have long been known for their appreciation of the kinetic effort involved in writing constitutional text, as long as the work begun at York, Pa (October, 1777) is subordinated to that commenced at Philadelphia (May, 1787). Gathered in one place are selected ‘machine’ quotes by which text itself is ennobled as automaton. OCL lists and reports for further investigation into this phenomenon.


Table Annexed To Article: The Doctrine Of Stare Decisis In The United States Supreme Court, Peter J. Aschenbrenner Mar 2013

Table Annexed To Article: The Doctrine Of Stare Decisis In The United States Supreme Court, Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

OCL surveys United States Supreme Court cases from 1791 to 1900 for deployment of the phrase stare decisis in opinions and published arguments before the Court. The people, as Madison conceded, make their own precedents; they do this by approving (or not disapproving) official action (in the recent past); in turn, these officials look back to official action taken at time/s more or less remote from the present for their precedents.


Hamilton And Madison Deploy ‘Necessary’ In Works Dated To 1787/88, 1790/91 And 1817-1836 Surveyed By Percent Of Words In Source, Peter J. Aschenbrenner Feb 2013

Hamilton And Madison Deploy ‘Necessary’ In Works Dated To 1787/88, 1790/91 And 1817-1836 Surveyed By Percent Of Words In Source, Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

In this third of three articles, semantic values invoked by Madison and Hamilton for ‘necessary’ = consequence and ‘necessary’ = text crafting are cumulated. Word counts come into play, with the frequency (by percent) multiplied by 1000 for ready comparison. Semantic cleansing is scored.


Bentham's Sieve: Restraining Officials And Entities In The Early Constitution, Peter J. Aschenbrenner Feb 2013

Bentham's Sieve: Restraining Officials And Entities In The Early Constitution, Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Jeremy Bentham’s sieve, tidied up, divides sovereign Shouldstatements into responsibilities and disabilities. Responsibilies are subdivided into commands and permissions. Conditional or contingent statements, dependent as they must be on a future real world, are merely hum-drum expressions of the machinery of governing. A survey of restraints appears from the avalanche of 229 deployments of ‘shall’ in the Early Constitution.


Table Annexed To Article: Text Of The Articles Of Confederation In Machine Readable Format And In Constitutional Text Unit Format, Peter J. Aschenbrenner Feb 2013

Table Annexed To Article: Text Of The Articles Of Confederation In Machine Readable Format And In Constitutional Text Unit Format, Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

OCL supplies text of important constitutional documents in MR (Machine Readable) and CTU (Constitutional Text Unit) format which presentations follow strict guidelines. The 3,466 words of the Articles of Confederation are tabled, with the ‘In Witness Whereof’ excluded, but the Preamble included.


Table Annexed To Article: Hamilton And Madison Deploy ‘Exigencies’ In Works Dated To 1787/88, 1790/91 And 1817-1836 Surveyed By Percent Of Words In Source, Peter J. Aschenbrenner Feb 2013

Table Annexed To Article: Hamilton And Madison Deploy ‘Exigencies’ In Works Dated To 1787/88, 1790/91 And 1817-1836 Surveyed By Percent Of Words In Source, Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

In this third of three articles, frequencies by Madison and Hamilton for ‘exigencies’ are cumulated. Hits surveyed in the three disputed essays are divided equally between Madison and Hamilton. Frequency (by percent) is multiplied by 1000 for ready comparison. The Word vs. the Need contest for primacy at the supra-constitutional level; JM and AH are scored accordingly.


Table Annexed To Article: Hamilton And Madison Deploy ‘Exigencies’ In Works Dated To 1787/88, 1790/91 And 1817-36, Peter J. Aschenbrenner Feb 2013

Table Annexed To Article: Hamilton And Madison Deploy ‘Exigencies’ In Works Dated To 1787/88, 1790/91 And 1817-36, Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

In this first of three articles, the reader’s attention is directed to ‘exigencies’ through quotations drawn from the The Federalist Papers (the focus being on the works of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison). This article then explores their semantic contest in the bank bill debate; finally, given Hamilton’s death in 1804, Madison’s works (from 1817-1836) are examined and quotations drawn from that material.


Table Annexed To Article: Hamilton And Madison Deploy ‘Exigencies’ In Works Dated To 1787/88, 1790/91 And 1817-1836, Peter J. Aschenbrenner Feb 2013

Table Annexed To Article: Hamilton And Madison Deploy ‘Exigencies’ In Works Dated To 1787/88, 1790/91 And 1817-1836, Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

In the second of three articles, the works of Madison and Hamilton, from The Federalist Papers through the bank bill debate, and continuing with Madison’s post-1817 works are surveyed. The survey covers 151 works (essays, speeches and letters) over 49 years which consist of 265,859 words. The results count 41 uses of ‘exigencies’ (and its affiliate ‘exigency’) in these works.


Table Annexed To Article: Bentham's Sieve: Restraining Officials And Entities In The Early Constitution, Peter J. Aschenbrenner Feb 2013

Table Annexed To Article: Bentham's Sieve: Restraining Officials And Entities In The Early Constitution, Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Jeremy Bentham’s sieve, tidied up, divides sovereign Shouldstatements into responsibilities and disabilities. Responsibilies are subdivided into commands and permissions. Conditional or contingent statements, dependent as they must be on a future real world, are merely hum-drum expressions of the machinery of governing. A survey of restraints appears from the avalanche of 229 deployments of ‘shall’ in the Early Constitution.


Table Annexed To Article: Jeremy Bentham Mocks The Declarations, Peter J. Aschenbrenner Feb 2013

Table Annexed To Article: Jeremy Bentham Mocks The Declarations, Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Jeremy Bentham’s sieve, tidied up, divides sovereign Shouldstatements into responsibilities and disabilities. Responsibilies are subdivided into commands and permissions. Conditional or contingent statements, dependent as they must be on a future real world, are merely hum-drum expressions of the machinery of governing. A survey of restraints appears from the avalanche of 229 deployments of ‘shall’ in the Early Constitution.


Hamilton And Madison Deploy ‘Exigencies’ In Works Dated To 1787/88, 1790/91 And 1817-1836, Peter J. Aschenbrenner Feb 2013

Hamilton And Madison Deploy ‘Exigencies’ In Works Dated To 1787/88, 1790/91 And 1817-1836, Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

In the second of three articles, the works of Madison and Hamilton, from The Federalist Papers through the bank bill debate, and continuing with Madison’s post-1817 works are surveyed. The survey covers 151 works (essays, speeches and letters) over 49 years which consist of 265,859 words. The results count 41 uses of ‘exigencies’ (and its affiliate ‘exigency’) in these works.


Hamilton And Madison Deploy ‘Necessary’ In Works Dated To 1787/88, 1790/91 And 1817-1836 Semantic Values Surveyed, Peter J. Aschenbrenner Feb 2013

Hamilton And Madison Deploy ‘Necessary’ In Works Dated To 1787/88, 1790/91 And 1817-1836 Semantic Values Surveyed, Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

In the second of three articles, word counts are supplied for each value of ‘necessary,’ highlighting the divergent ‘necessary’ = consequence’ and ‘necessary’ = text crafting. The survey covers 151 works (essays, speeches and letters) over 49 years which consist of 265,859 words. , from The Federalist Papers through the bank bill debate, and continuing with Madison’s post-1817 works are surveyed. The survey covers 151 works (essays, speeches and letters) over 49 years which consist of 265,859 words. The results count 487 uses of ‘necessary’ (and its affiliates) in these works.


Table Annexed To Article: Hamilton And Madison Deploy ‘Necessary’ In Works Dated To 1787/88, 1790/91 And 1817-1836 Semantic Values Surveyed, Peter J. Aschenbrenner Feb 2013

Table Annexed To Article: Hamilton And Madison Deploy ‘Necessary’ In Works Dated To 1787/88, 1790/91 And 1817-1836 Semantic Values Surveyed, Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

In the second of three articles, word counts are supplied for each value of ‘necessary,’ highlighting the divergent ‘necessary’ = consequence’ and ‘necessary’ = text crafting. The survey covers 151 works (essays, speeches and letters) over 49 years which consist of 265,859 words. , from The Federalist Papers through the bank bill debate, and continuing with Madison’s post-1817 works are surveyed. The survey covers 151 works (essays, speeches and letters) over 49 years which consist of 265,859 words. The results count 487 uses of ‘necessary’ (and its affiliates) in these works.