A concise guide to the records of the state ratifying conventions as a source of the original meaning of the U.S. constitution

University of Illinois Law Review

Volumn 2009, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 457-496

  Maggs, Gregory E ^a  

^a GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 65349168009     PISSN: 02769948     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (301)

1. U.S. CONST. art. VII.
2. Id.
3. To find cases that cite the leading compilations of records from the state ratifying conventions (described in Part III below), I searched Westlaw's SCT, SCT-OLD, and JLR databases for "(elliot! /10 debate!) (documentary /5 ratification)."
4. 514 U.S. 779 (1995).
5. See generally CONSTITUTIONAL DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS, 1776-1787, at 243-45, 251-53, 255, 270 (Merrill Jensen ed., 1976).
6. 4 ANNALS OF CONG. 776 (1796), available at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage? collId=Ilac&fileName=005/Ilac005. db&recNum=384.
7. See Gregory E. Maggs, A Concise Guide to the Federalist Papers as a Source of the Original Meaning of the United States Constitution, 87 B.U. L. REV. 801, 802, 821 (2007).
8. See id. at 801.
9. The six paragraphs in Part II are adapted from my guide to the Federalist Papers previously published in the Boston University Law Review. See id. at 805-07. I reprise them here in a slightly altered form for the convenience of the readers.
10. Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 657, 721 (1838).
11. See, e.g., U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 808-09 (1995) (quoting comments of James Madison at the Constitutional Convention as evidence of the original intent of the Framers).
12. See Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 716-19 (1999) (discussing evidence of the "original understanding" of the ratifiers of the Constitution).
13. Max Farrand's classic THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787 (Max Farrand ed., rev. ed. 1937) (4 volumes) contains all the notes and records of the Constitutional Convention known as of 1937.
14. The introduction contains an extremely detailed account of who took the notes, when they were published, and why they may contain inaccuracies. Id. at xi-xxv.
15. See John C. Yoo, Globalism and the Constitution: Treaties, Non-Self-Execution, and the Original Understanding, 99 COLUM. L. REV. 1955, 2037-40, 2074 (1999) (summarizing conflicting views at the Constitutional Convention and the state ratifying conventions).
16. Larry Kramer, Two (More) Problems with Originalism, 31 HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL'Y 907, 911 (2008).
17. See RANDY E. BARNETT, RESTORING THE LOST CONSTITUTION 100-09 (2004) (describing this kind of meaning).
18. Antonin Scalia, Common-Law Courts in a Civil-Law System: The Role of United States Federal Courts in Interpreting the Constitution and Laws, in A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION 3, 38 (Amy Gutmann ed., 1997).
19. See, e.g., Randy E. Barnett, The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause, 68 U. CHI. L. REV. 101, 111-25 (2001) (using the methodology to determine whether the word "commerce" in the Commerce Clause refers specifically to the exchange of goods or more broadly to any gainful activity).
20. See, e.g., Paul Brest, The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding, 60 B.U. L. REV. 204, 214-15 (1980);
21. Ronald D. Rotunda, Original Intent, the View of the Framers, and the Role of the Ratifiers, 41 VAND. L. REV. 507, 512 (1988).
22. See, e.g., Gary Lawson, Delegation and Original Meaning, 88 VA. L. REV. 327, 398 (2002).
23. For classic defenses of originalism - the school of constitutional interpretation advocating that courts must follow the original meaning of the Constitution - see generally RAOUL BERGER, GOVERNMENT BY JUDICIARY (2d Liberty Fund ed. 1997) (1977);
24. ROBERT H. BORK, THE TEMPTING OF AMERICA: THE POLITICAL SEDUCTION OF THE LAW (1st Touchstone ed. 1991) (1990);
25. Lino A. Graglia, Constitutional Interpretation, 44 SYRACUSE L. REV. 631 (1993);
26. Antonin Scalia, Originalism: The Lesser Evil, 57 U. CIN. L. REV. 849 (1989).
27. For classic criticism of originalism, see generally Boris I. Bittker, The Bicentennial of the Jurisprudence of Original Intent: The Recent Past, 77 CAL. L. REV. 235 (1989);
28. Brest, supra note 19;
29. H. Jefferson Powell, The Original Understanding of Original Intent, 98 HARV. L. REV. 885 (1985).
30. See infra notes 23-35 and accompanying text.
31. THE DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GENERAL CONVENTION AT PHILADELPHIA, IN 1787 (J. Elliot ed., 1827-1830) [hereinafter ELLIOT'S DEBATES], available at http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/ amlaw/1wed.html.
32. Library of Congress, Elliot's Debates Home Page, http://memory.loc.gov/ ammem/amlaw/ lwed.html (last visited Feb. 8, 2009).
33. See, e.g., Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S. Ct. 2229 (2008);
34. Briscoe v. Bank of Commonwealth of Ky., 36 U.S. 257 (1837);
35. James H. Hutson, The Creation of the Constitution: The Integrity of the Documentary Record, 65 TEX. L. REV. 1, 13 (1986).
36. Hutson, supra note 25, at 13, 20.
37. DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE RATIFICATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION (John P. Kaminski et al. eds., 1976-2007) [hereinafter DOCUMENTARY HISTORY], available at http://www. wisconsinhistory.org/ratification/.
38. See 1 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY, supra note 27, at 72.
39. Wisconsin Historical Society, The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution, http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/ratification/ (last visited Feb. 8, 2009) (table of contents showing completed volumes and works still in progress).
40. THE FOUNDERS' CONSTITUTION (Philip B. Kurland & Ralph Lerner eds., 1987), available at http://press-pubs.uchicago. edu/founders/.
41. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 1 ("All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.").
42. See 2 THE FOUNDERS' CONSTITUTION, supra note 30, at 24-40.
43. Id. at 36.
44. Id. at 36-37.
45. The Founders' Constitution, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/ (last visited Feb. 8, 2009).
46. 2 FRANCIS NEWTON THORPE, THE CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES (1901), available at http://books.google.com/books?id=Lew9AAAAIAAJ.
47. Id.
48. THE CONSTITUTION AND THE STATES: THE ROLE OF THE ORIGINAL THIRTEEN IN THE FRAMING AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION (Patrick T. Conley & John P. Kaminski eds., 1988) [hereinafter THE CONSTITUTION AND THE STATES].
49. See DOCUMENTARY HISTORY, supra note 27.
50. Report of Proceedings in Congress, Feb. 21, 1787, in DOCUMENTS ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE FORMATION OF THE UNION OF THE AMERICAN STATES 44-45 (Charles C Tansill ed., 1927) (H.R. Doc. No. 69-398). Some of the states sent deputies under different instructions.
51. See 1 THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787, supra note 13, at i-xxv (introductory essay describing the federal convention).
52. Id.
53. Id. at 1;
54. see also 2 THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787, supra note 13, at 641-50.
55. See U.S. CONST. art. VII.
56. If the Convention had proposed mere amendments to the Articles of Confederation, the amendments would have become effective only if the Confederation Congress or the state legislatures unanimously approved them.
57. U.S. CONST. art. VII.
58. Isaac Kramnick, Editor's Introduction to JAMES MADISON ET AL., THE FEDERALIST PAPERS 15 (Isaac Kramnick ed., Penguin Books 1987) (1788).
59. Id.
60. For more detailed information about Delaware's ratification, see 3 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY, supra note 27, at 37-49;
61. Harold Hancock, Delaware Becomes the First State, in THE CONSTITUTION AND THE STATES, supra note 38, at 21, 30-35;
62. 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 18.
63. 3 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY, supra note 27, at 28.
64. Id. at 105.
65. Id. at 110-12.
66. See 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 18 n.2.
67. Hancock, supra note 49, at 32-35.
68. For more detailed information about Pennsylvania's ratification, see 2 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY, supra note 27, at 30-49;
69. Paul Doutrich, From Revolution to Constitution: Pennsylvania's Path to Federalism, in THE CONSTITUTION AND THE STATES, supra note 38, at 37, 48-51;
70. 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 18-32.
71. 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 19.
72. Id. 18, 27.
73. Id. at 26.
74. Id. 21.
75. See Doutrich, supra note 55, at 51.
76. Id.
77. Id.
78. Id.
79. Id.
80. See 2 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY, supra note 27, at 59.
81. See 2 ELLIOT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 415-542.
82. Id. at 436.
83. See id. at 542-46;
84. 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 27.
85. For more detailed information about New Jersey's ratification, see 3 Documentary HISTORY, supra note 27, at 119-32;
86. Mary R. Murrin, New Jersey and the Two Constitutions, in THE CONSTITUTION AND THE STATES, supra note 38, at 55, 71-74;
87. 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 32-33.
88. 2 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY, supra note 27, at 21.
89. See Murrin, supra note 69, at 72-73.
90. See 3 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY, supra note 27, at 130.
91. See 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 32-33.
92. 3 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY, supra note 27, at 127 ("Letters, notes of debates, or diaries written by members of the Convention or by observers are not extant.").
93. See Murrin, supra note 69, at 72.
94. For more detailed information about Georgia's ratification, see 3 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY, supra note 27, at 201-16;
95. Albert B. Saye, Georgia: Security Through Union, in THE CONSTITUTION AND THE STATES, supra note 38, at 77, 86-90;
96. 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 33.
97. See 3 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY, supra note 27, at 219.
98. Id. at 278.
99. See 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 33.
100. See id.
101. 3 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY, supra note 27, at 213.
102. Saye, supra note 76, at 86-87.
103. For more detailed information about Connecticut's ratification, see 3 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY, supra note 27, at 315-38;
104. Christopher Collier, Sovereignty Finessed: Roger Sherman, Oliver Ellsworth, and the Ratification of the Constitution in Connecticut, in THE CONSTITUTION AND THE STATES, supra note 38, at 93, 108-11;
105. 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 33-37.
106. 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 34.
107. Id. at 35-36.
108. 1 ELLIOT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 322 (describing the vote).
109. See 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 34.
110. 3 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY, supra note 27, at 336.
111. 2 ELLIOT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 185-202.
112. Id. at 185.
113. Id. at 191.
114. See Collier, supra note 83, at 109.
115. 6 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY, supra note 27, at xix.
116. For more detailed information about Massachusetts's ratification, see 4 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY, supra note 27, at xxiv-lxxiii;
117. John J. Fox, Massachusetts and the Creation of the Federal Union, 1775-1791, in THE CONSTITUTION AND THE STATES, supra note 38, at 113, 121-27;
118. 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 37-56.
119. 4 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY, supra note 27, at lxxiii.
120. Id.
121. Id.
122. See 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 38.
123. See id.
124. See id. at 41.
125. See id. at 39, 41.
126. See id. at 54.
127. 4 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY, supra note 27, at lviii-lxi.
128. See generally 2 ELLIOT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 1-183.
129. Id. at 107.
130. See 1 ELLIOT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 322-23.
131. For more detailed information about Maryland's ratification, see Gregory Stiverson, Necessity, the Mother of Union: Maryland and the Constitution, 1785-1789, in THE CONSTITUTION AND THE STATES, supra note 38, at 131, 144-72;
132. 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 56-60. The volume of the DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE RATIFICATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION that will contain materials from the Maryland ratifying convention is not yet complete. See Wisconsin Historical Society, supra note 29.
133. The vote took place on April 26, 1788. See 2 Thorpe, supra note 36, at 56.
134. Maryland's ratification document is dated April 28, 1788. See 1 ELLIOT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 324.
135. 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 57 n.2.
136. See id. at 59.
137. Stiverson, supra note 106, at 146.
138. 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 59.
139. 2 ELLIOT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 547-56.
140. Stiverson, supra note 106, at 147.
141. Id. at 149.
142. 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 59-60.
143. For more detailed information about South Carolina's ratification, see Jerome J. Nadelhaft, South Carolina: A Conservative Revolution, in THE CONSTITUTION AND THE STATES, supra note 38, at 153, 172-75;
144. 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 60-73.
145. The volume of the DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE RATIFICATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION that will contain materials from the South Carolina ratifying convention is not yet complete. See Wisconsin Historical Society, supra note 29.
146. 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 68 n.5.
147. 13 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY, supra note 27, at xlii.
148. Nadelhaft, supra note 116, at 175.
149. 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 69.
150. 4 ELLIOT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 253-342.
151. See id.
152. Id. at 274-75.
153. Nadelhaft, supra note 116, at 159.
154. Id. at 175.
155. See 1 ELLIOT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 325 (reprinting amendments).
156. For more detailed information about New Hampshire's ratification, see Jere Daniell, Ideology and Hardball: Ratification of the Federal Constitution in New Hampshire, in THE CONSTITUTION AND THE STATES, supra note 38, at 181, 186-98;
157. 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 73-78.
158. The volume of the DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE RATIFICATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION that will contain materials from the New Hampshire convention is not yet complete. See Wisconsin Historical Society, supra note 29.
159. See 1 ELLIOT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 326 (New Hampshire's ratification document describes the legislature's resolution).
160. See Daniell, supra note 127, at 191-98.
161. Id. at 198.
162. 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 73.
163. See 2 ELLIOT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 203;
164. Hutson, supra note 25, at 21 (explaining that the document "appears to have been composed by parties unknown in 1827, when it was first published as antislavery propaganda in a New Hampshire newspaper").
165. Daniell, supra note 127, at 193.
166. See 1 ELLIOT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 325-27.
167. For more detailed information about Virginia's ratification, see Alan V. Briceland, Virginia: The Cement of the Union, in THE CONSTITUTION AND THE STATES, supra note 38, at 201, 210-21;
168. 8 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY, supra note 27, at xxiii-liv;
169. 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 79-130.
170. See Gary Lawson & Guy Seidman, When Did the Constitution Become Law?, 77 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1, 25-26 (2001) (quoting speakers of the era who recognized that a United States that did not include Virginia and New York would exist in name only).
171. See 8 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY, supra note 27, at liii.
172. Id. at liv.
173. Id.
174. See 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 83.
175. See id.
176. See 8 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY, supra note 27, at xlv.
177. See 3 ELLIOT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 1-663.
178. See, e.g., District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2804 (2008) (referencing Elliot's Debates while explicating the Second Amendment in a recent landmark case).
179. See 3 ELLIOT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 586-96.
180. 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 93.
181. See 3 ELLIOTT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 616-22.
182. JOSEPH ELLIS, AMERICAN CREATION: TRIUMPHS AND TRAGEDIES AT THE FOUNDING OF THE REPUBLIC 120 (2007).
183. See id. at 125.
184. See 3 ELLIOT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 657-61.
185. For more detailed information about New York's ratification of the Constitution, see 19 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY, supra note 27, at xxii-lxxxvi;
186. John P. Kaminski, Adjusting to Circumstances: New York's Relationship with the Federal Government 1776-1788, in THE CONSTITUTION AND THE STATES, supra note 38, at 225, 242-48;
187. 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 131-80.
188. See Kaminski, supra note 151, at 240.
189. Id. at 242-46.
190. Id. at 246.
191. See 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 134-35.
192. Lansing and Yates left the federal convention early because they believed that it had departed from its objective of merely amending the Articles of Confederation. See id. at 139.
193. 19 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY, supra note 27, at lxix-lxx.
194. See 2 ELLIOT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 205-414.
195. See RALPH VOLNEY HARLOW, SAMUEL ADAMS, PROMOTER OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 331 (1923).
196. See CHARLES EMANUEL MARTIN, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION 80 (1926).
197. See id.
198. See Maggs, supra note 7, at 801-02.
199. 2 ELLIOT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 412.
200. See Kaminski, supra note 151, at 245.
201. See id. at 246.
202. For more detailed information about North Carolina's ratification, see 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 180-85;
203. Alan D. Watson, States' Rights and Agrarianism, in THE CONSTITUTION AND THE STATES, supra note 38, at 251, 259-67.
204. The volume of the DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE RATIFICATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION that will contain materials from the North Carolina convention is not yet complete. See Wisconsin Historical Society, supra note 29.
205. See Paul J. Scudiere, "In Order to Form a More Perfect Union": The United States, 1774-1791, in THE CONSTITUTION AND THE STATES, supra note 38, at 3, 18-20.
206. 4 GORDON DENBOER ET AL., THE DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FIRST FEDERAL ELECTIONS, 1788-1790, at 313 (1990).
207. Watson, supra note 165, at 262.
208. 4 DENBOER ET AL., supra note 167, at 313.
209. MARTHA HELEN HAYWOOD ET AL., THE NORTH CAROLINA BOOKLET: GREAT EVENTS IN NORTH CAROLINA HISTORY 30-31 (1909).
210. Id. at 30.
211. See 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 181.
212. See 4 ELLIOT'S DEBATESS, supra note 23, at 1-252.
213. See Watson, supra note 165, at 265.
214. See id. at 264.
215. See 4 ELLIOT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 249.
216. For more detailed information about Rhode Island's ratification, see Patrick T. Conley, First in War, Last in Peace: Rhode Island and the Constitution, 1786-1790, in THE CONSTITUTION AND THE STATES, supra note 38, at 269, 271-79;
217. 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 185-91.
218. The volume of the DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE RATIFICATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION that will contain materials from the Rhode Island convention is not yet complete. See Wisconsin Historical Society, supra note 29.
219. See 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 185.
220. See Conley, supra note 177, at 274.
221. See 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 186.
222. Id. at 188-89.
223. See Conley, supra note 177, at 276-77.
224. 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 190-91.
225. Id.
226. Id. at 191.
227. See Conley, supra note 177, at 278.
228. See 1 ELLIOT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 334-37.
229. See 2 THORPE, supra note 36, at 190.
230. See id.
231. U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2, cl. 1.
232. 3 ELLIOT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 555.
233. See Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 267 (1985);
234. Monaco v. Mississippi, 292 U.S. 313,324 (1934);
235. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1,14 (1890).
236. See 2 ELLIOT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 435-36.
237. See id.
238. U.S. CONST, art. I, § 4, cl. 1 ("The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.").
239. 2 ELLIOT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 440.
240. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 3 ("The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.").
241. 3 ELLIOT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 495.
242. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 2, cl. 3 ("The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.").
243. 3 ELLIOT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 458.
244. 506 U.S. 224 (1993).
245. Id. at 244 (White, J., concurring) ("While at the Convention, Hamilton advocated that impeachment trials be conducted by a court made up of state-court judges. Four months after publishing the Federalist Nos. 65 and 66, however, he urged the New York Ratifying Convention to amend the Clause he had so ably defended to have the Senate, the Supreme Court, and judges from each State jointly try impeachments." (citations omitted)).
246. 533 U.S. 289,336-41 (2001) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
247. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 9, cl. 2.
248. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 337.
249. Id. (citing dictionaries from 1789 and 1773).
250. Id. (citing Rex A. Collings, Jr., Habeas Corpus for Convicts-Constitutional Right or Legislative Grace?, 40 CAL. L. REV. 335,342 & nn.38-41 (1952)).
251. 520 U.S. 564,609 (1997) (Thomas, J., dissenting).
252. Id. at 624 (concluding "based on this common 18th-century usage of the words 'import' and 'export,' and the lack of any textual indication that the Clause was intended to apply exclusively to foreign goods, it seems likely that those who drafted the Constitution sought, through the Import-Export Clause, to prohibit States from levying duties and imposts on goods imported from, or exported to, other States as well as foreign nations, and that those who ratified the Constitution would have so understood the Clause").
253. Id. at 628-31 (citing 2 ELLIOT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 57-58 ("As to commerce, it is well known that the different states now pursue different systems of duties in regard to each other. By this, and for want of general laws of prohibition through the Union, we have not secured even our own domestic traffic that passes from state to state." (emphasis omitted))).
254. 541 U.S. 36, 38 (2004).
255. U.S. CONST. amend. VI ("In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right... to be confronted with the witnesses against him ....").
256. Crawford, 541 U.S. at 48.
257. Id. at 48-49 (quoting 2 ELLIOT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 110-11).
258. Id. at 50-56.
259. In a dissenting opinion in another case, Justice Scalia observed that the Seventh Amendment was a "response to one of the principal objections to the proposed Constitution raised by the Anti-Federalists during the ratification debates: its failure to ensure the right to trial by jury in civil actions in federal court." Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 450 (1996) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
260. Hutson, supra note 25, at 21-24 (describing incompleteness of the historical record).
261. 514 U.S. 779, 900 (1995) (Thomas, J., dissenting);
262. see also Vasan Kesavan & Michael Stokes Paulsen, Is West Virginia Unconstitutional?, 90 CAL. L. REV. 291, 370 (2002) (discussing whether "a meaningful interpretive clue [can] be drawn from silence-from the fact that no one spoke about the particular problem" at state ratifying conventions).
263. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 5, cl. 3.
264. 2 ELLIOT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 52.
265. Henry Paul Monaghan, We the People[s], Original Understanding, and Constitutional Amendment, 96 COLUM. L. REV. 121,151 (1996).
266. See Hutson, supra note 25, at 20 (arguing that "the technique of shorthand was in its infancy in the United States and did not provide the means of recording public discourse accurately").
267. 4 ANNALS OF CONGRESS 777 (1796) (remarks of James Madison), available at http://memory. loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId= llac&fileName=005/llac005.db&recNum=385.
268. Id.
269. See Martin S. Flaherty, The Most Dangerous Branch, 105 YALE L.J. 1725,1802 n.405 (1996) ("Thomas Lloyd, who served as the official reporter for the Pennsylvania and Maryland ratifying conventions, was often too drunk to take anything down, much less take anything down accurately.").
270. See Hutson, supra note 25, at 21-24.
271. 3 ELLIOT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 204.
272. See, e.g., Robert G. Natelson, The Original Meaning of the Establishment Clause, 14 WM. & MARY BILL RTS. J. 73, 91 (2005) ("At the Virginia ratifying convention, Governor Edmund Randolph let the feline slip from the sack: in stating that 'no power is given expressly to Congress over religion,' he implicitly admitted that Congress would enjoy implied powers on the subject." (footnote omitted)).
273. Id. at 91-92.
274. See John C. Yoo, Our Declaratory Ninth Amendment, 42 EMORY L.J. 967, 988 n.89 (1993) (arguing that "speeches and letters made during the constitutional ratifying conventions ... should be used carefully in interpretation due to their unreliability and our ignorance of the speaker's motives").
275. See 3 ELLIOT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 533 (quoting Madison as saying, "It is not in the power of individuals to call any state into court.");
276. id. at 555 (quoting Marshall as saying, "I hope that no gentleman will think that a state will be called at the bar of the federal court.").
277. Stephen A. James, Original Intent: The Judicial Uses of History and Constitutional Interpretation in Australia and the United States, 12 IN PUB. INTEREST 23,28 (1992).
278. 520 U.S. 681,684 (1997).
279. Id. at 696 (quoting 2 ELLIOT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 480).
280. A few conventions did express views on specific issues. For example, the Rhode Island Convention's formal ratification document includes this statement: "It is declared by the Convention, that the judicial power of the United States, in cases in which a state may be a party, does not extend to criminal prosecutions, or to authorize any suit by any person against a state...." 1 ELLIOT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 336.
281. However, as Part VI.5 below demonstrates, in some instances we can surmise that factors other than the arguments of the supporters of the Constitution persuaded delegates to vote for ratification.
282. 2 ELLIOT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 436-37.
283. George Anastaplo, The Constitution at Two Hundred: Explorations, 22 TEX. TECH L. REV. 967, 1037-38 (1991) (observing that some state conventions ratified without knowing what had been said at other conventions).
284. See Kesavan & Paulsen, supra note 217, at 370 (arguing that evidence from the New York and North Carolina ratifying conventions is less probative because "[t]hese ratifying conventions met after the requisite nine States had adopted the Constitution").
285. Vasan Kesavan & Michael Stokes Paulsen, The Interpretive Force of the Constitution's Secret Drafting History, 91 GEO. L.J. 1113,1162 (2003).
286. 514 U.S. 779,826 n.40 (1995).
287. Nadelhaft, supra note 116, at 173;
288. Stiverson, supra note 106, at 146.
289. See supra note 164 and' accompanying text.
290. See supra note 148 and accompanying text.
291. See supra PartV.
292. Madison's notes for May 29 report the rule: "That nothing spoken in the House be printed, or otherwise published, or communicated without leave." 1 THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787, supra note 13, at 15.
293. U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2 ("Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.").
294. 3 ELLIOT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 505.
295. 376 U.S. 1,7-8 (1964).
296. See id. at 16.
297. 4 ELLIOT'S DEBATES, supra note 23, at 257.
298. 376 U.S. at 34 n.19 (Harlan, J., dissenting) (emphasis omitted).
299. 544 U.S. 709,730 (2005) (Thomas, J., concurring).
300. U.S. CONST. amend. I ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ....").
301. 544 U.S. at 730.