Introduction
This paper analyses two documents touching on legislative powers in the states of New Jersey and Virginia. The New Jersey document is dubbed Patterson’s propositions while the Virginia one goes by the name Randolph’s propositions. The following paragraphs will analyze the differences in the two documents in accordance to content, structure, powers and jurisdiction.
- Structural differences in the plans
The two plans have major structural differences. First, Randolph’s proposition favors the establishment of two branches of national legislature. In his proposition, Randolph asserts that members of the first branch of the national legislature will be elected by the people of several states. Their office terms will run for a maximum of three years. During that period, and one year after expiration, they will not be eligible for any other state office and they will be paid fixed salaries from the national treasury.
In addition, the second branch will consist of members chosen by individual legislatures, of good behavior and above thirty years. They will run a term of seven years during which they won’t be eligible for any other state office.
On the other hand, Patterson proposes that the national legislature should have one branch consisting of two houses; the federal executive and federal judiciary. The federal executive will be elected by the United States in congress and they will run a fixed term in office during which they will be ineligible to hold any other state office.
The federal judiciary will be appointed by the federal executive to consist of the supreme tribunal. The executive will also appoint the judges. Both members of the federal executive and federal judiciary will run fixed office terms with a fixed stipend that will not change in their term of service.
Comparing the two propositions, Randolph and Patterson’s, major structural differences arise. Randolph’s case has two branches, established fixed terms and has only one congress house. Patterson’s proposition has one branch, two congress hoses and fixed terms that are not clear on length.
- Congressional representations;
Randolph’s propositions favor an election approach to determine the representatives of the states to the congress in the first branch. The second branch will be made of people elected by individual legislators. On the other hand, the Patterson’s proposition vests power in the congress to elect a federal executive. The executive appoints the federal judiciary composed of the supreme tribunal. Hence, the basis of determining the state’s members differs across the two cases with Randolph’s proposition favoring the election by people in the member states.
The votes by states in the congress are determined by the proportion of the state’s population to the whole number of white and other free citizens and inhabitants of every age, sex and condition. In this regard both propositions have same plans.
- Congressional powers
The congressional powers in both propositions are very similar. The powers vested by the articles of the confederation on the congress will apply wholly in both propositions. However, in Randolph’s case, additional powers will be vested in the national legislature through the principle of equitable ratio of representation.
The formation of the national judiciary and federal judiciary, in Randolph and Patterson’s case respectively, gives a slight difference in powers vested in each of them. For example, the national judiciary will have the powers to appoint inferior tribunals while the federal judiciary will have one body having jurisdiction on all matters arising from laws regarding revenues and other inconsistencies in the states.
The new relationship between the states and the federal government will be subject to the laws of the national legislature in Randolph’s case or the federal judiciary in Patterson’s. in the event of any inconsistency, the national legislature laws or the federal judiciary laws will be considered as the most binding. Any state or citizen of state who contravenes the federal law will be subjected to the full force of that supreme law. Thus, the new federal government will harmonize the legal infrastructure of the states to create a common benchmark for legal inconsistencies.
- Executive branch
In Randolph’s case, the national executive will be constituted to be composed of a single person chosen by the national legislature. The plan does not give a clear indication on the process of choosing the executive. On the other hand, in Patterson’s plan, the federal executive will be elected in the U. States in congress. The main difference between the two plans, here, is the approach to the appointment of the executive.
While Randolph’s plan is specific on the number of persons in the executive, the Patterson’s plan leaves it for decision by the congress. It is clear, then, that Randolph’s plan is well documented and specific.
- Judicial Plan
In Randolph’s plan, the national judiciary is formed by appointment of judges for the supreme tribunal by the second branch of national legislature. For Patterson’s plan, the judges of the supreme tribunal are appointed by the executive.
The Randolph plan gives powers to the supreme tribunal to appoint other inferior tribunals to help in carrying out its mandate. This extension of the tribunal is absent in the Patterson’s plan.
- Power to New Federal government
The Randolph’s plan is more specific, technical and powerful. It transfers mandate to the national legislature and vests powers to the structure like the vesting of equal powers same as the powers of the congress.
Works Cited
"Avalon Project - Madison Debates - June 13." Avalon Project - Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2014.
"Avalon Project - Madison Debates - June 15." Avalon Project - Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2014.
"New Jersey Plan." Constitution- Constitution Law, US Constitution, The Constitution, Constitutional Law. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2014.
"Our Documents - Virginia Plan (1787)." Welcome to OurDocuments.gov. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2014.
