Javascript must be enabled to continue!
The Pennsylvania Council of Censors and the Debate on the Guardian of the Constitution in the Early United States
View through CrossRef
Abstract
In 1776, Pennsylvania established an institution called the Council of Censors, which would be elected every seven years and was tasked with ensuring that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government had remained faithful to the constitution. None of the other thirteen colonies would create a similar institution, although Vermont would in 1777. Nor has the Council of Censors enjoyed a positive reputation among historians or constitutional scholars: Gordon Wood, for example, has attacked the institution as ‘a monster [pulled] out of Roman history’. Contemporaries agreed, and the body was abolished in Pennsylvania in 1790 after years of vociferous opposition and was criticized extensively at the Federal Convention in 1787. But the Council of Censors was a remarkably innovative institution, the first designed to enforce a written constitution, created decades before the Supreme Court’s assumption of the power of constitutional judicial review in 1803. This article presents a new history of the origins of the Council of Censors and its reception both in Pennsylvania and across the United States. It challenges prevailing accounts of the origins and purpose of the Council of Censors and argues that it was a product of a new theory of constitutionalism as the codification of popular sovereignty which emerged in the United States in the 1770s in response to the colonists’ fears about legislative overreach. Prior to the nineteenth century, it was only in Pennsylvania that this resulted in the creation of institutions to secure the supremacy of constitutional law over ordinary legislative power. As the final section of this article demonstrates, the idea that the constitution could be enforced against the legislative branch by an independent constitutional guardian—including the Supreme Court—was rejected at the Federal Convention precisely because of its framers’ antipathy to Pennsylvania’s radically democratic constitution.
Title: The Pennsylvania Council of Censors and the Debate on the Guardian of the Constitution in the Early United States
Description:
Abstract
In 1776, Pennsylvania established an institution called the Council of Censors, which would be elected every seven years and was tasked with ensuring that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government had remained faithful to the constitution.
None of the other thirteen colonies would create a similar institution, although Vermont would in 1777.
Nor has the Council of Censors enjoyed a positive reputation among historians or constitutional scholars: Gordon Wood, for example, has attacked the institution as ‘a monster [pulled] out of Roman history’.
Contemporaries agreed, and the body was abolished in Pennsylvania in 1790 after years of vociferous opposition and was criticized extensively at the Federal Convention in 1787.
But the Council of Censors was a remarkably innovative institution, the first designed to enforce a written constitution, created decades before the Supreme Court’s assumption of the power of constitutional judicial review in 1803.
This article presents a new history of the origins of the Council of Censors and its reception both in Pennsylvania and across the United States.
It challenges prevailing accounts of the origins and purpose of the Council of Censors and argues that it was a product of a new theory of constitutionalism as the codification of popular sovereignty which emerged in the United States in the 1770s in response to the colonists’ fears about legislative overreach.
Prior to the nineteenth century, it was only in Pennsylvania that this resulted in the creation of institutions to secure the supremacy of constitutional law over ordinary legislative power.
As the final section of this article demonstrates, the idea that the constitution could be enforced against the legislative branch by an independent constitutional guardian—including the Supreme Court—was rejected at the Federal Convention precisely because of its framers’ antipathy to Pennsylvania’s radically democratic constitution.
Related Results
[RETRACTED] Guardian Blood Balance –Feel the difference Guardian Blood Balance makes! v1
[RETRACTED] Guardian Blood Balance –Feel the difference Guardian Blood Balance makes! v1
[RETRACTED]Guardian Blood Balance Reviews (Works Or Hoax) Does Guardian Botanicals Blood Balance AU Really Works? Read Updated Report! Diabetes and Hypertension is such a health p...
[RETRACTED] Guardian Blood Balance Australia- Reviews - Guardian Botanicals Blood Balance [AU] SCAM ALERT! Read Real Critical Reports.. Price in Australia v1
[RETRACTED] Guardian Blood Balance Australia- Reviews - Guardian Botanicals Blood Balance [AU] SCAM ALERT! Read Real Critical Reports.. Price in Australia v1
[RETRACTED]Guardian Blood Balance Australia Reviews - Diabetes and blood sugar are some of the common problems that are attacking so many adult individuals nowadays. Obesity is t...
Perpindahan Wali Nasab ke Wali Hakim Karena Wali Adhal dalam Penetapan Pengadilan Agama Kuningan No. 311/PDT P/2022/PA.kng
Perpindahan Wali Nasab ke Wali Hakim Karena Wali Adhal dalam Penetapan Pengadilan Agama Kuningan No. 311/PDT P/2022/PA.kng
A marriage (parental) guardian is one of the legal requirements for marriage. Thus, any woman who marries without her guardian's permission is invalid. However, problems arise when...
On the Status of Rights
On the Status of Rights
Photo by Patrick Tomasso on Unsplash
ABSTRACT
In cases where the law conflicts with bioethics, the status of rights must be determined to resolve some of the tensions. ...
[RETRACTED] Guardian Blood Balance Reviews- (Scam Warning) Does Guardian Blood Balance Shark Tank Legitimate? v1
[RETRACTED] Guardian Blood Balance Reviews- (Scam Warning) Does Guardian Blood Balance Shark Tank Legitimate? v1
[RETRACTED]Guardian Blood Balance Canada | Does Its Really Works? In addition, they're all safe and are deductively supported up. Each supplement is secure to eat for the explana...
Saving Originalism
Saving Originalism
It is sometimes said that biographers cannot help but come to admire, even love, their subjects. And that adage seems to ring true of Professor Amar, the foremost “biographer” of t...
Problems of Implementation of the Constitution of Ukraine: Analysis and Solutions
Problems of Implementation of the Constitution of Ukraine: Analysis and Solutions
The article analyses the main problems of the implementation of the Constitution of Ukraine and identifies the constitutional and legal means of their solution.
As a methodologica...
Envisioning Originalism Applied to Bioethics Cases
Envisioning Originalism Applied to Bioethics Cases
Photo ID 123697425 © Alexandersikov | Dreamstime.com
Abstract
Originalism is an increasingly prevalent method for interpreting provisions of the US Constitution. It requires strict...

