The Early Constitution - What do you think?

[NYC Liberal]

See what you think of some of the early drafts of parts of the Constitution that were debated all the way back in 1787.

Then: He shall be removed from his office on impeachment by the House of Representatives, and conviction in the supreme Court, of treason, bribery, or corruption.
Now: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Then: No religious test or qualification shall ever be annexed to any oath of office under the authority of the U. S.
Now: but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States

Would have prevented the official oath for members of Congress including "So help me God."

Then: The military shall always be subordinate to the Civil power, and no grants of money shall be made by the Legislature for supporting military Land forces, for more than one year at a time.
Now: The Congress shall have Power ... To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Adding the first part doesn't really do much, but I like the fact that it could have been in the Constitution itself, just to underscore it.

Then: The privileges and benefit of the Writ of Habeas corpus shall be enjoyed in this Government in the most expeditious and ample manner; and shall not be suspended by the Legislature except upon the most urgent and pressing occasions, and for a limited time not exceeding _____ months.
Now: The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it

The original one was much, much better. Adding in "the most expeditious and ample manner" and "most urgent and pressing occasions" underscore how important habeas corpus is. It makes it clear that only CONGRESS can suspend it, and there is a time limit. We could have used that.

Then: The Legislature of the United States shall pass no Law on the subject of Religion
Now: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

[ddeclue]

1. I like it as it is now...

[Dragonfli]

2. It appears to have more clarity of intent in the older passages you quoted.

More stress on things that I have been able to understand without the stress added, but would be helpful now as it is being subverted by religious and corporate interests.

If you please, some source material where I may learn more about those early debates and exact wordings of early texts as well as the arguments used that influenced the final draft.

If it can not be found online, I am not afraid of libraries.

Helpful post.

[NYC Liberal]

3. It's all from Madison's "Notes of Debates" from the Constitutional convention

Definitely worth a read. They are all available online (http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/), but of course you might rather buy it as a book. It's fascinating. You can read about everything that was added then changed or removed, the debates that went on (and so you can learn exactly why certain things were put in or taken out, or written the way they were). The delegates debated down to individual words.

There were other things, like having the Supreme Court try impeachments, having an "Executive Council," etc.

Definitely worth a read...or a perusal.