English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

According to James Madison, Rufus King, of Massachusetts, moved in the Federal Convention, on August 28th, that there be added to the Constitution, "in the words used in the Ordinance of Cong[res]s establishing new States, a prohibition on the States to interfere in private contracts." The ordinance in question was the Ordinance for the Government of the Northwest Territory, which the Continental Congress had just passed a little earlier in the same summer. The ordinance declared, in the provision to which King referred, that "no law ought ever to be made or have force in the said territory, that sh[ould], in any manner whatever, interfere with or affect private contracts, or engagements, bona fide, and without fraud previously formed." This prohibition, it will be observed, was expressly limited to "interferences" with contracts "previously formed." So, King's motion was for a prohibition of retrospective "interferences" only. According to Madison, there ensued a considerable debate over King's proposal. James Wilson, Roger Sherman, and Madison himself supported the motion, and George Mason and Gouverneur Morris spoke against it. From the nature of the objections, it soon became apparent that the debaters-or, at least, some of them-believed a prohibition of prospective, as well as retrospective, "interferences" with contracts

The Ex-Post-Facto and the Contracts Clauses in the Federal Convention: A Note on the Editorial Ingenuity of James Madison