document_title: History of organizational changes in the NHL

question_text: what's the newest team in the nhl

question_tokens: what 's the newest team in the nhl

text: Early years[edit]

text: Four/three teams (1917–19)[edit]

text: The four teams that began the inaugural NHL season were the Montreal Canadiens, the Montreal Wanderers, the original Ottawa Senators, and the Toronto Arenas. However, after completing four games out of the scheduled 22, the Wanderers withdrew from the league due to their arena burning down, and the NHL continued this season and the next with only three teams.

text: Four teams (1919–24)[edit]

text: In its third season, 1919–20, the NHL underwent its first expansion, adding the Quebec Bulldogs. Toronto changed its name to Toronto St. Patricks. The next season, however, Quebec relocated to Hamilton, becoming the Hamilton Tigers. These same four teams continued playing for four seasons, up to 1923–24.

text: Six teams (1924–25)[edit]

text: Two new teams joined the NHL in its eighth season, the Boston Bruins, and the Montreal Maroons.

text: Seven teams (1925–26)[edit]

text: The next season, the NHL added two new teams, the Pittsburgh Pirates and the New York Americans. The Americans were stocked by purchasing the contracts of the Hamilton Tigers players, and the Tigers franchise was subsequently revoked by the league.

text: Ten teams (1926–31)[edit]

text: The NHL continued to expand the following season, adding the Chicago Black Hawks, the Detroit Cougars, and the New York Rangers, growing to ten teams, thus more than doubling its size in its first decade of existence. During the 1926–27 season, Toronto was renamed the Toronto Maple Leafs, taking effect next season. For the 1930–31 season, the Pirates moved from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia, becoming the Philadelphia Quakers, and Detroit was renamed the Detroit Falcons.

text: Eight teams (1931–32)[edit]

text: After fourteen seasons of steady expansion, the NHL contracted to eight teams, dropping the Philadelphia Quakers and the original Ottawa Senators for the 1931–32 season.

text: Nine teams (1932–35)[edit]

text: For the 1932–33 season, after missing one season, the original Ottawa Senators rejoined the NHL, and the Detroit Falcons were renamed the Detroit Red Wings. Two seasons later, for the 1934–35 season, the Ottawa Senators relocated, becoming the St. Louis Eagles.

text: Eight teams (1935–38)[edit]

text: The Eagles folded after one season, and the NHL was once again an eight-team league for three seasons.

text: Seven teams (1938–42)[edit]

text: The Montreal Maroons withdrew from the league for the 1938–39 season, further reducing the number of teams in the NHL to seven, shrinking to the size the league was in 1925–26. Play continued for four seasons with seven teams, with the New York Americans changing their name to the Brooklyn Americans for the 1941–42 season, their last.

text: Original Six (1942–67)[edit]

text: The 1942–43 season saw the folding of the Brooklyn Americans, thus ushering in the Original Six era of the NHL, which lasted without any organizational changes for twenty-five seasons.

text: Expansion years (1967–91)[edit]

text: Twelve teams (1967–70)[edit]

text: The 1967 expansion doubled the number of teams in the league, with an upfront expansion fee of $2 million each ($14.7 million today).[1] For the 1967–68 season, six new teams were added to the NHL: the California Seals, the Los Angeles Kings, the Minnesota North Stars, the Philadelphia Flyers, the Pittsburgh Penguins, and the St. Louis Blues. During their first season, the California Seals were renamed the Oakland Seals.

text: Fourteen teams (1970–72)[edit]

text: The Oakland Seals were renamed the California Golden Seals for their fourth season in 1970–71. The same season the NHL added two new teams, the Buffalo Sabres and the Vancouver Canucks, paying an expansion fee of $6 million each ($37.8 million today).[1]

text: Sixteen teams (1972–74)[edit]

text: Two more teams joined for the 1972–73 NHL season, the New York Islanders and the Atlanta Flames. With the competing World Hockey Association (WHA) starting that same season, the NHL was not able to raise its expansion fee from the price of two years earlier, $6 million ($35.1 million today), with the Islanders paying an additional $5 million ($29.3 million today) to the New York Rangers for infringing on their territory.[2]

text: Eighteen teams (1974–78)[edit]

text: Two more teams joined for the 1974–75 NHL season, the Washington Capitals and the Kansas City Scouts, but the ongoing competition from the WHA meant that the overall revenue stream of the NHL had not improved, so the league kept the expansion fee for new owners at the $6 million ($29.8 million today) of two years and four years earlier.[2] The earnings situation for the new franchises was so poor that (at least) the Capitals were able to negotiate a reduction to a total fee of $2.85 million ($14.1 million today).[2]

text: Going into the 1977–78 NHL season, the California Golden Seals relocated and became the Cleveland Barons, and the Kansas City Scouts moved as well, becoming the Colorado Rockies.

text: Seventeen teams (1978–79)[edit]

text: For the first time since the 1942–43 season the NHL contracted, merging the Cleveland Barons into the Minnesota North Stars.

text: Twenty-one teams (1979–91)[edit]

text: Following seven seasons of revenue draining competition, the NHL–WHA merger was completed for the start of the 1979–80 NHL season. Four teams came over from the WHA, paying an expansion fee of $7.5 million each ($25.3 million today).[1] These new NHL teams were the Edmonton Oilers, the Hartford Whalers, the Quebec Nordiques, and the (original) Winnipeg Jets. This also doubled the number of Canadian teams in the league. The following season, Atlanta relocated and became the Calgary Flames. In turn, for the 1982–83 season, the Colorado Rockies moved, becoming the New Jersey Devils. Chicago changed the spelling of their name from the Black Hawks to the Blackhawks for the 1986–87 season, based on its original franchise documents. Standing at 21 teams for twelve seasons, this was one of the longer stable periods of NHL history, though surpassed by the twenty-five seasons of the Original Six period, when no additions, moves nor name changes occurred.

text: Further expansion[edit]

text: Twenty-two teams (1991–92)[edit]

text: The 1991–92 season saw the dawn of rapid expansion and relocation in the NHL, which lasted for the next ten years, starting with the addition of the San Jose Sharks, paying an expansion fee of $45 million ($80.9 million today).[1]

text: Twenty-four teams (1992–93)[edit]

text: Two new teams joined the league the following season, the Ottawa Senators and the Tampa Bay Lightning, paying an expansion fee of $45 million each ($78.5 million today).[1]

text: Twenty-six teams (1993–98)[edit]

text: The next season, another two teams were added, the Florida Panthers and the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim, paying an expansion fee of $50 million each ($84.7 million today), with Anaheim paying an additional $25 million ($42.4 million today) to the Los Angeles Kings for infringing on their region.[1] The Minnesota North Stars relocated, becoming the Dallas Stars. Two seasons later, for the 1995–96 season, the Quebec Nordiques relocated and became the Colorado Avalanche. The following season, the Winnipeg Jets also moved, becoming the Phoenix Coyotes. The season after that, the Hartford Whalers relocated, becoming the Carolina Hurricanes.

text: Twenty-seven teams (1998–99)[edit]

text: The Nashville Predators joined the league for the 1998–99 season, paying an expansion fee of $80 million ($120.1 million today).[1]

text: Twenty-eight teams (1999–2000)[edit]

text: The following season, another team started play, the Atlanta Thrashers, paying the same expansion fee of $80 million ($117.5 million today) as the Predators paid a year earlier.[1]

text: Thirty teams (2000–2017)[edit]

text: For its 2000–01 season, the NHL added the Columbus Blue Jackets and the Minnesota Wild, each paying the same expansion fee of $80 million ($113.7 million today) as Nashville and Atlanta paid in the previous two years.[1] The NHL had reached a slate of 30 teams, entering the second longest period (after the Original Six period) of membership stability in its history. While it stayed at 30 teams for eighteen seasons, there were some moves and name changes. The Mighty Ducks of Anaheim changed their name to the Anaheim Ducks in the 2006–07 season. The Atlanta Thrashers moved to Winnipeg, Manitoba, becoming the second version of the Winnipeg Jets in the 2011–12 NHL season. The Phoenix Coyotes changed their name to Arizona Coyotes for the 2014–15 NHL season.

text: Thirty-one teams (2017–present)[edit]

text: On June 22, 2016, the Board of Governors voted 30-0 to add an expansion franchise in Las Vegas for the 2017–18 season, charging an expansion fee of $500 million ($509.8 million today).[1] An announcement was made the same day by Gary Bettman in Las Vegas. The Vegas Golden Knights play at T-Mobile Arena on the Las Vegas Strip.

text: Expansion and dispersal drafts[edit]

text:
Draft
Location
City
Date
Expansion team(s)
Players drafted
#1 pick(s)

1967
Queen Elizabeth Hotel
Montreal, Quebec
000000001967-06-06-0000June 6, 1967
California Seals
Los Angeles Kings
Minnesota North Stars
Philadelphia Flyers
Pittsburgh Penguins
St. Louis Blues
120
Sawchuk, TerryTerry Sawchuk (Toronto Maple Leafs)

1970
N/A
N/A
000000001970-06-10-0000June 10, 1970
Buffalo Sabres
Vancouver Canucks
40
Webster, TomTom Webster (Boston Bruins)
Gary Doak (Boston Bruins)

1972
N/A
N/A
000000001972-06-06-0000June 6, 1972
Atlanta Flames
New York Islanders
42
Myre, PhilPhil Myre (Montreal Canadiens)
Gerry Desjardins (Chicago Black Hawks)

1974
N/A
N/A
000000001974-06-12-0000June 12, 1974
Kansas City Scouts
Washington Capitals
48
Plasse, MichelMichel Plasse (Montreal Canadiens)
Ron Low (Toronto Maple Leafs)

1978
(dispersal)
N/A
N/A
000000001978-06-15-0000June 15, 1978
Cleveland Barons
Minnesota North Stars
2
N/A

1979
N/A
N/A
000000001979-06-13-0000June 13, 1979
Edmonton Oilers
Hartford Whalers
Quebec Nordiques
Winnipeg Jets
65
Cam Connor (Montreal Canadiens)
Alan Hangsleben (Montreal Canadiens)
Dave Farrish (New York Rangers)
Marsh, PeterPeter Marsh (Montreal Canadiens)

1991
N/A
N/A
000000001991-05-30-0000May 30, 1991
Minnesota North Stars
San Jose Sharks
44
Churla, ShaneShane Churla (Minnesota North Stars; dispersal)
Hackett, JeffJeff Hackett (New York Islanders)
Rob Ramage (Toronto Maple Leafs)

1992
N/A
N/A
000000001992-06-18-0000June 18, 1992
Ottawa Senators
Tampa Bay Lightning
42
Sidorkiewicz, PeterPeter Sidorkiewicz (Hartford Whalers)
Wendell Young (Pittsburgh Penguins)

1993
Quebec Coliseum
Quebec City, Quebec
June 24–25, 1993
Florida Panthers
Mighty Ducks of Anaheim
51
John Vanbiesbrouck (Vancouver Canucks)
Guy Hebert (St. Louis Blues)

1998
Marine Midland Arena
Buffalo, New York
000000001998-06-26-0000June 26, 1998
Nashville Predators
26
N/A

1999
FleetCenter
Boston, Massachusetts
000000001999-06-25-0000June 25, 1999
Atlanta Thrashers
26
N/A

2000
Pengrowth Saddledome
Calgary, Alberta
000000002000-06-23-0000June 23, 2000
Columbus Blue Jackets
Minnesota Wild
52
Rick Tabaracci (Colorado Avalanche)
Jamie McLennan (Florida Panthers)

2017
T-Mobile Arena
Paradise, Nevada
000000002017-06-21-0000June 21, 2017
Vegas Golden Knights
30
Calvin Pickard (Colorado Avalanche)

text: Possible expansion[edit]

text: Despite statements from the NHL in recent years that no further expansion or even relocation was planned for the foreseeable future (a statement partially contradicted by the relocation of the Thrashers to Winnipeg), there have been rumors and talks of potential new sites for existing or new teams in various locations in the United States and Canada. Since Winnipeg (the previous frontrunner) received the Jets in 2011, Quebec City and Seattle have been the most-discussed potential relocation sites; other potential markets for relocation that have seen action in recent years include Houston, Saskatoon, Kansas City, and Southern Ontario (which would be Hamilton, Toronto or Markham, although the league has actively blocked all of the Southern Ontario efforts to date, citing territorial concerns with the Buffalo Sabres and Toronto Maple Leafs). On February 13, 2018, a Seattle group placed a bid to start play in the 2020 season.


document_title: Constitutional Convention (United States)

question_text: the constitutional convention of 1787 in philadelphia occurred in which century

question_tokens: the constitutional convention of 1787 in philadelphia occurred in which century

root

text: Constitutional Convention (United States)

text: Historical context[edit]

text: Before the Constitution  was drafted, the nearly 4 million inhabitants[4] of the 13 newly independent states were governed under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, created by the Second Continental Congress, first proposed in 1776, adopted by the Second Continental Congress in 1778 and only finally unanimously ratified by the Original Thirteen States by 1781. It soon became evident to nearly all that the chronically underfunded Confederation government, as originally organized, was inadequate for managing the various conflicts that arose among the states.[5]:4–5[6]:14–16 As the Articles of Confederation could only be amended by unanimous vote of the states, any state had effective veto power over any proposed change.[7]  In addition, the Articles gave the weak federal government no taxing power: it was wholly dependent on the states for its money, and had no power to force delinquent states to pay.[7]

tag: p

text: Once the immediate task of winning the American Revolutionary War of 1775 to 1783 had passed, the states began to look to their own interests, and disputes arose.  These included a dispute between Maryland and Virginia over the Potomac River and opposition to Rhode Island's imposing taxes on all traffic passing through it on the post road.  James Madison suggested that state governments should appoint commissioners "to take into consideration the trade of the United States; to examine the relative situation and trade of said states; to consider how far a uniform system in their commercial regulations may be necessary to their common interests and permanent harmony".[8]:92

text: Another impetus for the convention was Shays' Rebellion of 1786-1787.  A political conflict between Boston merchants and rural farmers over issues including tax debts had broken out into an open rebellion.  This rebellion was led by a former Revolutionary War captain, Daniel Shays, a small farmer with tax debts, who had never received payment for his service in the Continental Army.  The rebellion took months for Massachusetts to put down completely, and some desired a federal army that would be able to put down such insurrections.[9]

text: These and other issues greatly worried many of the Founders that the Union as it existed up to that point was in danger of breaking apart,[10][11] and being subject to the persuasion of foreign powers.

text: In September 1786, at the Annapolis Convention, delegates from five states called for a Constitutional Convention in order to discuss possible improvements to the Articles of Confederation. The subsequent Constitutional Convention took place in Philadelphia, convening in the Old Pennsylvania State House (then becoming known as Independence Hall) on May 14, 1787. Rhode Island, fearing that the Convention would work to its disadvantage, boycotted the Convention and, when the Constitution was put to the states during the next year of controversial debates, initially refused to ratify it, waiting until May 1790 to become the thirteenth, a year after the new federal government commenced.[12]

text: The Convention[edit]

text: Due to the difficulty of travel in the late 18th century, very few of the selected delegates were present on the designated day of May 14, 1787, and it was not until May 25 that a quorum of seven states was secured. (New Hampshire delegates would not join the Convention until more than halfway through the proceedings, on July 23.)[5]:103 James Madison arrived first, and soon most of the Virginia delegation arrived. While waiting for the other delegates, the Virginia delegation produced the Virginia Plan, which was designed and written by James Madison. On May 25, the delegations convened in the Pennsylvania State House.

text: George Washington was unanimously elected president of the Convention,[13] and it was agreed that the discussions and votes would be kept secret until the conclusion of the meeting.[5]:11 Despite the sweltering summer heat, the windows of the meeting hall were nailed shut to keep the proceedings a secret from the public.[History Alive! 1] Although William Jackson was elected as secretary, his records were brief and included very little detail. Madison's Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, supplemented by the notes of Robert Yates, remain the most complete record of the Convention.[5]:162–64 Throughout the debate, delegates constantly referred to precedents from history in support of their position. Most commonly, they referred to the history of England, in particular the Glorious Revolution (often simply called "The Revolution"), classical history (mainly the Roman Republic and the leagues of Greek city-states), and recent precedents from Holland and Germany.

text: Outside the Convention in Philadelphia, there was a national convening of the Society of the Cincinnati. Washington was said to be embarrassed. The 1776 "old republican" delegates like Elbridge Gerry (MA) found anything military or hereditary anathema. The Presbyterian Synod of Philadelphia and New York convention was meeting to redefine its Confession, dropping the faith requirement for civil authority to prohibit false worship.[14] Protestant Episcopalian Washington attended a Roman Catholic Mass and dinner.[15] Revolution veteran Jonas Phillips, of the Mikveh Israel Synagogue, petitioned the Convention to avoid a national oath including belief in both Old and New Testaments. Merchants of Providence, Rhode Island, petitioned for consideration, though their Assembly had not sent a delegation.[16]

text: Manasseh Cutler came directly from the capital in New York and found himself a frequent dinner guest among the delegates.  He carried grants of five million acres to parcel out among The Ohio Company and "speculators", including some who were attending the Convention.[a] A Philadelphia guest of Robert Morris, Noah Webster would write a pamphlet immediately after the signing.  "Leading Principles of the Federal Convention" advocated adoption of the Constitution.  It was published much earlier and more widely circulated than today's better known Federalist Papers.[18]

text: James Madison's blueprint[edit]

text: While waiting for the Convention to formally begin, James Madison sketched out his initial draft, which became known as the Virginia Plan and reflected his views as a strong nationalist.[6]:47 By the time the rest of the Virginia delegation arrived, most of the Pennsylvania delegation had arrived as well. They agreed on Madison's plan, and formed what came to be the predominant coalition. By the time the Convention started, the only blueprints that had been assembled were Madison's Virginia Plan, and Charles Pinckney's plan. As Pinckney didn't have a coalition behind his plan, Madison's plan was the starting point for deliberations.[6]:47

text: The Convention agreed on several principles. Most importantly, they agreed that the Convention should go beyond its mandate merely to amend the Articles of Confederation, and instead should produce a new constitution outright. While some delegates thought this illegal, the Articles of Confederation were closer to a treaty between sovereign states than they were to a national constitution, so the genuine legal problems were limited.[6]:64 Another principle they agreed on was that the new government would have all the powers of the Confederation Congress, plus additional powers over the states.[6]:64 Once agreeing on these principles, the Convention voted on the Virginia plan and signaled their approval for it. Once this was done, they began modifying it.

text: Madison's plan operated on several assumptions that were not seriously challenged. During the deliberations, few raised serious objections to the planned bicameral congress, nor the separate executive function, nor the separate judicial function.[6]:67 As English law had typically recognized government as having two separate functions, law making embodied in the legislature, and law executing embodied in the king and his courts, the division of the legislature from the executive and judiciary was a natural and uncontested point.[13]

text: The division of the legislature into an upper and lower house wasn't questioned either, despite the obscure origins of the English House of Lords and its role as the representative of the hereditary nobility.[6]:82 Americans had seldom known any but bicameral legislatures, both in Britain and in most state governments. The main exceptions to this were the dysfunctional Confederation Congress and the unicameral Pennsylvania legislature, which was seen as quickly vacillating between partisan extremes after each election.[6]:82 Experience had convinced the delegates that an upper house was necessary to tame the passions of the lower classes against the interests of wealthy merchants and landowners. Since America had no native hereditary aristocracy, the character of this upper house was designed to protect the interests of this wealthy elite, the "minority of the opulent," against the interests of the lower classes, who constituted the majority of the population.[6]:85[19]

text:
In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The Senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability.
— James Madison, quoted in Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787 by Robert Yates

tag: div

text: On Thursday, June 7, it was proposed that senators should be chosen directly by the state legislatures, instead of by popular vote, as this method was more likely to preserve the power of the upper classes. Convention delegate Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts observed that "the great mercantile interest and of stockholders, is not provided for in any mode of election-they will however be better represented if the State legislatures choose the second branch."[19] The proposal was carried unanimously.

text: The delegates also agreed with Madison that the executive function had to be independent of the legislature. In their aversion to kingly power, American legislatures had created state governments where the executive was beholden to the legislature, and by the late 1780s this was widely seen as being a source of paralysis.[6]:82 The Confederation government was the ultimate example of this.

text: Furthermore, in the English tradition, judges were seen as being agents of the King and his court, who represented him throughout his realm.[13] Madison believed that in the American states, this direct link between state executives and judges was a source of corruption through patronage, and thought the link had to be severed between the two, thus creating the "third branch" of the judiciary which had been without any direct precedent before this point.[13] Madison, however, did not believe that the judiciary should be truly independent, but rather beholden to the legislature rather than the executive. At the Convention, some sided with Madison that the legislature should choose judges, while others believed the president should choose judges. A compromise was eventually reached that the president should choose judges and the Senate confirm them.[6]:84

text: In a few areas, Madison's plan included provisions that had little support among the delegates. Few agreed with Madison that the legislature should be able to invalidate state laws, so the idea was dropped. While most thought there should be some mechanism to invalidate bad laws by congress, few agreed with Madison that a board of the executive and judges should decide on this. Instead, the power was given solely to the executive in the form of the veto. Many also thought this would be useful to protect the executive, whom many worried might become beholden to an imperial legislature.[6]:141 Also, during the deliberations, the New Jersey Plan was introduced, although it was more of a protest to the excessive national character of the Virginia plan, and was not seriously considered.[6]:230 The office of Vice President was also included later in the deliberations, mainly to provide the president a successor if he was unable to complete his term but also to provide presidential electors with an incentive to vote for at least one out of state candidate in addition to a "favorite son" from their own state or region.

text: The early debate[edit]

text: Each state was allowed to cast a single vote either for or against a proposal during the debates in accordance with the majority opinion of the state's delegates.[5]:83 Throughout the Convention, delegates would regularly come and go, with only 30–40 being present on a typical day.[5]:83 Consequently, if a state's delegates were equally divided in their views on a given proposal, or if too few of the state's delegates were in attendance to establish a quorum for the delegation when votes were being cast on a particular proposal, that state's delegation had essentially no effect on the outcome of the vote on the proposal. Thus, for example, after two of New York's three delegates abandoned the Convention in mid July with no intention of returning, New York was left unable to vote on any further proposals at the Convention, although Hamilton would continue to periodically attend and occasionally to speak during the debates.[5]:83

text:
All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well born, the other the mass of the people. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government. Can a democratic assembly, who annually revolve in the mass of the people, be supposed steadily to pursue the public good? Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy. Their turbulent and uncontroling disposition requires checks.
— Alexander Hamilton, quoted in Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787 by Robert Yates

text: The first area of major dispute was the manner by which the lower house would be apportioned. A minority wanted it to be apportioned so that all states would have equal weight, though this was never seriously considered. Most wanted it apportioned in accordance with some mixture of property and population.[6]:117 Though there was discussion on how to calculate property for this purpose, the issue of property was later dropped because of its difficulty, and an assumption that property would closely correlate to population.

text: Most accepted the desire among the slave states to count slaves as part of the population, although their servile status was raised as a major objection against this. The Three-Fifths Compromise assessing population by adding the number of free persons to three-fifths of "all other persons" (slaves) was agreed to without serious dispute.[6]:119 In 1783, when attempting to assess a national taxation system, the Confederation Congress had considered a three fifths ratio, which did not achieve unanimity.[6]:119[20] This compromise resulted in a large coalition of states, including the small slave states of South Carolina and Georgia, backing the Virginia plan and thus expanding the power of the primary coalition. That the lower house was to be elected directly by the voters was also accepted without major dispute.[6]:119

text: More contentious than the lower house was the question of the upper house. Few agreed with Madison that its members should be elected by the lower house. James Wilson suggested election by popular vote versus election by state legislature, but his proposal was shot down 10–1 by the delegates.[21] Most delegates didn't question the intelligence of the voters,[citation needed] rather what concerned them was the slowness by which information spread in the late 18th century.[6]:122

text: At the time of the Convention, they noted that local newspapers said little of current events, and what little they had was sketchy and dated. Local papers even said little about the meeting of the Convention.[citation needed] Alexander Hamilton proposed extending the term in office for senators to life, considering earlier proposals of four and seven years inefficient to enable the "rich and well born" to have a "distinct, permanent share in the government," which could "check the imprudence of democracy."[19] Moreover, Hamilton proposed that senators not be elected directly by the general public, but by "electors" chosen for that purpose.

text: Besides the problems of direct election, the new Constitution was seen as such a radical break with the old system, by which delegates were elected to the Confederation Congress by state legislatures, that the Convention agreed to retain this method of electing senators to make the constitutional change less radical.[6]:122 The more difficult problem was the issue of apportionment. The Connecticut delegation offered a compromise, whereby the number of representatives for each state in the lower house would be apportioned based on the relative size of the state's population, while the number of representatives in the upper house would be the same for all of the states, irrespective of size. The large states, fearing a diminution of their influence in the legislature under this plan, opposed this proposal. Unable to reach agreement, the delegates decided to leave this issue for further consideration later during the meeting.

text: The delegates couldn't agree on whether the executive should be a single person, or a board of three. Many wished to limit the power of the executive and thus supported the proposal to divide the executive power between three persons.[6]:134 The possible problems of this system, in addition to the knowledge that George Washington would probably be the first president,[citation needed] calmed the fears enough so that the proponents of a singular executive could accumulate a large coalition.[6]:134 This issue came up occasionally after the matter was settled, but was never again seriously doubted.

text: Another issue concerned the election of the president. Few agreed with Madison that the executive should be elected by the legislature. There was widespread concern with direct election, because information diffused so slowly in the late 18th century, and because of concerns that people would only vote for candidates from their state or region. A vocal minority wanted the national executive to be chosen by the governors of the states.[6]:136

text: The issue was one of the last major issues to be resolved, and was done so in the electoral college. At the time, before the formation of modern political parties, there was widespread concern that candidates would routinely fail to secure a majority of electors in the electoral college. The method of resolving this problem therefore was a contested issue. Most thought that the house should then choose the president, since it most closely reflected the will of the people. This caused dissension among delegates from smaller states, who realized that this would put their states at a disadvantage. To resolve this dispute, the Convention agreed that the house would elect the president if no candidate had an electoral college majority, but that each state delegation would vote as a bloc, rather than individually.[6]:136

text: As the Convention was entering its second full month of deliberations, it was decided that further consideration of the prickly question of how to apportion representatives in the national legislature should be referred to a committee composed of one delegate from each of the eleven states that were present at that time at the Convention. The members of this "Grand Committee," as it has come to be known, included Elbridge Gerry, Oliver Ellsworth, Robert Yates, William Paterson, Gunning Bedford, Jr., George Mason, William Davie, John Rutledge, Abraham Baldwin, and Benjamin Franklin. In its report to the Convention on July 5, the committee offered a compromise. The large states had opposed the Connecticut Compromise, because they felt it gave too much power to the smaller states. The Grand Committee's proposal added the requirement that revenue bills originate in the lower house and not be subject to modification by the upper house (although this Origination Clause would later be modified so that revenue bills could be amended in the upper house, or Senate).[6]:199 With this modification, the Convention in a close vote adopted the compromise on July 16. Nationalist delegates remained bitterly opposed, however, until on July 23 they succeeded in further modifying the compromise to give members of the Senate individual voting power, rather than having votes taken by each state's representatives en bloc, as had occurred in Congress under the Articles of Confederation.[22] This accomplished the nationalist goal of preventing state governments from having a direct say in Congress's choice to make national laws.[23] The final document was thus a mixture of Madison's original "national" constitution and the desired "federal" Constitution that many of the delegates sought.[6]:199

text: The first draft[edit]

text: The Convention adjourned from July 26 to August 6 to await the report of the Committee of Detail, which was to produce a first draft of the Constitution. It was chaired by John Rutledge, with the other members including Edmund Randolph, Oliver Ellsworth, James Wilson, and Nathaniel Gorham.

text: Though the committee did not record minutes of its proceedings, three key surviving documents offer clues to the committee's handiwork: an outline by Randolph with edits by Rutledge, extensive notes and a second draft by Wilson, also with Rutledge's edits, and the committee's final report to the Convention.[24]:168 From this evidence it is thought that the committee used the original Virginia Plan, the decisions of the Convention on modifications to that plan, and other sources, such as the Articles of Confederation, provisions of the state constitutions, and even Charles Pinckney's plan, to produce the first full draft,[6]:269–70[24]:165 which author David O. Stewart has called a "remarkable copy-and-paste job."[24]:165

text: Randolph adopted two rules in preparing his initial outline: that the Constitution should only include essential principles, avoiding minor provisions that would change over time, and that it should be stated in simple and precise language.[6]:270

text: Much of what was included in the committee's report consisted of numerous details that the Convention had never discussed but which the committee correctly viewed as uncontroversial and unlikely to be challenged; and as such, much of the committee's proposal would ultimately be incorporated into the final version of the Constitution without debate.[24]:169 Examples of these details included the Speech and Debate Clause, which grants members of Congress immunity for comments made in their jobs, and the rules for organizing the House of Representatives and the Senate.

text: However, Rutledge, himself a former state governor, was determined that while the new national government should be stronger than the Confederation government had been, the national government's power over the states should not be limitless; and at Rutledge's urging, the committee went beyond what the Convention had proposed. As Stewart describes it, the committee "hijacked" and remade the Constitution, altering critical agreements the Convention delegates had already made, enhancing the powers of the states at the expense of the national government, and adding several far-reaching provisions that the Convention had never discussed.[24]:165

text: The first major change, insisted on by Rutledge, was meant to sharply curtail the essentially unlimited powers to legislate "in all cases for the general interests of the Union" that the Convention only two weeks earlier had agreed to grant the Congress. Rutledge and Randolph worried that the broad powers implied in the language agreed on by the Convention would have given the national government too much power at the expense of the states. In Randolph's outline the committee replaced that language with a list of 18 specific "enumerated" powers, many adopted from the Articles of Confederation, that would strictly limit the Congress' authority to measures such as imposing taxes, making treaties, going to war, and establishing post offices.[6]:273–74[24]:170–71 Rutledge, however, was not able to completely convince all of the members of the committee to accept the change. Over the course of a series of drafts, a catchall provision (the "Necessary and Proper Clause") was eventually added, most likely by Wilson, a nationalist little concerned with the sovereignty of individual states, giving the Congress the broad power "to make all Laws that shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."[6]:274[24]:171–72 Another revision of Wilson's draft also placed eight specific limits on the states, such as barring them from independently entering into treaties and from printing their own money, providing a certain degree of balance to the limits on the national government intended by Rutledge's list of enumerated powers.[6]:274–75[24]:172 In addition, Wilson's draft modified the language of the Supremacy Clause adopted by the Convention, to ensure that national law would take precedence over inconsistent state laws.[24]:172

text: These changes set the final balance between the national and state governments that would be entered into the final document, as the Convention never challenged this dual-sovereignty between nation and state that had been fashioned by Rutledge and Wilson.[24]:172

text: Another set of radical changes introduced by the Committee of Detail proved far more contentious when the committee's report was presented to the Convention. On the day the Convention had agreed to appoint the committee, Southerner Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, of South Carolina, had warned of dire consequences should the committee fail to include protections for slavery in the Southern states, or allow for taxing of Southern agricultural exports.[6]:269, 275[24]:173 Pinckney and his fellow Southern delegates must have been delighted to see that the committee had included three provisions that explicitly restricted the Congress' authority in ways favorable to Southern interests. The proposed language would bar the Congress from ever interfering with the slave trade. It would also prohibit taxation of exports, and would require that any legislation concerning regulation of foreign commerce through tariffs or quotas (that is, any laws akin to England's "Navigation Acts") pass only with two-thirds majorities of both houses of Congress. While much of the rest of the committee's report would be accepted without serious challenge on the Convention floor, these last three proposals would provoke outrage from Northern delegates and slavery opponents.[6]:275[24]:173–74

text: The final report of the committee, which became the first draft of the Constitution, was the first workable constitutional plan, as Madison's Virginia Plan had simply been an outline of goals and a broad structure. Even after it issued this report, the committee continued to meet off and on until early September.

text: Further modifications and concluding debate[edit]

text: Another month of discussion and relatively minor refinement followed, during which several attempts were made to alter the Rutledge draft, though few were successful. Some wanted to add property qualifications for people to hold office, while others wanted to prevent the national government from issuing paper money.[24]:187 Madison in particular wanted to push the Constitution back in the direction of his Virginia plan.

text: One important change that did make it into the final version included the agreement between northern and southern delegates to empower Congress to end the slave trade starting in 1808. Southern and northern delegates also agreed to strengthen the Fugitive Slave Clause in exchange for removing a requirement that two-thirds of Congress agree on "navigation acts" (regulations of commerce between states and foreign governments). The two-thirds requirement was favored by southern delegates, who thought Congress might pass navigation acts that would be economically harmful to slaveholders.[24]:196

text: Once the Convention had finished amending the first draft from the Committee of Detail, a new set of unresolved questions were sent to several different committees for resolution. The Committee of Detail was considering several questions related to habeas corpus, freedom of the press, and an executive council to advise the president. Two committees addressed questions related to the slave trade and the assumption of war debts.

text: A new committee was created, the Committee on Postponed Parts, to address other questions that had been postponed. Its members, such as Madison, were delegates who had shown a greater desire for compromise and were chosen for this reason as most in the Convention wanted to finish their work and go home.[24]:207 The committee dealt with questions related to the taxes, war making, patents and copyrights, relations with Indian tribes, and Franklin's compromise to require money bills to originate in the House. The biggest issue they addressed was the presidency, and the final compromise was written by Madison with the committee's input.[24]:209 They adopted Wilson's earlier plan for choosing the president by an electoral college, and settled on the method of choosing the president if no candidate had an electoral college majority, which many such as Madison thought would be "nineteen times out of twenty".

text: The committee also shortened the president's term from seven years to four years, freed the president to seek re-election after an initial term, and moved impeachment trials from the courts to the Senate. They also created the office of the vice president, whose only roles were to succeed a president unable to complete a term of office, to preside over the Senate, and to cast tie-breaking votes in the Senate. The committee transferred important powers from the Senate to the president, for example the power to make treaties and appoint ambassadors.[24]:212 One controversial issue throughout much of the Convention had been the length of the president's term, and whether the president was to be term limited. The problem had resulted from the understanding that the president would be chosen by Congress; the decision to have the president be chosen instead by an electoral college reduced the chance of the president becoming beholden to Congress, so a shorter term with eligibility for re-election became a viable option.

text: Near the end of the Convention, Gerry, Randolph, and Mason emerged as the main force of opposition. Their fears were increased as the Convention moved from Madison's vague Virginia Plan to the concrete plan of Rutledge's Committee of Detail.[24]:235 Some have argued that Randolph's attacks on the Constitution were motivated by political ambition, in particular his anticipation of possibly facing rival Patrick Henry in a future election. The main objection of the three was the compromise that would allow Congress to pass "navigation acts" with a simple majority in exchange for strengthened slave provisions.[24]:236 Among their other objections was an opposition to the office of vice president.

text: Though most of their complaints did not result in changes, a couple did. Mason succeeded in adding "high crimes and misdemeanors" to the impeachment clause. Gerry also convinced the Convention to include a second method for ratification of amendments. The report out of the Committee of Detail had included only one mechanism for constitutional amendment, in which two-thirds of the states had to ask Congress to convene a convention for consideration of amendments. Upon Gerry's urging, the Convention added back the Virginia Plan's original method whereby Congress would propose amendments that the states would then ratify.[24]:238 All amendments to the Constitution, save the 21st amendment, have been made through this latter method.

text: Despite their successes, these three dissenters grew increasingly unpopular as most other delegates wanted to bring the Convention's business to an end and return home. As the Convention was drawing to a conclusion, and delegates prepared to refer the Constitution to the Committee on Style to pen the final version, one delegate raised an objection over civil trials. He wanted to guarantee the right to a jury trial in civil matters, and Mason saw in this a larger opportunity. Mason told the Convention that the constitution should include a bill of rights, which he thought could be prepared in a few hours. Gerry agreed, though the rest of the committee overruled them. They wanted to go home, and thought this was nothing more than another delaying tactic.[24]:241

text: Few at the time realized how important the issue would become, with the absence of a bill of rights becoming the main argument of the anti-Federalists against ratification. Most of the Convention's delegates thought that states already protected individual rights, and that the Constitution did not authorize the national government to take away rights, so there was no need to include protections of rights. Once the Convention moved beyond this point, the delegates addressed a couple of last-minute issues. Importantly, they modified the language that required spending bills to originate in the House of Representatives and be flatly accepted or rejected, unmodified, by the Senate. The new language empowered the Senate to modify spending bills proposed by the House.[24]:243

text: Drafting and signing[edit]

text: Once the final modifications had been made, the Committee of Style and Arrangement was appointed "to revise the style of and arrange the articles which had been agreed to by the house." Unlike other committees, whose members were named so the committees included members from different regions, this final committee included no champions of the small states. Its members were mostly in favor of a strong national government and unsympathetic to calls for states' rights.[24]:229–30 They were William Samuel Johnson (Connecticut), Alexander Hamilton (New York), Gouverneur Morris (Pennsylvania), James Madison (Virginia), and Rufus King (Massachusetts). On Wednesday, September 12, the report of the "committee of style" was ordered printed for the convenience of the delegates. For three days, the Convention compared this final version with the proceedings of the Convention. The Constitution was then ordered engrossed on Saturday, September 15 by Jacob Shallus, and was submitted for signing on September 17. It made at least one important change to what the Convention had agreed to; King wanted to prevent states from interfering in contracts. Although the Convention never took up the matter, his language was now inserted, creating the contract clause.[24]:243

text: Gouverneur Morris is credited, both now and then, as the chief draftsman of the final document, including the stirring preamble. Not all the delegates were pleased with the results; thirteen left before the ceremony, and three of those remaining refused to sign: Edmund Randolph of Virginia, George Mason of Virginia, and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts. George Mason demanded a Bill of Rights if he was to support the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was not included in the Constitution submitted to the states for ratification, but many states ratified the Constitution with the understanding that a bill of rights would soon follow.[26] Shortly before the document was to be signed, Gorham proposed to lower the size of congressional districts from 40,000 to 30,000 citizens. A similar measure had been proposed earlier, and failed by one vote. George Washington spoke up here, making his only substantive contribution to the text of the Constitution in supporting this move. The Convention adopted it without further debate. Gorham would sign the document, although he had openly doubted whether the United States would remain a single, unified nation for more than 150 years.[24]:112 Ultimately, 39 of the original 55 delegates ended up signing, but it is likely that none were completely satisfied. Their views were summed up by Benjamin Franklin, who said,

text: I confess that There are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. ... I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. ... It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies ...[27]

text: Rhode Island never sent delegates, and two of New York's three delegates did not stay at the Convention for long. Therefore, as George Washington stated, the document was executed by "eleven states, and Colonel Hamilton."[24]:244 Washington signed the document first, and then moving by state delegation from north to south, as had been the custom throughout the Convention, the delegates filed to the front of the room to sign their names.

text: At the time the document was signed, Franklin gave a persuasive speech involving an anecdote on a sun that was painted on the back of Washington's Chippendale chair.[28] As recounted in Madison's notes:

text: Whilst the last members were signing it Doctor. Franklin looking towards the Presidents Chair, at the back of which a rising sun happened to be painted, observed to a few members near him, that Painters had found it difficult to distinguish in their art a rising from a setting sun. I have said he, often and often in the course of the Session, and the vicissitudes of my hopes and fears as to its issue, looked at that behind the President without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting: But now at length I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting Sun.[28][29]

text: The Constitution was then submitted to the states for ratification, pursuant to its own Article VII.[30]

text: Proposed plans[edit]

text: Several plans were introduced, with the most important plan being that of James Madison (the Virginia Plan). The Convention's work was mostly a matter of modifying this plan. Charles Pinckney also introduced a plan, although this wasn't considered and its exact character has been lost to history. After the Convention was well under way, the New Jersey Plan was introduced though never seriously considered.[6]:230 It was mainly a protest to what some delegates thought was the excessively radical change from the Articles of Confederation.[6]:230 Alexander Hamilton also offered a plan after the Convention was well under way, though it included an executive serving for life and therefore the delegates felt it too closely resembled a monarchy.[6]:137 Historians are unsure how serious he was about this, and some have speculated that he may have done it to make Madison's plan look moderate by comparison.[6]:137 The Connecticut Compromise wasn't a plan but one of several compromises offered by the Connecticut delegation. It was key to the ultimate ratification of the constitution, but was only included after being modified by Benjamin Franklin in order to make it more appealing to larger states.[6]:199

text: Virginia Plan[edit]

text: Prior to the start of the Convention, the Virginian delegates met and, drawing largely from Madison's suggestions, came up with what came to be known as the Virginia Plan, also known as the Large State Plan.[31]  For this reason, James Madison is sometimes called the Father of the Constitution.[31]  Presented by Virginia governor Edmund Randolph on May 29, 1787, the Virginia Plan proposed a very powerful bicameral legislature.[31]  Both houses of the legislature would be determined proportionately.[31]  The lower house would be elected by the people, and the upper house would be elected by the lower house.[31]  The executive would exist solely to ensure that the will of the legislature was carried out and would therefore be selected by the legislature.[31]  The Virginia Plan also created a judiciary, and gave both the executive and some of the judiciary the power to veto, subject to override.

text: New Jersey Plan[edit]

text: After the Virginia Plan was introduced, New Jersey delegate William Paterson asked for an adjournment to contemplate the Plan.[31]  Under the Articles of Confederation, each state had equal representation in Congress, exercising one vote each.[31]  The Virginia Plan threatened to limit the smaller states' power by making both houses of the legislature proportionate to population.  On June 14 and 15, 1787, a small-state caucus met to create a response to the Virginia Plan.  The result was the New Jersey Plan, otherwise known as the Small State Plan.[31]

text: Paterson's New Jersey Plan was ultimately a rebuttal to the Virginia Plan, and was much closer to the initial call for the Convention: drafting amendments to the Articles of Confederation to fix the problems in it.[31]  Under the New Jersey Plan, the existing Continental Congress would remain, but it would be granted new powers, such as the power to levy taxes and force their collection.[31]  An executive branch was created, to be elected by Congress (the plan allowed for a multi-person executive).[31]  The executives would serve a single term and were subject to recall on the request of state governors.[31]  The plan also created a judiciary that would serve for life, to be appointed by the executives.[31]  Lastly, any laws set by Congress would take precedence over state laws.[31] When Paterson reported the plan to the Convention on June 15, 1787, it was ultimately rejected, but it gave the smaller states a rallying point for their interests.[31]

text: Hamilton's plan[edit]

text: Unsatisfied with the New Jersey Plan and the Virginia Plan, Alexander Hamilton proposed his own plan. It also was known as the British Plan, because of its resemblance to the British system of strong centralized government.[31]  In his plan, Hamilton advocated virtually doing away with state sovereignty and consolidating the states into a single nation.[31]  The plan featured a bicameral legislature, the lower house elected by the people for three years.  The upper house would be elected by electors chosen by the people and would serve for life.[31] The plan also gave the Governor, an executive elected by electors for a life-term of service, an absolute veto over bills.[31]  State governors would be appointed by the national legislature,[31] and the national legislature had veto power over any state legislation.[31]

text: Hamilton presented his plan to the Convention on June 18, 1787.[31]  The plan was perceived as a well-thought-out plan, but it was not considered, because it resembled the British system too closely.[31]  It also contemplated the loss of most state authority, which the states were unwilling to allow.

text: Pinckney's plan[edit]

text: Immediately after Randolph finished laying out the Virginia Plan, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina presented his own plan to the Convention. As Pinckney did not write it down, the only evidence of the plan are Madison's notes,[32] so the details are somewhat vague. It was a confederation, or treaty, among the thirteen states. There was to be a bicameral legislature made up of a Senate and a House of Delegates. The House would have one member for every one thousand inhabitants. The House would elect Senators who would serve by rotation for four years and represent one of four regions. Congress would meet in a joint session to elect a President, and would also appoint members of the cabinet. Congress, in joint session, would serve as the court of appeal of last resort in disputes between states. Pinckney did also provide for a supreme Federal Judicial Court. The Pinckney plan was not debated, but it may have been referred to by the Committee of Detail.[33]

text: Connecticut Compromise[edit]

text: The Connecticut Compromise, forged by Roger Sherman from Connecticut, was proposed on June 11.[31] In a sense it blended the Virginia (large-state) and New Jersey (small-state) proposals. Ultimately, however, its main contribution was in determining the apportionment of the Senate, and thus retaining a federal character in the constitution. Sherman sided with the  two-house national legislature of the Virginia Plan, but proposed "That the proportion of suffrage in the 1st. branch [house] should be according to the respective numbers of free inhabitants; and that in the second branch or Senate, each State should have one vote and no more."[31] This plan failed at first, but on July 23 the question was finally settled.[31]

text: What was ultimately included in the constitution was a modified form of this plan. In the Grand Committee, Benjamin Franklin successfully proposed the requirement that revenue bills originate in the house. But the final July 16 vote on the compromise still left the Senate looking like the Confederation Congress. In the preceding weeks of debate, Madison, King, and Gouverneur Morris each vigorously opposed the compromise for this reason.[34] Then on July 23, just before most of the convention's work was referred to the Committee of Detail, Morris and King moved that state representatives in the Senate be given individual votes, rather than voting en bloc, as they had in the Confederation Congress. Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, a leading proponent of the compromise, supported their motion, and the Convention adopted it.[22] As the personally powerful senators were to receive terms much longer than the state legislators who appointed them, they became substantially independent. The compromise nonetheless continued to serve the self-interest of small-state political leaders, who were assured of access to more seats in the Senate than they might otherwise have obtained.[23]

text: Slavery[edit]

text: Among the most controversial issues confronting the delegates was that of slavery. Slavery was widespread in the states at the time of the Convention.[24]:68 At least a third of the Convention's 55 delegates owned slaves, including all of the delegates from Virginia and South Carolina.[24]:68–69 Slaves comprised approximately one-fifth of the population of the states;[35]:139 and apart from northernmost New England, where slavery had largely been eliminated, slaves lived throughout all regions of the country.[35]:132 The majority of the slaves (more than 90%),[35]:132 however, lived in the South, where approximately 1 in 3 families owned slaves (in the largest and wealthiest state, Virginia, that figure was nearly 1 in 2 families).[35]:135 The entire agrarian economy of the South was based on slave labor, and the Southern delegates to the Convention were unwilling to accept any proposals that they believed would threaten the institution.

text: Commerce and Slave Trade Compromise[edit]

text: Whether slavery was to be regulated under the new Constitution was a matter of such intense conflict between the North and South that several Southern states refused to join the Union if slavery were not to be allowed. Delegates opposed to slavery were forced to yield in their demands that slavery practiced within the confines of the new nation be completely outlawed. However, they continued to argue that the Constitution should prohibit the states from participating in the international slave trade, including in the importation of new slaves from Africa and the export of slaves to other countries. The Convention postponed making a final decision on the international slave trade until late in the deliberations because of the contentious nature of the issue. During the Convention's late July recess, the Committee of Detail had inserted language that would prohibit the federal government from attempting to ban international slave trading and from imposing taxes on the purchase or sale of slaves. The Convention could not agree on these provisions when the subject came up again in late August, so they referred the matter to an eleven-member committee for further discussion. This committee helped work out a compromise: Congress would have the power to ban the international slave trade, but not for another twenty years (that is, not until 1808). In exchange for this concession, the federal government's power to regulate foreign commerce would be strengthened by provisions that allowed for taxation of slave trades in the international market and that reduced the requirement for passage of navigation acts from two-thirds majorities of both houses of Congress to simple majorities.[6]:318–29

text: Three-Fifths Compromise[edit]

text: Another contentious slavery-related question was whether slaves would be counted as part of the population in determining representation of the states in the Congress, or would instead be considered property and as such not be considered for purposes of representation.[36] Delegates from states with a large population of slaves argued that slaves should be considered persons in determining representation, but as property if the new government were to levy taxes on the states on the basis of population.[36] Delegates from states where slavery had become rare argued that slaves should be included in taxation, but not in determining representation.[36]  Finally, delegate James Wilson proposed the Three-Fifths Compromise.[31]  This was eventually adopted by the Convention.

text: Framers of the Constitution[edit]

text: Fifty-five delegates attended sessions of the Constitutional Convention, and are considered the Framers of the Constitution, although only 39 delegates actually signed.[37][38] The states had originally appointed 70 representatives to the Convention, but a number of the appointees did not accept or could not attend, leaving 55 who would ultimately craft the Constitution.[37]

text: Almost all of the 55 Framers had taken part in the Revolution, with at least 29 having served in the Continental forces, most in positions of command.[39] All but two or three had served in colonial or state government during their careers.[6]:65 The vast majority (about 75%) of the delegates were or had been members of the Confederation Congress, and many had been members of the Continental Congress during the Revolution.[24]:25 Several had been state governors.[6]:65[39] Just two delegates, Roger Sherman and Robert Morris, would be signatories to all three of the nation's founding documents: the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution.[39]

text: More than half of the delegates had trained as lawyers (several had even been judges), although only about a quarter had practiced law as their principal means of business. There were also merchants, manufacturers, shippers, land speculators, bankers or financiers, two or three physicians, a minister, and several small farmers.[6]:65–68[39] Of the 25 who owned slaves, 16 depended on slave labor to run the plantations or other businesses that formed the mainstay of their income. Most of the delegates were landowners with substantial holdings, and most, with the possible exception of Roger Sherman and William Few, were very comfortably wealthy.[6]:66–67 George Washington and Robert Morris were among the wealthiest men in the entire country.[39]

text:
Connecticut
Oliver Ellsworth*
William Samuel Johnson
Roger Sherman
Delaware
Richard Bassett
Gunning Bedford, Jr.
Jacob Broom
John Dickinson
George Read
Georgia
Abraham Baldwin
William Few
William Houstoun*
William Pierce*
Maryland
Daniel Carroll
Luther Martin*
James McHenry
John Francis Mercer*
Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer
Massachusetts
Elbridge Gerry*
Nathaniel Gorham
Rufus King
Caleb Strong*
New Hampshire
Nicholas Gilman
John Langdon
New Jersey
David Brearley
Jonathan Dayton
William Houston*
William Livingston
William Paterson
New York
Alexander Hamilton
John Lansing, Jr.*
Robert Yates*
North Carolina
William Blount
William Richardson Davie*
Alexander Martin*
Richard Dobbs Spaight
Hugh Williamson
Pennsylvania
George Clymer
Thomas Fitzsimons
Benjamin Franklin
Jared Ingersoll
Thomas Mifflin
Gouverneur Morris
Robert Morris
James Wilson
South Carolina
Pierce Butler
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
Charles Pinckney
John Rutledge
Virginia
John Blair
James Madison
George Mason*
James McClurg*
Edmund Randolph*
George Washington
George Wythe*
Rhode Island
Rhode Island did not send delegates to the Convention.

tag: ul

text: (*) Did not sign the final draft of the U.S. Constitution.  Randolph, Mason, and Gerry were the only three present in Philadelphia at the time who refused to sign.

text: Several prominent Founders are notable for not participating in the Constitutional Convention. Thomas Jefferson was abroad, serving as the minister to France (nonetheless, Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams, would describe the delegates approvingly as a gathering of "demi-gods").[40]:13 John Adams was in Britain, serving as minister to that country, but he wrote home to encourage the delegates. Patrick Henry refused to participate because he "smelt a rat in Philadelphia, tending toward the monarchy." Also absent were John Hancock and Samuel Adams. Many of the states' older and more experienced leaders may have simply been too busy with the local affairs of their states to attend the Convention,[6]:65 which had originally been planned to strengthen the existing Articles of Confederation, not to write a constitution for a completely new national government.

text: In popular culture[edit]

text: The 1989 film A More Perfect Union, which portrays the events and discussions of the Constitutional Convention, was largely filmed in Independence Hall.


document_title: Jabba the Hutt

question_text: who played the voice of jabba the hutt

question_tokens: who played the voice of jabba the hutt

text: Jabba the Hutt

text: Appearances[edit]

text: Jabba the Hutt appears in three of the eight live-action Star Wars films (The Phantom Menace, A New Hope and Return of the Jedi) and The Clone Wars. He has a recurring role in Star Wars expanded universe literature and stars in the comic book anthology Jabba the Hutt: The Art of the Deal (1998), a collection of comics originally published in 1995 and 1996.

text: Star Wars films[edit]

text: Jabba is first seen in 1983 in Return of the Jedi, the third installment of the original Star Wars trilogy. Directed by Richard Marquand and written by Lawrence Kasdan and George Lucas, the first act of Return of the Jedi features the attempts of Princess Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher), the Wookiee Chewbacca (Peter Mayhew), and Jedi Knight Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) to rescue their friend, Han Solo (Harrison Ford), who had been imprisoned in carbonite in the previous film, The Empire Strikes Back.[6]

text: The captured Han is delivered to Jabba by the bounty hunter Boba Fett (Jeremy Bulloch) and placed on display in the crime lord's throne room. Lando Calrissian (Billy Dee Williams), droids C-3PO (Anthony Daniels) and R2-D2 (Kenny Baker), Leia, and Chewbacca infiltrate Jabba's palace to save Han. Leia herself is soon enslaved by the Hutt, and she is forced to wear her iconic golden bikini, as well as being chained to Jabba. Soon after Leia is enslaved, Luke arrives to "bargain for Solo's life"; but Jabba condemns Luke, Han, and Chewbacca to the Sarlacc. At the Great Pit of Carkoon, Luke escapes execution with the help of R2-D2 and defeats Jabba's guards. During the subsequent confusion, Leia strangles Jabba to death; whereafter Luke, Leia, Han, Lando, Chewbacca, C-3PO, and R2-D2 escape.[6]

text: The second film appearance of Jabba the Hutt is in the Special Edition of Star Wars which was released in 1997 to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the original Star Wars. Here (as in the original), Han Solo disputes with the alien bounty hunter Greedo (Paul Blake and Maria De Aragon), whom he kills; and Jabba confirms Greedo's last words and demands that Han pay the value of the payload lost by him. Han promises to compensate Jabba as soon as he receives payment for delivering Obi-Wan Kenobi (Alec Guinness), Luke Skywalker, R2-D2, and C-3PO to Alderaan; but Jabba threatens to place a price on Solo himself, upon failure. This conversation was an unfinished scene of the original 1977 film, in which Jabba was played by Declan Mulholland in human form. In the 1997 Special Edition version of the film, a CGI rendering of Jabba replaces Mulholland, and his voice is redubbed in the fictional language of Huttese.[7]

text: Jabba the Hutt makes his third film appearance in the 1999 prequel, Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace, in which Jabba gives the order to begin a podrace at Mos Espa on Tatooine. With this done, Jabba falls asleep, and misses the race's conclusion.[8][9]

text: Jabba makes his most recent appearance in Star Wars: The Clone Wars, wherein his son Rotta is captured by Separatists; Anakin Skywalker and Ahsoka Tano return him to Jabba, in exchange for the safe passage of Republic ships through his territory. Jabba has also appeared in three episodes of the third season of the series: In the episode "Sphere of Influence", Jabba is faced by Chairman Papanoida, whose daughters were kidnapped by Greedo, and Jabba allows a sample of Greedo's blood to be taken to prove him the kidnapper. In the episode "Evil Plans", Jabba hires the bounty hunter Cad Bane to bring him plans for the Senate building. When Bane returns successful, Jabba and the Hutt Council send Bane to free Ziro the Hutt from prison. Jabba makes one short appearance in the episode "Hunt for Ziro" in which he is seen laughing at Ziro's death at the hand of Sy Snootles, and pays her for delivering Ziro's holo-diary. In the fifth season's episode "Eminence", Jabba and the Hutt Council are approached by Darth Maul, Savage Oppress, and Pre Vizsla; and when disappointed by these, Jabba sends bounty hunters Embo, Sugi, Latts Razzi, and Dengar to capture them. After a battle, the Shadow Collective confront Jabba at his palace on Tatooine, where Jabba agrees to an alliance.

text: Jabba the Hutt anthology film[edit]

text: In August 2017, a Jabba the Hutt anthology film was announced to be in development alongside an Obi-Wan Kenobi film.[10] Although no cast or crew have been announced, Guillermo Del Toro has expressed interest in serving as the director.[11]

text: Legends[edit]

text: With the 2012 acquisition of Lucasfilm by The Walt Disney Company, most of the licensed Star Wars novels and comics produced since the originating 1977 film Star Wars were rebranded as Star Wars Legends and declared non-canon to the franchise in April 2014.[12][13][14]

text: The first appearances of Jabba the Hutt in Star Wars Legends literature were in Marvel Comics' adaptations of A New Hope. In Six Against the Galaxy (1977) by Roy Thomas, What Ever Happened to Jabba the Hut? (1979) and In Mortal Combat (1980), both by Archie Goodwin, Jabba the Hutt (originally spelled Hut) appeared as a tall humanoid with a walrus-like face, a topknot, and a bright uniform. The official "Jabba" was not yet established as he had yet to be seen.

text: While awaiting the sequel to Star Wars, Marvel kept the monthly comic going with their own stories, one of which includes Jabba tracking Han Solo and Chewbacca down to an old hideaway they use for smuggling. However, circumstances force Jabba to lift the bounty on Solo and Chewbacca, thus enabling them to return to Tatooine for an adventure with Luke Skywalker—who has returned to the planet in order to recruit more pilots for the Rebel Alliance. In the course of another adventure, Solo kills the space pirate Crimson Jack and busts up his operation, which Jabba bankrolled. Jabba thus renews the reward for Solo's head and Solo later kills a bounty hunter who tells him why he is hunted once more. He and Chewbacca return to the rebels. (Solo mentions an incident with a "bounty hunter we ran into on Ord Mantell" in the opening scenes of The Empire Strikes Back.)

text: The Marvel artists based this Jabba on a character later named Mosep Binneed, an alien visible only briefly in the Mos Eisley cantina scene of A New Hope.[15][16][17][18] The 1977 mass market paperback novelization of Lucas's Star Wars script describes Jabba as a "great mobile tub of muscle and suet topped by a shaggy scarred skull", but gives no further detail as to the character's physical appearance or species.[19]

text: Later Star Wars Legends novels and comics adopt a version of the character's image as seen in the film. They also elaborate on his background prior to the events of the Star Wars films. For example, Zorba the Hutt's Revenge (1992), a young adult novel by Paul and Hollace Davids, reveals that Jabba's father is a powerful crime lord named Zorba the Hutt and that Jabba was born 596 years before the events of A New Hope, making him around 600 years old at the time of his death in Return of the Jedi.[20] Ann C. Crispin's novel The Hutt Gambit (1997) explains how Jabba the Hutt and Han Solo become business associates and portrays the events that lead to a bounty being placed on Han's head.[21] Other Expanded Universe stories—especially the anthology of Dark Horse comics by Jim Woodring titled Jabba the Hutt: The Art of the Deal (1998)—likewise detail Jabba the Hutt's rise to the head of the Desilijic clan, his role in the criminal underworld of the Star Wars universe, and the establishment of his crime syndicate on Tatooine in the Star Wars galaxy's Outer Rim Territories.[22]

text: Tales From Jabba's Palace (1996), a collection of short stories edited by science fiction author Kevin J. Anderson, pieces together the lives of Jabba the Hutt's various minions in his palace and their relationship to him during the last days of his life. The stories reveal that few of the Hutt's servants are loyal to him and most are in fact plotting to have him assassinated. When Jabba the Hutt is killed in Return of the Jedi, his surviving former courtiers join forces with his rivals on Tatooine and his family on the Hutt homeworld Nal Hutta make claims to his palace, fortune, and criminal empire.[23] Timothy Zahn's novel Heir to the Empire (1991) reveals that a smuggler named Talon Karrde eventually replaces Jabba as the "big fish in the pond", and moves the headquarters of the Hutt's criminal empire off Tatooine.[24]

text: Characterization[edit]

text: Jabba the Hutt exemplifies lust, greed, and gluttony.[25] The character is known throughout the Star Wars universe as a "vile gangster"[26] who amuses himself by torturing and humiliating his subjects and enemies. He surrounds himself with scantily-clad slave girls of all species, chained to his dais. The Star Wars Databank—an official online database of Star Wars information—remarks that residents of his palace are not safe from his desire to dominate and torture:[27] in Return of the Jedi, the Twi'lek slave dancer Oola is fed to the rancor monster.[28]

text: Jabba the Hutt's physical appearance reinforces his personality as a criminal deviant: in Return of the Jedi, Han Solo entitles Jabba a "slimy piece of worm-ridden filth"; and film critic Roger Ebert describes him as "a cross between a toad and the Cheshire Cat";[3] and astrophysicist and science fiction writer Jeanne Cavelos gives Jabba the "award for most disgusting alien".[29] Science fiction authors Tom and Martha Veitch write that Jabba's body is a "miasmic mass", and that "The Hutt's lardaceous body seemed to periodically release a greasy discharge, sending fresh waves of rotten stench" into the air.[30] Jabba's appetite is insatiable, and some authors portray him threatening to eat his subordinates.[31][32]

text: Nonetheless, in one Expanded Universe story, Jabba prevents a Chevin named Ephant Mon from freezing to death on an ice planet; whereafter Ephant Mon becomes his servant.[33] In Star Wars: The Clone Wars, Jabba seems to have genuine affection for his son Rotta, and is worried by his kidnapping and angered by his supposed death.

text: Lucas has noted that there was a potential role for Jabba in future Star Wars films.[34]

text: Concept and creation[edit]

text: Episode IV: A New Hope[edit]

text: The original script to A New Hope describes Jabba as a "fat, slug-like creature with eyes on extended feelers and a huge ugly mouth",[18] but Lucas stated in an interview that the initial character he had in mind was much furrier and resembled a Wookiee. When filming the scene between Han Solo and Jabba in 1976, Lucas employed Northern Irish actor Declan Mulholland to stand-in for Jabba the Hutt, wearing a shaggy brown costume. Lucas planned to replace Mulholland in post-production with a stop-motion creature. The scene was meant to connect Star Wars to Return of the Jedi and explain why Han Solo was imprisoned at the end of The Empire Strikes Back.[35] Nevertheless, Lucas decided to leave the scene out of the final film on account of budget and time constraints and because he felt that it did not enhance the film's plot.[36] The scene remained in the novelization, comic book, and radio adaptations of the film.

text: Lucas revisited the scene in the 1997 Special Edition release of A New Hope, restoring the sequence and replacing Mulholland with a CGI version of Jabba the Hutt and the English dialogue with Huttese, a fictional language created by sound designer Ben Burtt. Joseph Letteri, the visual effects supervisor for the Special Edition, explained that the ultimate goal of the revised scene was to make it look as if Jabba the Hutt was actually on the set talking to and acting with Harrison Ford and that the crew had merely photographed it. Letteri stated that the new scene consisted of five shots that took over a year to complete.[37][38] The scene was polished further for the 2004 release on DVD, improving Jabba's appearance with advancements in CGI techniques, although neither release looks exactly like the original Jabba the Hutt puppet.[39]

text: At one point of the original scene, Ford walks behind Mulholland. This became a problem when adding the CGI Jabba, since he had a tail that happened to be in the way. Eventually, this problem was solved by having Han stepping on Jabba's tail, causing the Hutt to yelp in pain.

text: Lucas confesses that people were disappointingly upset about the CGI Jabba's appearance, complaining that the character "looked fake". Lucas dismisses this, stating that whether a character is ultimately portrayed as a puppet or as CGI, it will always be "fake" since the character is ultimately not real. He says he sees no difference between a puppet made of latex and one generated by a computer.[40]

text: By the 2004 DVD, Jabba's appearance was modified yet again to match his appearance in Episode I. When Han steps on Jabba's tail, Jabba reacts more strongly, winding up as if to punch him. Also, in order to make Jabba look more convincing, shadows of Han can be seen on his body.

text: Episode VI: Return of the Jedi[edit]

text: Lucas based the CGI on the character as he originally appeared in Return of the Jedi. In this film, Jabba the Hutt is an immense, sedentary, slug-like creature designed by Lucas's Industrial Light & Magic Creature Shop. Design consultant Ralph McQuarrie claimed, "In my sketches Jabba was huge, agile, sort of an apelike figure. But then the design went into another direction, and Jabba became more like a worm kind of creature."[41] According to the 1985 documentary From Star Wars to Jedi, Lucas rejected initial designs of the character. One made Jabba appear too human—almost like a Fu Manchu character—while a second made him look too snail-like. Lucas finally settled on a design that was a hybrid of the two, drawing for further inspiration on an O'Galop cartoon figure flanking an early depiction of Bibendum (also known as the "Michelin Man").[42] Return of the Jedi costume designer Nilo Rodis-Jamero commented,

text: My vision of Jabba was literally Orson Welles when he was older. I saw him as a very refined man. Most of the villains we like are very smart people. But Phil Tippett kept imagining him as some kind of slug, almost like in Alice in Wonderland. At one time he sculpted a creature that looked like a slug that's smoking. I kept thinking I must be really off, but eventually that's where it led up to."[43]

text: Production and design[edit]

text: Designed by visual effects artist Phil Tippett,[44] Jabba the Hutt was inspired by the anatomy of several animal species. His body structure and reproductive processes were based on annelid worms, hairless animals that have no skeleton and are hermaphroditic. Jabba's head was modeled after that of a snake, complete with bulbous, slit-pupilled eyes and a mouth that opens wide enough to swallow large prey. His skin was given moist, amphibian qualities. Jabba's design would come to represent almost all members of the Hutt species in subsequent Star Wars fiction.[45]

text: In Return of the Jedi, Jabba is portrayed by a one-ton puppet that took three months and half a million dollars to construct. While filming the movie, the puppet had its own makeup artist. The puppet required three puppeteers to operate, making it one of the largest ever used in a motion picture.[42] Stuart Freeborn designed the puppet, while John Coppinger sculpted its latex, clay, and foam pieces. Puppeteers included David Alan Barclay, Toby Philpott, and Mike Edmonds, who were members of Jim Henson's Muppet group. Barclay operated the right arm and mouth and read the character's English dialogue, while Philpott controlled the left arm, head, and tongue. Edmonds, the shortest of the three men (he also played the Ewok Logray in later scenes) was responsible for the movement of Jabba's tail. Tony Cox, who also played an Ewok, would assist as well. The eyes and facial expressions were operated by radio control.[18][40][42]

text: Lucas voiced displeasure in the puppet's appearance and immobility, complaining that the puppet had to be moved around the set to film different scenes. In the DVD commentary to the Special Edition of Return of the Jedi, Lucas notes that if the technology had been available in 1983, Jabba the Hutt would have been a CGI character similar to the one that appears in the Special Edition scene of A New Hope.[40]

text: Jabba the Hutt only speaks Huttese on film, but his lines are subtitled in English. His voice and Huttese-language dialogue were performed by voice actor Larry Ward, whose work is not listed in the end credits. A heavy, booming quality was given to Ward's voice by pitching it an octave lower than normal and processing it through a subharmonic generator.[46] A soundtrack of wet, slimy sound effects was recorded to accompany the movement of the puppet's limbs and mouth.[47]

text: Jabba the Hutt's musical theme throughout the film, composed by John Williams, is played on a tuba. One reviewer of Return of the Jedi's soundtrack comments, "Among the new thematic ideas [of the score is] Jabba the Hutt's cute tuba piece (playing along the politically incorrect lines of tubas representing fatness) ...."[48] The theme is very similar to one Williams wrote for a heavyset character in Fitzwilly (1967), though the theme does not appear on that film's soundtrack album. Williams later turned the theme into a symphonic piece performed by the Boston Pops Orchestra featuring a tuba solo by Chester Schmitz. The role of the piece in film and popular culture has become a focus of study by musicologists such as Gerald Sloan, who says Williams' piece "blends the monstrous and the lyrical."[49]

text: According to film historian Laurent Bouzereau, Jabba the Hutt's death in Return of the Jedi was suggested by script writer Lawrence Kasdan. Lucas decided Leia should strangle him with her slave chain. He was inspired by a scene from The Godfather (1972) where an obese character named Luca Brasi (Lenny Montana) is garroted by an assassin.[50]

text: Portrayal[edit]

text: Jabba the Hutt was played by Declan Mulholland in scenes cut from the 1977 release of Star Wars. In Mulholland's scenes as Jabba, Jabba is represented as a rotund human dressed in a shaggy fur coat. George Lucas has stated his intention was to use an alien creature for Jabba, but the special effects technology of the time was not up to the task of replacing Mulholland. In 1997, the "Special Edition" re-releases restored and altered the original scene to include a computer generated portrayal of Jabba. In Return of the Jedi, he was played by puppeteers Mike Edmonds, Toby Philpott, David Alan Barclay[51] and voiced by Larry Ward. Jabba is played by an uncredited voice-actor in post-1997 editions of Star Wars and in The Phantom Menace. In The Phantom Menace's end credits, Jabba is credited as playing himself. His puppeteers have appeared in the documentaries From Star Wars to Jedi: The Making of a Saga and Classic Creatures: Return of the Jedi. David Alan Barclay, who was one of the puppeteers for Jabba in the film, voiced Jabba in the Super NES video game adaptation of Return of the Jedi. In the radio drama adaption of the original trilogy, Jabba is played by Ed Asner. In the film Star Wars: The Clone Wars and the following television series, Jabba is portrayed by Kevin Michael Richardson. All other video game appearances of Jabba were played by Clint Bajakian. Jabba was supposed to appear in Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, but was left out due to time constraints. A cutscene was produced featuring a conversation between Jabba and Juno Eclipse (voiced by Nathalie Cox), which was scrapped from the game. He appears in the Ultimate Sith Edition.

text: Cultural impact[edit]

text: With the premiere of Return of the Jedi in 1983 and the accompanying merchandising campaign, Jabba the Hutt became an icon in American popular culture. The character was produced and marketed as a series of action figure play sets by Kenner/Hasbro from 1983 to 2004.[52] In the 1990s, Jabba the Hutt starred in his own comic book series collectively titled Jabba the Hutt: The Art of the Deal.[53]

text: Jabba's role in popular culture extends beyond the Star Wars universe and its fans. In Mel Brooks' Star Wars spoof film Spaceballs (1987), Jabba the Hutt is parodied as the character Pizza the Hutt, a cheesy blob shaped like a slice of pizza whose name is a double pun on Jabba the Hutt and the restaurant franchise Pizza Hut. Like Jabba, Pizza the Hutt is a loan shark and mobster. The character meets his demise at the end of Spaceballs when he becomes "locked in his car and [eats] himself to death."[54] The Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C., included a display on Jabba the Hutt in the temporary exhibition Star Wars: The Magic of Myth, which closed in 1999. Jabba's display was called "The Hero's Return," referencing Luke Skywalker's journey toward becoming a Jedi.[55]

text: Mass media[edit]

text: Since the release of Return of the Jedi, the name Jabba the Hutt has become synonymous in American mass media with repulsive obesity. The name is utilized as a literary device—either as a simile or metaphor—to illustrate character flaws. For example, in Under the Duvet (2001), Marian Keyes references a problem with gluttony when she writes, "wheel out the birthday cake, I feel a Jabba the Hutt moment coming on."[56] Likewise, in the novel Steps and Exes: A Novel of Family (2000), Laura Kalpakian uses Jabba the Hutt to emphasize the weight of a character's father: "The girls used to call Janice's parents Jabba the Hutt and the Wookiee. But then Jabba (Janice's father) died, and it didn't seem right to speak of the dead on those terms."[57] In Dan Brown's first novel Digital Fortress, an NSA technician is affectionately nicknamed Jabba the Hutt.

text: In his book of humor and popular culture The Dharma of Star Wars (2005), writer Matthew Bortolin attempts to show similarities between Buddhist teachings and aspects of Star Wars fiction. Bartolin insists that if a person makes decisions that Jabba the Hutt would make, then that person is not practicing the proper spiritual concept of dharma. Bortolin's book reinforces the idea that Jabba's name is synonymous with negativity:

text: One way to see if we are practicing right livelihood is to compare our trade with that of Jabba the Hutt. Jabba has his fat, stubby fingers in many of the pots that led to the dark side. He dealt largely in illegal "spice" trade—an illicit drug in the Star Wars galaxy. He also transacts business in the slave trade. He has many slaves himself, and some he fed to the Rancor, a creature he kept caged and tormented in his dungeon. Jabba uses deception and violence to maintain his position.[58]

text: Outside literature, the character's name has become an insulting term of disparagement. To say that someone "looks like Jabba the Hutt" is commonly understood as a slur to impugn that person's weight and/or appearance.[4] The term is often employed by the media as an attack on prominent figures.

text: In another sense of the term, Jabba the Hutt has come to represent greed and anarchy, especially in the business world.[5] Jabba the Hutt ranked #4 on the Forbes Fictional 15 list of wealthiest fictional characters in 2008.

text: Jabba the Hutt has likewise become a popular means of caricature in American politics. William G. Ouchi uses the term to describe what he sees as the inefficient bureaucracy of the public school system: "With all of these unnecessary layers of organizational fat, school districts have come to resemble Jabba the Hutt—the pirate leader in Star Wars."[59]


document_title: Endocrine system

question_text: the term that means disease of the endocrine system is

text: Endocrine system

text: Structure[edit]

text: Major endocrine systems[edit]

text: The human endocrine system consists of several systems that operate via feedback loops. Several important feedback systems are mediated via the hypothalamus and pituitary.[2]

text:
TRH – TSH – T3/T4
GnRH – LH/FSH – sex hormones
CRH – ACTH – cortisol
Renin – angiotensin – aldosterone
leptin vs. insulin

text: Glands[edit]

text: Endocrine glands are glands of the endocrine system that secrete their products, hormones, directly into insterstitial spaces and then absorbed into blood rather than through a duct. The major glands of the endocrine system include the pineal gland, pituitary gland, pancreas, ovaries, testes, thyroid gland, parathyroid gland, hypothalamus and adrenal glands. The hypothalamus and pituitary gland are neuroendocrine organs.

text: Cells[edit]

text: This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (November 2017)

tag: table

text: Development[edit]

text: Function[edit]

text: Hormones[edit]

text: A hormone is a class of signaling molecules produced by  glands in multicellular organisms that are transported by the circulatory system to target distant organs to regulate physiology and behaviour.  Hormones have diverse chemical structures, mainly of 3 classes: eicosanoids, steroids, and amino acid/protein derivatives (amines, peptides, and proteins). The glands that secrete hormones comprise the endocrine system. The term hormone is sometimes extended to include chemicals produced by cells that affect the same cell (autocrine or intracrine signalling) or nearby cells (paracrine signalling).

text: Hormones are used to communicate between organs and tissues for physiological regulation and behavioral activities, such as digestion, metabolism, respiration, tissue function, sensory perception, sleep, excretion, lactation, stress, growth and development, movement, reproduction, and mood.[3][4]

text: Hormones affect distant cells by binding to specific receptor proteins in the target cell resulting in a change in cell function. When a hormone binds to the receptor, it results in the activation of a signal transduction pathway. This may lead to cell type-specific responses that include rapid non-genomic effects or slower genomic[disambiguation needed] responses where the hormones acting through their receptors activate gene transcription resulting in increased expression of target proteins. Amino acid–based hormones (amines and peptide or protein hormones) are water-soluble and act on the surface of target cells via second messengers; steroid hormones, being lipid-soluble, move through the plasma membranes of target cells (both cytoplasmic and nuclear) to act within their nuclei.

text: Cell signalling[edit]

text: The typical mode of cell signaling in the endocrine system is endocrine signaling, that is, using the circulatory system to reach distant target organs. However, there are also other modes, i.e., paracrine, autocrine, and neuroendocrine signaling. Purely neurocrine signaling between neurons, on the other hand, belongs completely to the nervous system.

text: Autocrine[edit]

text: Autocrine signaling is a form of signaling in which a cell secretes a hormone or chemical messenger (called the autocrine agent) that binds to autocrine receptors on the same cell, leading to changes in the cells.

text: Paracrine[edit]

text: Some endocrinologists and clinicians include the paracrine system as part of the endocrine system, but there is not consensus. Paracrines are slower acting, targeting cells in the same tissue or organ. An example of this is somatostatin which is released by some pancreatic cells and targets other pancreatic cells.[1]

text: Juxtacrine[edit]

text: Juxtacrine signaling is a type of intercellular communication that is transmitted via oligosaccharide, lipid, or protein components of a cell membrane, and may affect either the emitting cell or the immediately adjacent cells.[5]

text: It occurs between adjacent cells that possess broad patches of closely opposed plasma membrane linked by transmembrane channels known as connexons. The gap between the cells can usually be between only 2 and 4 nm.[6]

text: Clinical significance[edit]

text: Disease[edit]

text:
Diseases of the endocrine system are common,[8] including conditions such as diabetes mellitus, thyroid disease, and obesity.
Endocrine disease is characterized by irregulated hormone release (a productive pituitary adenoma), inappropriate response to signaling  (hypothyroidism), lack of a gland (diabetes mellitus type 1, diminished erythropoiesis in chronic renal failure), or structural enlargement in a critical site such as the thyroid (toxic multinodular goitre). Hypofunction of endocrine glands can occur as a result of loss of reserve, hyposecretion, agenesis, atrophy, or active destruction. Hyperfunction can occur as a result of hypersecretion, loss of suppression, hyperplastic or neoplastic change, or hyperstimulation.

text: Endocrinopathies are classified as primary, secondary, or tertiary. Primary endocrine disease inhibits the action of downstream glands. Secondary endocrine disease is indicative of a problem with the pituitary gland. Tertiary endocrine disease is associated with dysfunction of the hypothalamus and its releasing hormones.[citation needed]

text: As the thyroid, and hormones have been implicated in signaling distant tissues to proliferate, for example, the estrogen receptor has been shown to be involved in certain breast cancers. Endocrine, paracrine, and autocrine signaling have all been implicated in proliferation, one of the required steps of oncogenesis.[9]

text: Other common diseases that result from endocrine dysfunction include Addison's disease, Cushing's disease and Graves's disease. Cushing's disease and Addison's disease are pathologies involving the dysfunction of the adrenal gland. Dysfunction in the adrenal gland could be due to primary or secondary factors and can result in hypercortisolism or hypocortisolism . Cushing's disease is characterized by the hypersecretion of the adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) due to a pituitary adenoma that ultimately causes endogenous hypercortisolism by stimulating the adrenal glands.[10] Some clinical signs of Cushing's disease include obesity, moon face, and hirsutism.[11] Addison's disease is an endocrine disease that results from hypocortisolism caused by adrenal gland insufficiency. Adrenal insufficiency is significant because it is correlated with decreased ability to maintain blood pressure and blood sugar, a defect that can prove to be fatal.[12]

text: Graves' disease involves the hyperactivity of the thyroid gland which produces the T3 and T4 hormones.[11] Graves' disease effects range from excess sweating, fatigue, heat intolerance and high blood pressure to swelling of the eyes that causes redness, puffiness and in rare cases reduced or double vision.[6]

text: Other animals[edit]

text: A neuroendocrine system has been observed in all animals with a nervous system and all vertebrates have an hypothalamus-pituitary axis.[13] All vertebrates have a thyroid, which in amphibians is also crucial for transformation of larvae into adult form.[14][15] All vertebrates have adrenal gland tissue, with mammals unique in having it organized into layers.[16] All vertebrates have some form of a renin–angiotensin axis, and all tetrapods have aldosterone as a primary mineralocorticoid.[17][18]

text: Additional images[edit]

text:
Female endocrine system.

Male endocrine system

text: In popular culture[edit]